The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-09-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1998 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case File #98-021 David and K. inga Brown requesting a 50 foot variance to permit structure setback f~om the Ordinary-High-Water mark of Prior Lake for the construction ora proposed seasonal cabin on Lots 24 and 25, Twin Island. Case File #98-026 Charles Olson and Joan Holsten requesting a 28.13 foot f~ont yard variance; 2.4% irripervious surface variance and a 1.5 foot driveway setback for the construction of a single family home for the property known as 3204 Butternut Circle. Case File #98-024 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the required notice for a Comprehensive Rezoning. 5. Old Business: A. Case File #98-016 to 98-018 (Continued) consider an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Addition. B. Case File #98-132 (Continued) Approved Resolution denying setback variance for Burdick property. 6. New Business: A. Case File #98-031 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program review. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: 16200 E~3}I~I~°~[~°~ve.C~.,~r°~l~ce. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1998 1. Call to Order: The February 23, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,.iS~son and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansie[~iii~ Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secre~ii~onnie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: :~ .o ............... The Minutes from the January 26, 1998 an~?~eb~{~?~i~ I~:!~g Commission meetings were approved as presented. A. Case File #9,~.2 C. onsi~'a lot widtl~ii~¢iance for Charles and Saudra Planner Jen~i:~X~.preseni~?:~e ........ staffreport dated February 23, 1998. The ~ing Dep~?ceive'~iii~ii~afiance application from Charles and Sandra Fu[~¢ who are propo~:to reni~,e an existing structure and construct a new single ~ii~.sidence. The lo~ 49.89 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setbacI~:i~t~on 5-8-12 ~Lhe C~ty Code reqmres that substandard lots have a mnumum lot width"~Z~:,feet to ~:16uildable. The City Code does not specify what measurement distances ~i~:~eo~cks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thu~?i~i~isting lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a vad~e. The lot is located in the Maple Park Shore Acres subdivision on Prior Lake. The legal building envelope is approximately 35 feet wide and 63 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 2,205 sq. feet. The applicant does not have a house designed yet, but intends to comply with all building setbacks and impervious surface. The DNR has not commented on this request. Staffhas concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over. h\98file$\98plcomm\pcminhlmO22398.do¢ 1 Comments from the public: Charles Furlong, 4231 Quaker Trail, commented all the lots in the area are the same size. Comments from the Commissioners: · The variance hardship criteria have been met. The lot is substand~!i~nd platted in No objectio · Agreed with Vonhof- propose to approve Resolutio~:::[¢8-03.~C. Cramer: · Concurred MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VO~Q~?50':~:REsoLUTION 93-03PC GRANTING A .11 FOOT g~¢E TO P:g~T A 4~!::~'9 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBA~!::::~Sg~ OF TH~i~QUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD !~0~'i Vote taken B.. Ca~g~ ~:~-016 tiJ[ii~18 Consider an Amendment to. the original Wmdso~i:::$~;:~:i~;h~:~:plann~:~:~i~::::Develo. pment and a Preliminary Plat to be Windsong:' iii e Lak~i~! AddiUon. F~iii£oordinatorii j~iiikansier presented the staffreport dated February 23, 1998. H & H L~i!~¥elo~i has applied for approval of an amendment to the Windsong on the Lake Pl~:~:Development and a Preliminary Plat to be known as Windsong on the Lake 3rd Ad~l~$n. The developer has also applied for approval ora final plat, which will be conside~ by the City Council along with the PUD amendment and the preliminary plat. The property in question is located west of CSAH 21 and south of Lords Street. The area to be added to the PUD is located along the east boundary o£the existing PUD plan, immediately adjacent to Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street. The original Windsong on the Lake PUD was approved in 1983 and consisted of 33.36 acres of land to be developed into 26 large, single family lots, a private equestrian club, l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~rmO22398,doe and a private recreation area adjacent to the lake. The £mal plat for the original lots was approved in 1984. In 1988, the PUD plan was amended to eliminate the equestrian club and substitute 12 single family lots, for a total of 38 single family lots. A final plat, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, consisting of 7 of the 12 new lots was approved in 1995. The remaining 5 lots have not been platted at this time. To date, approximately?l:~..ofthe 38 The Planning Commission was to consider two applications at this.:~g~!iii?~?~O first apphcat~on ~s a request to amend PUD Plan for this project. The'~ond £~g~lon ~s for approval of a preliminary plat for this site, to be known as ~g on the ~ii~ird The original PUD area consists of 33.36 acres. The .~':'to to the PUD i~i~.97 acres, for a total PUD site of 34.33 acres. This site has a varied topography. The northerly portion o~:~{ii~e, Windsong on the Lake Second Addition, is relatively level~:;!:i~?er, the remai~i~[¢:has a fairly steep topography, w~th elevatmns ranging from::~,:~i~i~[.:.~? 980 MSE~ii~?:~he topography of the site to be added to the PUD is primadl~}iSte~:~i~t blu~ii::'with elevations from 904' MSL to 940' MSL. There is no gradir~ ~ro~i~'this plan. This existing portion of th~ii~::i~ii...been gra~{~, and mos~ of the original vegetation removed. The area to la~ii~ded to ~ipUD is vd~, with the exception of the existing home site. Since no ~ing or lan i aisturbing a fiy is proposed, a tree inventory has There are no exi~t~g wetl~:,~I¢ this site. Acces~:?~iae Wind;~iigevelop~:~'S from CSAH 21, via 154th Street, Windsong Cir~:~md Lords Stree~i~}?~ccess ~':'~he existing Schricker home is from Edinborough S~iiii:~i~o changes are p~osed to the access. This prol~!iigdds a p0~i~n of the Schricker property to the Windsong on the Lake PUD. The Schric~ii~p~::::~urrently includes approximately 1.5 acres of land. This proposal subdivides the"~fig Schricker home on 0.56 acres leaving the remaining 0.97 acres as part of the PUD~:~ii!i~e 0.97 acres is subdivided into two outlots. Outlot A is 0.57 acres in size, and is intended as common open space. Outlot B is 0.18 acres, and is also intended as common open space. The two outlots also provide an additional 165 feet of frontage on the lake. The remaining 0.22 acres will be combined with Lot 2, Block 1, Windsong on the Lake, to create a new lot 0.77 acres in size. This lot is the current site of the Metzger home, and the additional lot area will provide frontage on the lake. The proposed amendment does not provide any additional buildable lots to this development. What it does provide is an additional 165 feet of lakeshore frontage under l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nmO22398.doc 3 common ownership. This additional frontage will allow more boat slips for the lot owners in the Windsong development. There are currently 26 boat slips located along the common area of this development. The additional frontage this proposal provides would allow up to 11 additional boat slips under the formula outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. According to the narrative submitted by the developer, all of the boat slips would be located in the vic~ of the current docks. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources contro!.~::i~i::::~al location and configuration of the boat slips. The current DNR permit.f6~::ithis development must be amended to allow the additional slips. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibit~3~:.lh residenfli~iiiland development variety in the organization of the site, highe[:~fi~: of site an~::~gg. design, preservation and enhancement of desirable site.~i'acteristics and more effi~i~ht and effective use of land. Based on these standards,..:~?~Vinds~:.development sl~ld probably not be a Planned Unit Development. Th6:i~!i~£wh~i~is development should remain a PUD was discussed by the Council wh~ii~vio~' amendment was ns~dered m 1988, Accor&ng to the April 4, 1988, C~ty Conill m~nutes, extensive discussion occurred on the merits of retailer,.the PUD desig~i~. ~n. and whether or not Windsong zoning should be changed to R~!::::!::!::ii~?[~a~.~enerally a~::}hat the PUD zoning provided the Council with more co~i},o. ~:':~}i~i~::~di~3~ than a typical R-1 zoning designation." For this reason, the P~ d~i~i~:~i~fiins in place. The primary effect of this,~:.~, is the a~tional boai slips which would be allowed. The propose4:::~lots pro~e a comm~g~:.pl~n space that is not easily accessible or very useable spacoi::iiiii~:~utlot A is::~essible onl~[[~m the adjacent lots. Both Outlot A and Outlot B are v~:~[~, anc[d~i~l~t~pgo~ido~::~g0d access to the lakeshore The proposed.~dment ig::~istent with the existing development of the Windsong on the Lak~i~?~!ii~:~h¢ devei~[:~s to proceed, it should be subject to the following 1 ~ii'.iii::::~i~ore than 11 addi~nal boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must P;~ii~ copy of the:i~.~[~,ised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the City P~ng Dep~ent. 2. The Hon~i~::~ssociation documents for Windsong on the Lake must be amended to ~fide this area, and the amended documents must be recorded with the final plat d6~ixtnents. A recorded copy of the amended documents must be submitted to the Planning Department within I0 days after recording the final plat. 3. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A and B, as shown on the preliminary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. There shall be no filling or grading on Lot 1, Block 2, as shown on the preliminary plat for Windsong on the Lake Third Addition without the issuance of a separate 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmnO22398.doc 4 filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on this lot must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary plat for this site, known as Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, consists of 2.08 acres to be subdivided into 2 lots and 2 outlots. Lot 1, Block 1, is 0.56 acres and is the site of the existing Schficker home. Access to this lot is fro¢ Edinborough Avenue. Lot 1, Block 2, is 0.77 acres in size and is the site Metzger home. Access to this lot is fi.om Windsong Circle. Outlots A.~:~""~i).57 acres and 0.18 acres respectively. The outlots are to be part of the c~!bt! open space There is no public right-of-way or parkland dedicated in thi ii i,i::i;g addition~:.are., no require or proposed utilities, including sanitary sewer,,:~fer m~ins, or storm proposed. The existing houses already have these se~i~:~ available, and there is n~?~ed to provide these services to the outlots. Since no U!;~[~prov~s are require~i:'no fees will be collected. However, a park land dedic~io~i::~i~i~ttected for the final The preliminary plat is consistent with tl~!:8~bdi~ision and If the Preliminary Plat is t~iii~i~iii}:::~hould be s~)*ect to the requirements. following conditions: 1. The Homeowner s Assq:~gii~pcuments:~i~r W~ndsotlg on the Lake must be amended to include ~i::~ea,"~?~lhe ....... amen~,...,, documents must be recorded with the final plat docume[!~ii?~ record~ii~opy of th~ii!~ded documents must be submitted Staffrecommended app;~::~::i~*~:"to the PUD subjected to the conditions Criego.::~ioned'~iii~e additi:~:iii~d is being used for slips. Rye and Kansier expl '~d the ordinan;¢i!!~! fonn¢~ allowing 11 slips. Ralph Heus~g~:d~per of Windsong on the Lake, 10315 Thomas Avenue South, Bloomington ~ has not had a chance to see the letter from the Thompsons. His objective is to ~j~ntain the high quality development and went on to say some of the nicest homes built in Prior Lake because of Windsong's lake access. The reality is the lake access is fine but if someone does not have a place to dock his boat the value depreciate quickly. There is a parcel of land adjacent to the development that has significant frontage. They had extensive discussions with the DNR. The discussions resulted that it would help with the water quality of the lake. No variances are being requested. Mr. Heuschele pointed out where the new additional floating docks would be placed which would be at the developer's expense. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc Annie Sheehan, 4055 Windsong, said her only concern is the residents have not had enough time to discuss this issue and requested postponing voting on this and allow the association time to discuss. Heuschele responded the subject of the change was on the November 1997 association agenda. The subject was discussed extensively at that time. He said a time line is involved and there was an opportunity to discuss with the association. ....?.i!i?5~?ii!~iiii:~:~: Stamson asked if the association had the power to block. Heuschele ~ffi~! the homeowners association by-laws has a 75% approval. The benefi~:~ii::i-~i~eowners is the value of the new homes. If they are unable to obtain boat sli~i!:'the lc~{::ii~ues will go down. The real benefit is the unsold lots would have nicer home~:::~n it and values would stay high. ..::~i?:iiiiiiiii:::.~::::::::::i!ii? .... Criego questioned access. Heuschele said the comn3~!i~eas W~!el have the acce~i[~io the lake. The new slips would go to the new property ~ii?[~ ...... ~?[i~?~i~?~i~?~?:~!?:~ .... Cramer questioned Heuschele if the association received a c'6~[~i~:f the preliminary plat. He said they made an effort to inform the:~sidents. "::~+::::iii!;ii¢~::. Leslie Mardnan, 4075 Windsong Circle, s~ii~ tl~;~:~ii~i;~r~t time:[~ saw the preliminary plat. She stated she was not here to argue, t~:resid~i~::~i~::i~ had enough time to discuss. She spoke to Dan Mg~g~:~vho gavg~:"some initiation. Her main concern is she was told she would h~g~iii~;::[~unt of s~ing beach. The number of feet has decreased with this prog~l. She ~i~ore conc~eO~::for the safety of her daughter swimming down at ~ii~ach th~:~ land value~iiiiii:i?~etzger also informed her there would be a minimff~'"~i~::~ee~,:~::::~::~ for a swimming beach. Marrinan would like to see some ~i~'fi:~6¢~*~::i~:~ ........ approved. She also feels this issue was not discusse¢..:~g§!vely. '~;~i;iiiiii?il}::?::~ Man, ~I¢~h,~* 226'~::~;g!~nt, St.'::~i?~vho also owns a seasonal home at 15432 Red O~i~;ad, said he wa~:'!~i~en a b~ with this proposal because where the added boat stl~?:i~iip.r,.oposed is a vd~iiBarrow access to the area. If more boat slips are permitted, it would:~!~ge adding an(~!~r marina on the lake. Where most of us (lake residents) are regulated::~?ve can..~i::~ith our lots, he is just amazed. He cannot build his house within 30 fe~{~pa..~!i~[~ff line because the appearance from the lake is paramount. This is a lake-wide ~ ...... with allowing an additional marina development on the lake to benefit homeo~s association offthe lake. He is against adding more lots becoming a marina. The hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · The homeowners association should be informed with more details than it has. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc · Does not believe the Planning Commission should make any decisions at this time. · Believes adding more docks is adding 40% more dockage to the area. Cramer: · Shares the same concerns as Criego regarding the additional docks. · Very serious concerns of the Metzger area and the original PUD path going through · Concern the residents have not been totally informed ..... ~ii::l::~ .... · Homeowners are going to have to take care ofOutlots A and B..~:~i?~iiii~iil;i~ .... · Not supportive of making a decisions until we know the ho~e;~!::i~ a decisions. · Would like to see the request continued. · Disagreed with comments from previous comm~rs, i}i~?~i~:i~i~i}~ii::i~ .... · Quoted staff's conditions pointing out the hom~o~?~d~::'~:~ to approve of it or it would not go forward, so that is akeady accounted £~¢iiiiiii?~ili;~ .... · Familiar with the area, one of the issg~,~a PUD is to p~i~ii::~[konmentally sensitive areas. It is a steep slope, w~i~g, and is entirei~priate to be an outlet. ':::i~ili: ' '%~::i:::ii~iiii~ii?~i~iiiii::i?:~ ....... .:~i~?: .... · Concerned with the private lot but staff"~!~on~i~l~}i~t into account. · Who are the property o~,~ltimatel~i~:homeox~F~S association. That is significant. They are tg~ii~gt the de~loper but it':will be the people who live · The marina issue::~i~rthof live~:~n the lake ~e the 26 docks were in and feels there was no si~t; incm~i::::~i¢::iShere are 15 to 20 homeowners associations that hax~::::i~:;~::~::*~"'~!iiii?~at is not inconsistent from a lake-wide standpoi~:~:~,~:~,.City's p~pphy has always allowed homeowner's dockage and lake ao~g::~?~ the Ci~i~t::~ay we're not going to do that anymore. · Wg::i~:: ~e to sta)~'~istent wi~ii~isions and policies. · ..,:~i~port the additio~ii~i~he l~::'With the conditions. · Agre~i~]lt~ Vonh~?the homeowners have protection with the power over the · If the home~rs were told they were to have more beach space, that is an issue between the~:.!~veloper and residents, not the City. · Agreed the extra boat slips is an aesthetic issue, but it is a public lake. The lake is owned by the public. The development itself is on the lake and has provided boat slips for a while. · With the conditions presented the request is reasonable. Criego questioned homes on the outlets. Kansier explained the difference between the plat and the PUD. Metzger property is part of the PUD but the property which goes down 1:\98files\98pleomm\pcminXmn022398.doc 7 to the lake becomes part of the Plat, not common area. It was not included in the calculations. The two outlots allow for 11 slips. Cramer questioned staffon the paths allowed in the PUD. Kansier explained the walking paths are private, not public - association will work out. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND ~PROVAL TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. ======7======?== Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof and Stamson; 2 nays by Cri~ and ~;r. MOTION FAILS. Discussion: Criego feels the homeowners and developers shoul~ii~::;:;oget~ii!il)ii;;~ " Heuschele responded the association membership might h~::i!~e advisory capacity. But in order to amend the covenants in t~7~i~,,e..lopment they ~jji~persuade ~0 of the 33 lot owners that this is okay. Their sig/i~?~i~peded. Heu'~le asked the Commissioners to reconsider. He felt he ~gt h~¢~:ii~g~..probl~s persuading people. Mr. Schricker told them he is moving on an~!iig t~i~ii~brm in a reasonable amount of time the point wil!.:gg::~9:gt. Stamson said the hom¢~ers will::~ve to deci{~i,~t th, ey want and it will be easier for them if the they kno~i?~at the citg~:[~'as decided. ;.}i~er s concern is the homeowners association was nof:'~:.!n[~i~ :~ :i~if~ii to approve it and if the homeowners do not agree. '::~:,iii~::i!i!iil}~:i?:ii~?:? ...................... :~*~:~?:~:~i~i:::i~ .... MOTIOl~i~ii~:, SEC~::![~:~:CRAMER, TO TABLE TO THE NEXT ~ii~ointed out not ~ person has come forward stating they are opposed for any specifi~i~pn with reg~?to this land, except for the location of the docks. Vote taken '~ii~i~ ed~:ii~es by Cfiego and Cramer 2 nays by Vonhof and Stamson MOTION FAIE~}?~i:~ii¢ .... ,~:.iii7 .... MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING ON MARCH 9, 1998. Creigo feels the homeowners signed on a number of years ago for more beach fi'ont and lake slips. The homeowners should understand what they are getting into. Cramer said there is a concern if Outlots A and B were not owned by the association. The access is for the association. If the homeowners had been more informed it would be h\ggfilcs\98plcomm\pcrnin~mn022398.doc a different issue. The homeowners were not included in property issues they are going to own. Concern for the additional boat slips. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 7:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Vonhof left at 8:00 p.m ..... ~:~:~:; ..... Case Files #98-010 to 98-012 Consider a Zone Change request~:[~si~ional Use Permit and a Preliminary Plat for the project to be known agii:~!'ynw~i?[iiiii~ Planning Coordinator Jane ransier presented the staff repg~Ji~!::~ebmary file at the City of Prior Lake Planning Department .... ?::.? ... Wensmann Realty has applied for a Zone change, ~ii~g?na~i::~iiggrmit and a Preliminary plat for the property located on the south sid~::i~XH fi2, just west of Fremont Avenue and directly south of the entrance to The ~,. This property is currently zoned A-1 (Agriculture) and C~i~:~:~ervation). M~:~i~::~ property is also located within the Shoreland District for ~?~::~nd Arctic L~ii?The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to the~!ii~iii~Oential~i!~istfict. The application also includes a request for a coa~Oo~!::i~;~ii~b allow the development of the property with 121 to~::~nits, an/tii~::i~kelimin~i::~lat~, consisting of 109 lots for the townhouse units ~:~i:.~e. 'i!iii?~:iii ~: .... ~ii::?:i~ ....~::i::iii::~::i: :i~i~i~.....::~i In December, 1997, ~i?[~pplicant an applicd~:"for a Schematic Planned Unit Dev property. On January 5, 1998, the city Council denied this Ihe proposed Schematic PUD Plan wa~ and intent of the PUD section of the Zoning exception of the private streets, could be The developer then filed to de~:~l~p the ~bperty. Commissi~}}}s considering three applications at this time. The first applicati~i?~iig request:~¥ezone the property from the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1 (Conservafi~ii~n~::~o the R-2 (Urban Residential) district. The second request is to approve a Cor~{~i Use Penrfit for this project. The third application is for approval of a preliminary~Iat for this site, to be known as Glynwater. The Planning staff suggested several conditions which should be included if the Preliminary Plat is to proceed. It should be noted that revised plans were submitted which may address some of the issues outlined by the staff. However, these plans were not submitted in time to allow a detailed review. 1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminXmn022398.doc 9 The staff also suggested six conditions which should be attached to the Conditional Use Permit if it is approved. The Planning staff recommends approval of the Zone Change, the Preliminary Plat subject to the above listed conditions, and the Conditional Use Permit subject to the above listed condition. It may be appropriate, due to the number of outstanding engineering issues, to delay action on the preliminary plat until the major issues are addressed. Criego questioned the previous PUD private streets and access to E~¢!::::~;Kansier explained the previous plan did not include access to Fremont A~e. Cramer questioned the area between County Rd 82 and tha~::~i~ii!!~i~ay. explained the sidewalks and county roads ..... r~ii::i::~ ...... :::::::?::::::::::::::: Comments from the public: ~?..:~:~?~ii~i!iii?~iiiii:i!~i~:~..~?~?~i?~?~ii~}:~i~ Applicant Terry Wensmann, of Wensmann Homes, pointed":~?~ey had not changed too much from the original PUD. The bigge~?:~ge is the acces~:~[i~iii~g~ont Avenue. They are not disturbing the slopes with this pr0~$~t~is~!~ii~he.other conditl~[~:~re engineering and many have akeady be resolved. Pioneer l~n';~i!!~::p[es~gt::i:;~ answer questions. The only condition they have a problem wit~?~S ~::i~g~i~!~ining easements. Mr. Wensmann stated they have ~!!~!::~.any to~s and h~::~tlways put blanket easements in the common ~::::H~ilfeels there~ould be a lot of confusion and close to impossible to separate ~g~inents u~r this pl~i~:?~i:::This would be the responsibility of the homeowners associat~d~;. ::~ii~;;::!~!::;['' ::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.: Wensmann went on to s~!i~ii~::::::~i~i!~::~ite signs and monuments. The City only allows 6. W¢~ expla/~[:::$13e $170,000 style townhomes, $275,000 and $125,000 townho~i?:~iii~{~i~g..will b~:::::i~ii~h~SA and whenever the MUSA becomes availab!~i;~hey will fi~ii~p with ~i!i~:~cond phase. The engineer has done calculations 41 t~!!i~cres with 5.33 ~ ofst~' slopes of 20% or more. Of that 5.33 acres only 1.64 ae~::i~i~i~e disturbed fo~!ii~!i!}otal less than 4% of the entire site area. 11.9 acres will be dedic~!ii~:.park land {!~g acres are wetland. Impervious surface areas have been met. Applican~!!~g~ been ~d~king with staffto address all issues and concerns. The public he~ii~s closed at 8:19 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: · Developer is working hard to develop the area. · Good addition to the community in general. · Support staff's recommendation approving the preliminary plat. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm022398,doc 10 CrieRo: · Agreed with Cramer, it is a great use of land. · Question to staff regarding easements. Kansier said biggest concem is that the City take some of that area out for development fees. Be aware they cannot put signs on utility easements. Blanket easement concern is the signage. No other concerns. · Supports staff's recommendation. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECO~::!i~.. APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A-1 AND'~iil DIS~TS TO THE R2 DISTRICT BASED ON THE FACT THE AREA [.~?~O~TED ~ THE MUSA AND THE R-2 DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WI~::i~OMPREH~;=. PLAN ..... Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION C~iiiii?:~:. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO :' 6 END APPROVAL OF THE PR~LhMrNARY PLAT KNO~i~;~ =pLYNWATE~?~i~CT TO THE Change the name of a iew Z rive. Circle in the City street system. In additia~i;i;i~ge the ~'~ of Spri~' Glen Road or Spring Glen Circle so there is onl~;~S:~:~:~}iiGlen. 2. Outlot B must be i~;;'fied as ~lot A. 3. Provide the fol$~ii}~fpra~::i::aa::it!~!heering Plans: a) Show all utilities i~iit~ii~rofile vi~i b) c)::~[i::~i~lude insul~i~};~tetail t~i}~::'used on sanitary sewer. :[:fi~?iiiii~rovide calcula~ showing that the pavement section is adequate (see plate ....... ~::::ii~;}~t in the Publi~ii~orks Design Manual). e) S~}~rade; vuf~i'n lOO feet of intersections cannot exceed 2.0O percent. J) ProvJ~l]iiiii~:'"and profiles for the median and the street improvements to Fremon~iii}~}i~e City may be willing to share in the engineering costs for this design as per t~ City oversizing policy. Show the construction limits on the grading plans. The grading and installation of the sanitary sewer will impact the 20% slopes. Indicate on the plan areas where slopes are greater than 5:1. The wetland report indicates a wetland "water course"flowing south from basin B to basin A. A road and grading is proposed over this water course. The 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm022398.doc 11 wetland report must be revised to address the impact of this filling and grading ' on the water course. j) NURP ponds shall have 6:1 slopes below the NWL, and 4:1 slopes above the NV/L. k) Show the grading detail for the Ramble VFalkout. There is a 10' grade difference 0 Spot locations and elevations must be called out for all high p~{~*3f:~ergency m) A notation should be added to the plan requiring periodi:_~iiiii:nsp~ under the NPDES permit. If lO or more contiguous acres of ~?~ soil a~iiii~.~ning to the same area, a temporary sedimentation basin is,~[:~b~hnder n) If construction traffic will be allowed at the ........... off of Fre~]i~ a o) The use of the storm ceptor must be District. Calculations to determine if the pipe is sized to handle the flows must also be provided. p) Consider revising the storm the length q) Catch basin intercept q~:~!ations w~i::~gii~uir~:~';e final plat approval. 0 Set the outlet elevat~d~i~ii~hnd 4 at t3~ood storage level required for two back s) The outlet JSq~?~ #2 i~i~?.S feet lowe~;:~n the elevation of Wetland Basin "A" (Pond 5). ~tdi:~ ~i!~!g~i:~uired to verify the bottom elevations of V/etlands/Pond 4 0 T~g::ii!~qge cu~i!i~t~:.~d 5 should be checked, The area for elevation ..:~0~i'1 shou[~::~iig:O acreJ?~t:~he area for 904 should be 1.5 acres. .... ~i[~::i:Continue to loo~ alternatives other than the parallel line to provide sanita~ ':::7?:::::~[::~?~gwer. If the par~bl lines are the best alternative, a hea~ du~ trail to maintain '~:~er in the ~k area is required. ~is trail and access must be shown on the 4. Sign, in t~n lot area may not be located within a utiliW easement. 5. An access ~mit from the Scott Coun~ Engineer is required for each location connecting to CSAH 82. ~is permit must be supplied prior to final plat apRrovaL 6. ~te aanim~ sewer crossing under CS~ 82 must be bored and placed in a steel casing. A utili~ permit will be required prior to installaaon. Z Any ~ading or utili~ work wi&in &e CounW right-o~way will require a Rermit prior to const~ction. Evidence of &is permit must be submitted to &e Ci~ Rrior to final plat approval Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 12 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOM2VIEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Six identification signs will be permitted on the site. The signage plan must be revised to identify the locations of these signs, and to clarify the locatiO~f~each type of sign. Ifa sign is located adjacent to the park access on the east.~ii~!~lynwater Trail, no portion of the sign or fence is permitted in the parkland, .... 2. The plan must provide a calculation showing the impervio~::~'rf~i?[~i~ot including road right-of-way, on the portion of the site located wit?~ii~i~e Sho~:>~..District. The impervious surface of the site in the Shoreland D~:~hy not ex~i~0% of the site area, less right-of-way. 3. The plan must identify Phase I and Phase II of ~:.~i~evel~t. The plan m~:"also note that Phase II will not be allowed to devel6~;~[:~::the jg~y is included within the MUSA, and services can be extended. '::~ii?:iiii?.i::.:....ii::'~ .... 4..d letter of credit for the landscaping and tree replacemd~ ~ust be submitted prior to approval ofthefinalplat documents. :ili~?~iii~iiii?:i::~:~ .................. ....... "::~::"===*===========¥=========*=== ..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... 5. The homeowner's association docume~!~ ni~ii~i:~{{ed to .~iude the correct legal descriptions for each association. The~.doc~:~glii~t~::~e recorded with the final plat documents. ..::~:?:~i?:iiii::iii~iiii::?:~ .... :::{~{ii~ii!? '::~?:ii::~-.:. .... 6. A new set of plans, ,~:~i~5.~i::=of the r~{?ons, must be submitted prior to final approval of the co~}~'~nal use'~rmit. Vote t~en 5. OId.~g~[~: .... ::::::::::::::::::::::: .... A. C~?:~ile ~97-1'~nt~uh:~:;f the Burdick Prope~es variance request. PI~m Tove pres~:. ~ed the stfffr~oa dated J~u~ 23, 1998 on file M~ ~e Pl~i~ent wi~e Ci~ of Prior L~e. .... ?~-?.~-~.~.[:: : ~:~?. On J~um"i::~i~ Pl~ng Co~ission he~d respective lots ~erce Avenue. The requested v~ces relate to ~o existing co~ercial pr~ies located on Co~erce Avenue. 14180 Co~erce Avenue was built in 1994 ~d 14162 Co~erce Avenue was built in 1997. ~e following v~ces ~e being applied for at ~e re~ective ad~esses: 14162 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and 1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin~nn022398.doc 13 A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property..:~d residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; anc~::iii~ii!::~::':'::~i::iiiiiiiiiiii!::~ .... A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to.::p[~y zone~[::~dential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing ~-~i~sure; and '~::~::::iiiiiiiiiiili::~ ...... A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feetli~her ....... th~iLhe maximum altered 6 foot height for additional sc eemng between the adjac~ii[~d?~i!g[0pert~es; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes gr~::than 3 1 for additional screening between the adjacent residentialli~[~t~erties. The Planning Commission continued the t~!::i!~ii~gested s~ to supply additional information. On January 26, 1998 the Pl~i~':~:~: - 'C~i~s provided additional information as requested. Th¢::~i~em.was cont~'to Feb~ 23, 1998 to allow the applicant sufficient time t?::~li~i~i~i~evised l~O, cape plan and to place posts in the field indicating top ofberm.~?fence lc~ion. This::~$ b~en completed The applicant has submitted full size ¢9t!i~~ of a landSCape plan an~:~i~:t:~r photographs of the proposed screening. ':'? % !!i;i![iii::::~ ...... ~ ::i::iiiii!i::iii!i!iiiiii?:i::i::i::iii::i::::ii?:!i??:~i~ ~??:::i::::~~ he propose~;::~.ape plan:~lg~!Bdes reqmred ~mgatmn and 151 shrubs. While the ordinanc~?:~::~i~:~::..~Eire a Sl~:.gmber of shrubs, they must be planted to meet certaia~i~'~fia such '~?~ening.'::~$::'City has a letter of credit on file to insure the lan g i ing plan is co gkd wi,thi!i d all plantings survive one winter. The proposed 1~ plan exceeds ~iCity s minimum requirements as stated in the landscape As stated i~!:~:~f£:~::ort dated January 12, 1998, staff has concluded the hardship criteria have b~i~:~, considering the structures are existing and both sites are at maximum builct::~i with respect to parking and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclosure is located in the drainage and utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Public Easement" agreement be signed and recorded by the applicant (as amended in Resolution 98-01PC). Resolution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence be continuous with no breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised plans and that grading be completed as previously approved. l:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin~m022398.doc 14 Due to lack of pertinent information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The Planning Commission should deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. The applicant has also asked for a 2 foot variance to fence height. The proposed plan indicates a 7.5 foot fence section. Variance to fence height should be approved if landscape plan is a condition of building setback variances to be consistent iand clear. Comments from the Commissioners: :?:~i!i~::?:~? =========================== .... Cramer: ::iii!i!ilili .... ~::iiiiiiiiiiiii::::~ · The applicant has exceed the recommendation of the be~::~ ~reening'~[. Support the two foot variance request. ..:,~i:!i:?:::::':':::%: · Opposed to the variance for the trash enclosure - thei~::~e other places on the property to locate the enclosure. The neighbors .~t~t nee~:~[~}!~mpster in thei~back Stamson: · Question for Mr. Kelly regarding the:::~}?~:::~!::.~)o.pe. The int~as to withdraw the 3 to 1 berm height. Kelly stated the b~:::i~}i~g::i:~St 2 to 1..}::?i?:?i?::~ · Tovar explained the landscape codes. ~ als~::.~i~h~:.:g~iihg plan of 2 to 1 is approved in the ordinance and reflected ~a aPl~¢~ved'::~ plan. The variance is '~:: :). Criego: ..:.:.::.:....:.:.:.::.~':ii?? . ........ · Went out to the~!i~d obse~¢~ the berm, ~fig, homes and setting. The best we can do with a 6"~B0~ii~:..~e ~i~{~}~:i:[~::i~::~oing to see much of the buildings only the rooftop. With the":~:;:.~(ou cars or lights. · Agreed..~g~i~:0n the '~Uous fence instead of being broken in two parts. · Co~:~"~i~h::enclos~i~:?~!iB~t half o f that trash container has been there for ~' years. Not:~i:~the otlx~;i~alf will make too much difference. · .: ~::": ~::?'::i~:::' .:~::arding the two f~{~¥adan~'e-::.:,::::~:~I There are only two points that go beyond 2 feet . · ":" TS~i[explained the ~}olution 98-02PC references Exhibit B which shows the two poi~ii~[ across th¢!i~gard variance for the building. · With ~li~u?te~i::~ and fence the variance should be approved. Stamson: · The request ~'or the 2.7 variance setback hardship has been met. · The fence height of 8 feet is not the variance plan. Tovar explained it would have to be added. · Main concern for the trash enclosure. The only reason for leaving it there is if it is somewhat expensive to move. It is not a hardship. Cannot vote to approve the trash enclosure so close to private property. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcrmn\mn022398.doc 15 Cramer.' · Asked staff if the landscape for Building #3 has to be done within a year. Tovar said there is no deadline but the Planning Commission could make that a condition for both buildings. Criego: · Concern for fencing around the trash enclosures. Tovar pointed out on the overhead. · Eldon Hugelen, the landscape architect, planting 8 foot arborvitaes growing to 20 feet. · The buildings are blocked offup to the roof. · Questioned garbage pick up times. Rye said th, times in commemial and industrial areas. · Should be changed near residential areas. The Planning Commissioners discussed the variances Commissioners decided to consider the bgi!ding separately MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ( 01PC BUILDING THE PROPERTY AT CONDITION OF A THE TRASH plan starting out The height variance EXISTING ;ALLOW~i~ 7.5 FOOT FENCE FOR FENCE ALONG SIDE 2APING BE EXPIRES FOR , all. MOTION CARRIED. 02PC SETBACK AT 14162 AVENUE. 2RAMER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- YARD 1.5 FOOT THE PROPERTY Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THE TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE LEFT WHERE IT IS WITH THE FENCING AND BERMS AS STATED. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 16 Discussion by Commissioners: Criego: · We have done as much as we can to fence, berm and cover up. City Council will deal with the garbage pickup. .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · 43 feet is too close. There are other options. The spirit and ordinance is to keep the enclosure away fzom the property. It is screened...,:?::?'~::~?:ii~{ii~i!?~i?::~ Vote taken signified 1 aye. 2 nays. MOTION DENIED. :~::¢~?:::~i~,:.?iii?:i~: MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, ....................~i::~IR~CT STAFF PREm~i~!~.i~.~.i~.i~.~i~i!~i~i~ .... A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE FOp~[~ TRA$~i::[~NCLOSIJRE SETBACKS BASED ON FINDINGS AS DISCUg~i!i~!i::::~ ..... Vote taken 2 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. '::~::::;i~:i?~:~ii?~i?::~ ?:i~i::: ..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..:: Stamson explained to the public the 5 da~ii~:.. ~o~ess. "::~[is{iiiiiii?i::::~ 5726 West 98 1/2 Street, appalled the residents Harry Ray, did not have the right to speak,[~?:~e::did not re~-~.'the'.' .~i'"'pubi{~::?~earing was closed several weeks ago. He felt there things ~i!ilge discussed by the neighbors. The City Manager assured them.,~b would:~ an ordin~ ........... ~lating to the garbage proposed to the Council. The s~::}ssue is ~:':~lrainage ~ The residents expected the right to Mike Marx~::::::::~::$¢}::!. Timoffi~ii~yenue, questioned the city code states parking lots should b~,~i::i!~5~'Ti'~?:~ff~::~residenil~i!~l~: Tovar stated it was 20 feet and the applicant was J~i~i~:.~tipp, 14211 Ti~y Avenue, asked if there is going to bed retaining wall in her back ~!i:~ii~he is assum~ there will be a retaining wall behind building #2. Tovar will give her ~:~:.~ of the g~. Stamson again':~l~hed the applicant or any aggrieved party could appeal the decision of the Planning:Cbmmission to the City Council. 6. New Business: The Commissioners briefly discussed the following: · The training session has been scheduled for March 31, 1998 at the fire hall. · There was a short discussion on the stalled library issue. · The zoning ordinance final draft target date is the first week in March. 1:\98 filcs\98plcomm\pcmin~nn022398.doc 17 · Enforcement of ordinances is a concern. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Recording S~tary "::~!!iiii!iliiiiii!ii~ .... 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnn022398.doc 18 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DAVID AND KINGA BROWN, Case File #98-026 LOTS 24 AND 25 TWIN ISLES JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from David and Kinga Brown who are proposing to construct a seasonal cabin on Twin Isles. The lots are currently being combined through the administrative subdivision procedure. As of yet, the planning department has not received any inquiry or objection relating to the lot combination from notified property owners. The applicant is proposing to construct the cabin 50 feet from the OHW. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 100 feet from the OHW for island development. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a 50 foot variance to the 100 foot setback requirements. DISCUSSION: Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles were platted in 1925. The property is riparian located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is a bluff on the western portion of Lot 24. The proposed structure meets bluff setbacks and is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Section 9.3E regulates development on islands without municipal services. Permitted uses are limited to seasonal cabins, parks and open spaces. · Any structure built on an island must contain an enclosed septic system or incinerator toilet facilities. · A lease for two parking spaces off the island and not in a public street is required. Proof of residency at a location other than the island is required. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER · The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or 2 contiguous lots, whichever is less. · The minimum lot width at the OHW is 75 feet. · Structure setback is 100 feet from the OHW, sideyard setbacks are 10 feet and gray water septic system must be setback 75 feet from the OHW. · Clear cutting is prohibited, Removal of vegetation requires a restoration plan to ensure vegetation is retained as much as possible and to ensure screening of the structures. · The structure must comply with the floodplain ordinance. The proposed development meets all of these requirements except for the structure setback, of which a variance is being requested. The legal building envelope for the structure is approximately 225 square feet (45' by 12.5'). The legal building envelope for the gray water septic system is approximately 3,375 square feet (75' by 45'). The septic system must be setback 20 feet from the structure and there must be an alternative septic location per City Ordinance. The DNR has not commented on this request. 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. The variance request to OHW setback cannot be reduced because of restrictions on the septic system. The legal building envelope is approximately 225 square feet. The building envelope for the septic system is approximately 3,375 square feet. The proposed cabin cannot be moved further away from the lake because City Ordinance requires drainfields for septic systems to be 20 feet from the house and an alternative location for the drainfield must be located on the lot (see Exhibit E). The hardship results from the size of the lot and the suitable locations for the drainfield. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot width. Considering that it is an existing condition created in 1925 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for structure setback. The applicant is combining two lots reducing the variance needed to construct two structures on the lots separately. 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:\98 FI LES\98VAR\98-021\98-021PC.DOC Page 2 The applicant cannot build a reasonable sized cabin within the legal building envelope and cannot relocate the proposed structure to reduce or eliminate the variance request due to septic constraints. The hardship is caused by provisions of the ordinance which were adopted after the property was platted. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The spirit and intent of the structure setback can be maintained by screening of the cabin with the existing trees. While the ordinance does allow for some tree removal for construction and to create views from the property, the vegetation on the lot will proving for some screening of the proposed building. The OHW setback for non-island development is 50 feet. The proposed structure will not be located any closer than a new structure being constructed on a Prior Lake riparian lot that is not on an island. The granting of the setback variance is not be contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance request for the setback of the cabin is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. 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: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-06PC. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-021\98-021 PC.DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-06PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 50 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHW) SETBACK OF 50 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT SETBACK ON TWIN ISLES. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS David and Kinga Brown have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family seasonal cabin on property located in the R-I (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; Legally described as Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-021 and held hearings thereon on March 9, 1998. 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 the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, un_reasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city and the requirements for septic system locations. L:\98FILES(98VAR\98-021LR. E9806PC.DOC 16200 Ea§le CreekAve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without the variance. 7. The contents of Planning Case 98-021 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for future development on the lot; 1. A 50 foot variance permitting a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water mark of Prior Lake rather than the required 100 foot setback for island development subject to the following conditions: 1. The administrative plat to combine Lots 24 and 25 must be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 9, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 2 PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DAVID AND KINGA BROWN, Case File #98-026 LOTS 24 AND 25 TWIN ISLES. JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from David and Kinga Brown who are proposing to construct a seasonal cabin on Twin Isles. The lots are currently being combined through the administrative subdivision procedure. As of yet, the planning department has not received any inquiry or objection relating to the lot combination from notified property owners. The applicant is proposing to construct the cabin 50 feet from the OHW. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 100 feet from the OHW for island development. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a 50 foot variance to the 100 foot setback requirements. DISCUSSION: Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles were platted in 1925. The property is riparian located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is a bluff on the western portion of Lot 24. The proposed structure meets bluff setbacks and is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Section 9.3E regulates development on islands without municipal services. · Permitted uses are limited to seasonal cabins, parks and open spaces. · Any structure built on an island must contain an enclosed septic system or incinerator toilet facilities. · A lease for two parking spaces off the island and not in a public street is required. Proof of residency at a location other than the island is required. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER · The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or 2 contiguous lots, whichever is less. · The minimum lot width at the OHW is 75 feet. · Structure setback is 100 feet from the OHW, sideyard setbacks are 10 feet and gray water septic system must be setback 75 feet from the OHW. · Clear cutting is prohibited. Removal of vegetation requires a restoration plan to ensure vegetation is retained as much as possible and to ensure screening of the structures. · The structure must comply with the floodplain ordinance. The proposed development meets all of these requirements except for the structure setback, for which a variance is being requested. The applicant's lease agreement for the off street parking spaces is for one year beginning April 15, 1998. The resolution contains a condition of continual proof of a lease for parking spaces after the first year. The legal building envelope for the structure is approximately 225 square feet (45' by 12.5'). The legal building envelope for the gray water septic system is approximately 3,375 square feet (75' by 45'). The septic system must be setback 20 feet from the structure and there must be an alternative septic location per City Ordinance. The DNR has not commented on this request. 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. The variance request to OHW setback cannot be reduced because of restrictions on the septic system. The legal building envelope is approximately 225 square feet. The building envelope for the septic system is approximately 3,375 square feet. The proposed cabin cannot be moved further away from the lake because City Ordinance requires drainfields for septic systems to be 20 feet from the house and an alternative location for the drainfield must be located on the lot (see Exhibit E). The hardship results from the size of the lot and the suitable locations for the drainfield. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot width. Considering that it is an existing condition created in 1925 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for structure setback. The applicant is L:~98FILES\98VAR\98-021\98-021PC.DOC Page 2 combining two lots reducing the variance needed to construct two structures on the lots separately. 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 applicant cannot build a reasonable sized cabin within the legal building envelope and cannot relocate the proposed structure to reduce or eliminate the variance request due to septic constraints. The hardship is caused by provisions of the ordinance which were adopted after the property was platted. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The spirit and intent of the structure setback can be maintained by screening of the cabin with the existing trees. While the ordinance does allow for some tree removal for construction and to create views from the property, the vegetation on the lot will provide some screening of the proposed building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance request for the setback of the cabin is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. 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: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-06PC. L:\98F] LES\98VAR\98-021\98-021PC,DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-06PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 50 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHW) SETBACK OF 50 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100 FOOT SETBACK ON TWIN ISLES. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS David and Kinga Brown have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family seasonal cabin on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; Legally described as Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-021 and held hearings thereon on March 9, 1998. 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 the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city and the requirements for septic system locations. L:\98FILESL08VAR\98 -021LRE9806PC.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQVAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a ' substantial property fight of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure without the variance. 7. The contents of Plarming Case 98-021 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for future development on the lot; 1. A 50 foot variance permitting a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water mark of Prior Lake rather than the required 100 foot setback for island development subject to the following conditions: 1. The administrative plat to combine Lots 24 and 25 must be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The property owner and future property owners must provide the City proof of two off-street mainland parking spaces in the form of a lease renewal or ownership. Such proof must be provided by April 1st of each year. Failure to provide proof of parking will result in the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 9, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-02 lXRE9806PC.DOC 2 SURVEY PREPARED FOR: DAVE BROWN 287 SOUTH MARSCHALL ROAD SHAKOPEE~ MN. 653?9 EXHIBIT A Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE IRO-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 555?2 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 257'0 .... 913----Penotes existing conto~ llne 0 SO 60 SCALE IN FEET SURVEY PREPARED FOR: DAVE BROWN 287 SOUTH MARSCHALL ROAD SHAKOPEE~ MN. 55379 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE Volley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE {612) 447- 2570 N8~9° 24'05',W ..- ~ .... I00,00--- .... 913 .... penotes existing contou~ line ~f~,~:~ Denoles Proposed Septic Syslern Location ( 924. BLUFF LOCATION NHy line of Jots 24.~, N88° 24'05"W --- I00.00--- PRIOR LAKE EL. 902.2 TOP OF BI tO 24 5) ' I 'EWAy PER PLAT DESCRIPTION: 5ors 24 and 25, TWIN ISS?~, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed house. NCT~ES: Benchmark Elevation 909.00 top of the NW'ly reference iron. .... 913 .... penotes existing contour line ~..:.,~:~..~.~.:~ ~:~ :~%~:~:..~;:.:.~::. Denotes Proposed Septic System Location The Lowest Floor Elevation will be 925.00 Lot Area above Elev. 904:13,074 sqtft. Total Area of lots 24 ~ 25:16~093 sq.ft. 9.4 E. Island Development: Development on islands without municipal sewer and water shall be subject to the following conditions: a) Permitted uses on islands are limited to seasonal cabins, public parks, and open space. Year round residences are not permitted. Recreational facilities, such as a pavilion or picnic facilities for a homeowners association, may also be permitted by conditional use permit as set forth in Section 9.7 of this Ordinance. b) Any structure built on an island must contain an enclosed septic system or incinerator toilet facilities. o) An application for building permit or variance must include a signed lease arrangement that indicates that the owner has two, on land, parking spaces for vehicles. Parking vehicles on public streets, while occupying a seasonal structure on the island, is not permitted. In addition, the owner is required to provide proof of residency, at some location other than the island, at the time of building permit application. d) The minimum lot size for all islands without municipal sewer and water is one acre. On Twin Island, the minimum lot size requirement is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet or two (2) contiguous (side-by-side) lakeshore lots, whichever is less. e) The minimum lot width at OHW is seventy-five (75) feet. Setbacks for structures on islands shall comply with the following: 1 ) Structure setback from OHW 100 feet 2) Side Yard 10 feet 3) Gray Water System from OHW 75 g) Clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible immediately after any construction project is completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. h) Any removal of vegetation in conjunction with any construction project shall require a restoration plan to be submitted and reviewed by the City to ensure that natural vegetation is retained insofar as possible to screen seasonal structures and other buildings on site. The lowest flcor elevation of the structure including basement and crawl space must meet the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance requirements or provisions for locating the Iow flood elevation as described in Section 9.3.D.3 of this Ordinance. SHORELAND ALTERATIONS: Alterations of vegetation and topography wilt be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Section 9, Page 1 1 ~ TUE 4:11 PM hAVE BROWN ~EALTO~$ FAX ~0, 612445824~ DAVE BROWN REALTORS 287 S. Marschall Rd., Suite 206 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Res/dent/a/and Commercial Sales (612) 445-8155 ?. 2 February 5, 1998 City of Prior Lake 4629 Dakota St. S.E. Prior lake, Mn. 55372 RE: Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles To Whom It May Concern: I propose to build a seasonal cabin on Lots 24 and 25 of Twin Isles on Prior Lake. As part of the process, I am enclosing an application for variance along with items from the Twin Island Development Guide Checklist. They are as followsl Exhibit A. Completed variance application form.~ ~ ~c Exhibit B. $150.00 filing fee.- ok Exhibit C. Signed Certificate of Survey - topography map is also on the Certificate of Survey. Exhibit D. Name search including mailing list and 1/2 section map. Exhibit E. Boring test results from Gary Staber and building envelope drawing. Exhibit F. Signed lease agreement for 2, mainland, off street parking spaces. Exhibit G. Proof of residency. If you hi~ve any questions or need additional materials, please call me at 445-8155. Thank you. sincerelM David G. rown J.D. Enclosure NEW ABSTRACTS CONTINUATIONS ,~..Gl,.~lfl G SERVICE REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS TITLE INSURANCE RECORD!NG SERVICE SCO'l-I' COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC. 223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 David Moonen and Dale Kutter Telephone: (612) ~5-6246 FAX: (61 ~) 445-0229 January 12, 1998 Dave Brown Realtors 287 South Marschall Rd. Ste 206 Shakopee, Mn 55379 To whom iC may concern: According to the 1998 tax recDrds in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners of the property which lies within 100 feet of the following described property: Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isle, according to the recorded plac thereof om file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minmesota. David E. Moonen President Scott County Abstract and Title, Inc. MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO T~TLE INSURANC~= COMPANY MICItAEL L. & SUZANNE K. MILLS 3481 WILLOW BEACH TRAIL PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DAVID W. & ROCHELLE A. 0LSON 6776 161ST STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 JOHN C. & ELAINE EGAN P.O. BOX 95 OZONA, FL 34660 JOHN W. MORAST P.O. BOX 372 PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 KATHLEEN M. GENSMER 3171 LINDEN CIRCLE NW PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 DAVID L. & BETHANN WUELLNER 16930 WALNUT STREET PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 JEFFREY J. DOUSETTE 15581CALMUT AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 A'2 Bennett and Linstedt noted that the results of the four studies showed a very close correlation with only a plus or minus 4% variation from the mean for total per capita water usage. They further stated that "these results are significantly lower than the values.., of 75 gallons per capita per day for a single family residence or 60 gallons per day for multiple fam/ly residences." Bennet and Linstedt stated that, while other sources of literature produced a wider range of values, the quantities presented in Figure A-I were selected because they were representative of field measured values for the wastewater generated in individual homes. It should be noted that, while the mean daily per capita water use appears to be somewhat less than 50 gallons per day, this is an average value. Some individuals and homes may use water at a considerable higher rate. Estimated Sewage Flows in Gallons per day (gpd) Number of Type '-Type II ~pe IH Type Bedrooms ..------ IV 450 218 ~of the 4 600 375 256 values 5 750 450 294 in 6 900 525 332 Type I, 7 1050 600 370 II or III 8 1200 675 408 columns Type I: The total floor area of the reside the number of bedrooms is more than 800 square feet, or more than two of the following water-use appliances are insta_l~d: automatic washer, dishwasher, water pe II: The total floor a.rea of the resid_e_nce divid.ed b-X~,~ · the number of bedrooms ~s more than 500 square feet ~ind J o more than two water-use ap liances. the number of bedrooms is less than 500 square feet an~' CdTiYs-.~... [I ,,~,, ~wo water-use appliances,t~ast e~s~ pe IV: Type I, II or III hom~s-tmt with no toile charged into the sewage system. Figure A-2 Consider 75 gpd as. Average Per Capita Use ,~DiVIDUAE=SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WORKSHEET FLOW measured x t.5= ~ gpd SEPTIC TANK VOLUNSE SOILS (Site e~/a?ua.b~on data) C. Depthtorestrict4nglayer= '-/, "- feet D. Maximum depth of system C - 3 ft ~ feet E. Textur~ercolation rat~z~_~/- /"k MPI F. SSF / ~.~sq ft/gpd G. Slope / 0 % TRENCH BOTTOM AREA H. For trenches with 6 inches of rock below the pipeL.' ,_, ~ 2-~. Ax F =/~' x /.7~=/~/' sq ft of bosom area - I. For ~enches with 12 inches of rock below the pipe: AxFx0.8=__x x0.8= sq ft of bottom area J. For trenches with 18 inches of rock below the pipe: A x F x 0.66 = __ x __ x 0.66 = __ sq ft of bottom area K. For trenches with 24 inches of rock below the pipe: AxFx0.6=__x x 0.6 =__ sq ft of bottom area BED BOTTOM AREA L. For seepage beds with 6 or 12 hnches o£ rock below the pipe; t.SxAxF=l.Sx x__ __sqftofbottomarea ROCK \:OLUME IN CU FI M. Rock depth below dis~ibution pipe plus 0.5 foot times bottom area: M =Rock depth e 6 inches x Area (H,I,J,L,K) ROCK VOLUME IN CU YDS N. Volume in cuft divided by 27 M + 27 = cu y~s2'~c~- 27 = ') .dq cu yds ROCK WEIGHT O. Cubic yazds times 1.4 = tons ) Nxl.4=tons /2.--~ xl.4= /~,~tons SYSTEM LENGTH P. Select trench width = -~ ft Q. Divide bo~om area by trench width: (H, I, J, or K) + P = 1Lneal feet .~?~ ~, + ~.~_--.~__ ----~__'~. line a] fee t Q1. Grave)less Design A x F + ( 3 for 10" pipe, 2 for 8" pipe, width of the Chamber ) /~.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-.,-~ x/, z~'l+ ,.~ = ~/7 feet LAWN AREA Select trench spacing, center to center = /O feet Mult4ply trench spacing by lineal feet R x Q = sq ft of lawn area · (~r'-/ x/~ =~-r79~sqft LAYOUT (Use other side) 1. Select an appropriate scaJe; one--~rm~ = ~("3 feet. 2. Show pertinent property bormdaries, right-of-way, easements. 3. Show location of house, garage, driveway, and all other improvements, existing or proposed 4. Show location and layout of sewage treatment system. 5. Show location of water supp]y v~,ell. 6. Dimension all set backs and separation distances. Septic Tzak Capacities (in g~dlom) 5or6 1125 3500 5000 inches= 0% Reduction* 12 inches= 20% Reduction is'inches= 34% Reduction 24 incheS= ~0% Reductio~ sizing for §ravelless trench 6-24" Rock 3/4-2 1/2" N88°24'OS,,W - ~ ' I00. O0 PRIOR L4KE EL. go~.. ,?. GENERAL LEASE This is a lease. This Lease is dated Z - .'3 , 19'~--~~. It is a legal agreement between thc Tenant and the Landlord to rent the property described below. The world LANDLORD as used in this Lease means ~"xlcx..l~e.~ ,a. ~ and the Landlord's address is c'/~lt~" /{'4.C('-~o{/ .~v,'v,e.., ~t/aA~ /c~A] The word TENANT as used in this Lease means %v~'d C. This Lease is a legal contract that can be enforced in court against tile Landlord or the Tenant if either one of them does not comply with this Lease. in the County of }~ * ~ , State of Minnesota, on property described as follows: Rent. a. Amount. The rent for the property is ~)t~e ($ t &to .. 0-~ ) ~r ~ a ,~" / {'4t~ vel-J ~ A.e [ ~t4) / Lcrlr - --'Dollars b. Payment. T,be rent payment for each month must be paid before -~t/,'{ {.5I {~g at Landlord s address. Landlord does not have to give notice to Tenant to pa~ the rent. 4. Quiet Enjoyment. I fTenant pays the rent and complies with all other terms of this Lease, Tenant may use the Properly for the term of this Lease. 5. Right of Entry. Landlord and Landlord's agents may enter tile property at reasonable hours to repair or inspect the Property and perform any work that landlord decides is necessary. In addition, the Landlord may show the Property to possible or new Tenants at reasonable hours during the last .30 days of the Lease term. Except in the case of an emergency, Landlord shall give Tenant reasonable notice before entering Ihe Property. 6. Assigmuent aud Subletting, Tenant may not assign this Lease, lease the Property to anyone else (sublet}, sell this Lease or permit any other person to use the Property without the prior written consent of the Landlord. lfTenant does any of these things, Landlord may terminate Ibis Lease. Any assignment or sublease made without Landlord's written consent will not be effective. Tenant must get Landlord's permission each time Tenant wants to assign or sublet. Landlord's permission is good only for that specific assignment or sublease. 7. Surrender of Premises. Tenant shall give Landlord possession of the Property when this Lease ends. When Tenant moves out, Tenant shall leave the Property in as good a condition as it was when the Lease started, with the exception of reasonable wear and tear. ,1~ 27~740060' ' , . ,' .' · ~997. ' MP~ '-."- ~" -" ' ' .'~ ' : ' ' ' T~yer ' ~540 . ~lc t~u 0A0,~8 '. ~tal~ :~'. : .:~ Deeded Acres'. 287 ~R~C~ ~ B , 'Dia~ 2204'SD 0720 , Bk . . .', . '" '. .'" : ' ."' '.j":OOi , s~o~ "' ,~7'~'' .'.' '. ' ': ..... ' ' - ".~ ' ' · · O~i~i~al. .. ~at/~ Colle~6ion~ Bal~ce : Fee~ .... · · - '. ' NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 50 FOOT VARL4NCE TO PERMIT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 el.) OF 50 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 100 FEET FOR ISLAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SEASONAL CABIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS LOTS 24 AND 25 OF TWIN ISLE. 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, March 9, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: David and Kinga Brown 1227 Pioneer Lane Shakopee, MN 55379 PROPERTY Same OWNERS: SUBJECT SITE: Legally described as Lots 24 and 25, Twin Isles, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct a seasonal cabin on Twin Isle. The new structure is proposed to be setback 50 feet f~om the ordinary high water mark rather than the required 100 feet. The cabin and septic will meet all other setbacks and impervious surface coverage. The two lots are in the process of being administratively combined. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-021\98-021 PN.DOC [ 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: February 26, 1998 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-021\98-021 PN.DOC N 1/2 SEC $ r.//~ ~ 2 2 PROPERTY LOCATION SURVEY PREPAREO FOR: DAVE BROWN 287 50UTH MARSCHALL ROAD Volley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE IEO-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE ~612} 447-2570 N88° 24'05"W 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET REVISED 2/20/98 TOSHOW LOT PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4B CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, DRIVEWAY SETBACK VARIANCE, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES OLSON AND JOAN HOLSTEN, Case File #98-026 3204 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Charles Olson and Joan Holsten who are proposing to construct a new single family residence on the vacant lot. The lot is a pie shaped lot 21.87 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. Thus, the existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. A sketch of the proposed house plans are attached. All structure setbacks will be met. The applicant is also applying for a variance to allow the proposed driveway to be 3.5 feet from the property line rather than the required 5 foot setback and a variance to allow impervious surface coverage of 32.4% instead of the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage of 30%. The impervious surface worksheet submitted did not take into account a 1' proposed roof overhang. Overhangs are considered to be impervious surface. Therefore, the revised impervious surface request is 34.8%. DISCUSSION: Lot 28, Northwood was platted in 1911. The property is riparian located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is no bluff on this lot and the proposed house location is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows: 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 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 Requirement to Variance be Buildable Requested (as a substandard lot) 8,900 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet N/A 21.87 feet 50.00 feet 28.13 feet 58 feet N/A N/A (approx.) The legal building envelope is pie shaped, 6.87 feet wide at the 25' front setback and approximately 159 feet deep, resulting in an area footprint of approximately 3328 square feet. The applicant has sketched the house design, but has yet to complete full building plans. The footprint consists of a three stall tandem style garage (660 sq. feet) and 1,108 sq. feet of living area. The proposed house will comply with all building setbacks. The proposed impervious surface is 34.8%, due primarily to the long driveway required to reach a point on the lot where a reasonable building will fit. The proposed driveway is setback 3.5 feet on the south lot line. The lot is 17.45 feet wide at the front property line. With a 5 foot setback for driveways, the driveway could only be 7.45 feet wide. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for a 9 foot wide driveway. Attached are DNR comments. The DNR is not opposed to the variances but stresses a future deck must meet setbacks or a vadance must be obtained. The applicant has stated there will be no deck or concrete patio as the setback and impervious surface requirements are not conducive for one with the proposed house design. Attached is a staff report and Planning Commission minutes from 1978 detailing variances that were approved for this lot. The variances were to allow a 5 foot side yard setback for the proposed garage, a 1 foot variance for the side yard setback for the house, and a 9 foot variance to the OHW. The required side yard setback in 1978 was 10 feet for all side yards on all lots and the OHW setback on Prior Lake was 75 feet. There was no requirement for impervious surface or driveway setback in 1978. The variances were approved based on compatibility with the neighborhood and no detriment to the general health and welfare of the community. No structures were built on this lot, and the variances expired on November 20, 1996 as per Section 5-6-8 (A). 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. The variance request to lot width is an L:\98Ft LES\98VAR\98-026\98-026PC.DOC Page 2 existing condition. There is a hardship with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. Similarly the literal enforcement of the 5 foot setback for driveways would only permit a driveway width of 7.45 feet. The requested variance to driveway width would allow for a 9 foot wide driveway. While this is a narrow driveway, it would allow for access to the garage. The variance request to impervious surface is a direct result of the lot being 8,900 square feet. This allows for a maximum impervious surface of 2,670 square feet. Given the structure needs to be setback approximately 100 feet, to be 20 feet wide, the impervious surface for a 9 foot wide driveway would be 900 square feet. This results in approximately 1,700 square feet for additionally drive area, garage, and house. This could be accomplished through a redesign of the structure. The applicant needs to reduce the impervious surface by 428 square feet to be at 30% of the lot area. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstance is the lot width. Considering that it is an existing condition created in 1911 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements, hardship does exist for lot width and driveway setback. The property was originally platted with 17.45 feet in width at the front property line. When the property was platted there were not driveway setbacks or minimum widths required. The variance to impervious surface can be eliminated if the garage is reduced to a two car garage, a track driveway is utilized (two strips of concrete with grass in the center) or the house is redesigned. 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 8,900 sq. feet, the lot width is only 21.87 at the required front setback. These are conditions which have been existing since the property was platted in 1911. The lot width and driveway setbacks are hardships that is not the result of the applicant's actions. The variance request to impervious surface is a result of the design of the structure, which is a direct result of actions of the property owner. 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 a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be buildable is to allow for a structure that can meet the required setbacks and still be of a reasonable size, The intent of the 5 foot driveway setback is to allow for adequate snow L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-026\98-026PC.DOC Page 3 storage on one's property. Considering that the lot is a pie shaped lot and progressively gets wider away from the street, the driveway will only be setback less than 5 feet for a short distance. Adjacent lots ara of similar size, have similar driveway setbacks, and have existing structures upon them. The granting of the lot width and driveway setback variances are not contrary to the public interest. However, the variance to impervious surface can be eliminated upon a radesign of the structure or use of a tracked driveway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concluded the variance request for lot width and driveway setback are substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over. However, the variance to impervious surface can be eliminated upon radesign of the structure or driveway. 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: Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-04PC and Resolution #98-07PC denying the variance to impervious surface. L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-026~98-026PC.DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 98-04PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 28.13 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.87 LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT; AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Charles Olson and Joan Holsten have applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located in the R-I (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 3204 Buttemut Cimle, legally described as Lot 28, Northwood, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-026 and held hearings thereon on March 9, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances 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 the proposed variances will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably dimirdsh or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located. L:\98FILES~98VAR\98-026~R. E9804PC.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size, the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed structure and driveway without the variances, o The contents of Planning Case 98-026 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and approves the following variances, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for future development on the lot meeting required setbacks; 1. A 28.13 foot variance permitting a 21.13 foot lot width at the required front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot lot width; and 2. A 1.5 foot variance permitting a 3.5 foot driveway setback instead of the required 5 foot driveway setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 9, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 2 RESOLUTION 98-07PC DENYING A 4.8 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 34.8% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 30%. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Charles Olson and Joan Holsten have applied for a variance from Section 5-8-3 (B) of the City Code on property located in the R-1 (Single Family) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 3204 Butternut Cimle, legally described as Lot 28, Northwood, Scott County, MN. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case #98-026 and held a hearing thereon on March 9, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested impervious surface variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the impervious surface is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has alternatives to reduce the impervious surface to be compliant with the ordinance. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants. The Board of Adjustment has stated alternatives to reduce the impervious surface to meet the ordinance include elimination of a garage stall or redesign of the structure or use of a "track" driveway. 6. The Board of Adjustment contends the applicant has created their own hardship through the design of the proposed structure. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 7. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the required impervious surface coverage maximum of 30% for lots within the Shoreland District cannot be met if the variance is granted. 8. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property without the variance. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-026 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 3204 Buttemut Cimle, legally described as Lot 28, Northwood, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. A 4.8% impervious surface variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 34.8% rather than the maximum permitted 30% impervious surface coverage. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 9, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director L:X98FILES\98VAR\98-026~RE9807PC.DOC 2 EXHIBIT A CI.TY OF PRIOR LAKE'~/~ ~-~ Im pervious Surface Calculations , (To be ,Submitted with B, ullding Permit Appllcatio.n) ' . For All Propemes Located In the Shoreland D~str,ct ( The Maximum hi'pervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address Z.Oq ' LotArea ... Ooq'OO · c~oe~te, ec/...-q°qfq Feet x 30% -- .............. LENGTH WIDTH. SQ, FEET HOUSE, ATTACHED GAUGE x DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) AREAS ~ "~r'D'~a'ay--pav-Td or not) (SldewalldParklng Areas) TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..' .................... I. "1 ~ {D X TOTAL'DETACHED BUILDINGS "" TOTAL PAVED AREAS ......... ;,',.,..,; ....................... . \ \ \ ~ ' PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS (Open Decks W' min. open~ng between boards, with a pe~lous surface below, are not considered to be impervious) 'X OTHER TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDE~ ~ 'Q' Prepared. By _ ~,o~ ~,~ TOTAL OTHER ....................................................... Company ~ la,q~-'q ~ O , , Phone ! !'-0" 9'-0" ~0'--0" 6'-0" 30'-0" ~)'J )JO. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 VARIANCE - tlastings Builders February 16, 1978 SUBJECT: To consider two variances from the requirement of the ordinance for lots 28 and 29, Northwood. The request is for a S' variance for lots 28 and 29 on the garage side and 1' variance on the house sides for the two aforementioned lots. Also, lot 29 requires an 18' variance from the lakeshore and lot 28 a 9' variance from the lake. STAFF ANALYSIS; The zoning of the neighborhood is R-1 single family with the living units consisting of a combination of summer cabins and year round homes. The lots are long, narrow pie shaped lots [see attached drawing). The width of lot 29 at the proposed building line is 42' for 28 it is 40'. The maximum width of the structure for lot 29 is 31' and for lot 28 is 30'. The structure to the south is a year round home utilizing two lots. Tb.e structure3 to the north are also year round homes on single lots. The structures setbacks from the lake is adequate in terms of sight line for adjacent homes. The proposed placement of the homes is reasonable consid- ering the composition of the neighborhood. The five foot side yard variance requests is in line with the Planning Commission's past actions. STAFF RECOHMENDATION: Approve the variances as requested since the request is compatible with respect to the composition of the neighborhood. Also it would not be detrimental to the general health and welfare of the community. THE CENTER OF LAKE COUNTRY /'2 I I I ~1 ~2.09 1.904.2' 52.09 PRIOR LAKE 2/~5/83 'lop Ice' El.' ~01.85 · APPLICATION [:DR VARIANCE FRO~{ THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Name of Applicant or ^~ent Address of Applicant Street and Number o~ Affected Premises Legal Description Nature and Size of Improvements.~N°w Hxlsting Present Zoning Classification Detailed Description of the Variance Applied For Full :atement of Reasons App Note: Ten (10)' :opies of a plat plan, g the location ;xisting and proposed structures must be filed with this application. Please Complete The Following: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect t, my property. 2. Such unn~c, es~_r~./l~ard~hi~p resulgs bg~:au-5~ of circumstances tmique tn my property. 5. ~e~hardstii~ is caused by provisions of the ordinance and is not the result ~tions.7of/~ersoss ~resently ~vi~ an in~erest in my parcel. F: 4. ~e vari~ca o~serves the sfirit and intent ~ this Drdinance ~nd ,substantiM ~us~ and is no~ contra to the publfc in Date Signature This ~ Certify that $ ~70~was received this (O f-~day of ~or a Variance Application Fee. Received By_ , 19 THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY PLANNING COMMISSION Application for Variance Granted ~, Denied Reasons: , "Motion was made by Johnson to approve a S' variance for lots 28 and Other Remarks: 18' variance from %he lakeshore on lot 29 and a 9' variance on the lakeside for lot 28. the rea,~on bein~ that this request is compatible ~ith to the composition o.f..khe_~eighbqrhoqd__._Als.o,..i_t .wo~ld__n_p.t_b_e_d~tzi_m._.ent_al ....... to thc ~eneral he~_lfJl_a,d, y~_c_'pf~Lej_~o~k~u-~ity.''' February' 16, 1978 Next item was a public hearing for Jim Allen in the Bluff Heights Addition. qhis proposal consists of replatting Lot 1, Block 2, Bluff Heights into 4 lots. The parcel is zoned R~3 and proposed to be developed with fourplexes. ~e proposal meets all requirements except the tide setback is IS'. Franklin Trail lots will probably be developed first because of existing sewer and water. Motion was made by Speiker to grant preliminary approval seconded by Johnson and upon a vote taken, motion duly passed. Next item on the agenda was a discussion for Mary Eggum who is requesting a public hearing for the subdivision of some land between Highway and Oakridge Court. The grade problem will have to be worked ,)ut. Lot 11 will have to have approval from the highway department for drive- way access onto Highway I$. Motion was made by Cavill to hold a public hearing on March 16, 1978 at 7:45 PM seconded by Speiker and upon vote taken, motion duly passed. Next item was a subdivision discussion for Joyce Nickelson. All proposed lots meet minimum standards. The Nickelsons were told by the Commission that they would probably ha, e to give 20 to 50 feet cs the lots to the City for road right of way. Road easements must be clarified with the Nickelsons and City staff. Next item was a variance request for Hastings Builde£~. they zre applying for variances on lots 28 and 29, Northwood. Motion was made by Johnson to approve the variance of S' on the garage side for both lots, a 1~ variance on the house sides for the two lots and an 18' variance from the lakeshore for 10t 29 and a 9' variance for lot 28, the reason being that this request is compatible with respect to the composition of the neighborhood. Also, it would not be detrimental to the ~eneral health, and welfare of the coxmunity. Next item was a conditional use permit for Wicker 5 Associates for the Human Services Building. Speiker moved that the conditional use permit be granted since the request preserves the objectives of the zoning ordinance and is not detrimental to the general health, and welfare of the community. The whole set of drawings will be made a part of the record, seconded by Johnson and upon a vote taken, motion duly passedl Next item was a subdivision request for Mr. Ron Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt is requesting to subdivide a parcel on Breezy Point Road near liannens 5rd Add~tPon.~ The developer would have to pay to have sewer and water stubs installed in lo~s 3 and 4 and for the cost of repaying the street. Motion was made by Speiker to hold a public hearing on March 16, at 8:1S PM seconded by Johnson and upon a vote taken, motion duly passed. Motion was made by Speiker to adjourn seconded by Johnson and upon a vote taken the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P~]. 0 0 0 O0 0 o 88 8~ ZONING ORDINANCE IN EFFECT IN 1978 (G) If underground parking is included as part of townhouse and apartment developments, a credit of 300 square feet per unit will be added for the units provided with basement garages. (H) Any residential construction which is situated on lands contiguous to or abuts any portion of the public lakes in Prior Lake shall not exceed a density of one dwelling unit for every ten (10) feet of lakeshore, except a density of five (5) feet may be authorized and permitted where the usage of the lakeshore is limited to a swimming beach and does not include boat storage, docking operation or water skiing. (I) Any principal structure situated on lands contiguous to or abutting any portion of the public lakes in Prior Lake shall maintaJ_u yard setbacks of seventy-five (75) feet from the lake. Where adjacent structures have yard setbacks different from these requirements, the minimum setback from the lake shall be the average setback of such adjacent structures to a mS_nimum of fifty (50) feet. (J) All future residential densities greater than those permitted under the R-1 District shall be developed under the Planned Unit Development section of this ordinance. -7- March 2, 1998 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNK Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 Ms. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: ASSORTED SHORELAND ZONING MATTERS Dear Ms. Kansier: Please accept the following comments on four zoning matters. ZONING CHANGE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PRELIMINARY PLAT- GLY'NWATER There has been early coordination with the city, developer, and DNR on this proposed development. I have reviewed preliminary plat and grading plans for this project, and provided written comment earlier. Proper erosion control will be necessa~ througimut construction, partioa/arly on steep slope areas. No DNR issues with the project as proposed. LOT WIDTH VARIANCE- LOT 23. MAPLE PARK SHORE ACRES Wow! I didn't know distances could be surveyed to the hundredth of a foot. DNR has no objection to the 0.11 foot variance as requested. Will the existing nonconforming deck or shed (neither meet the setback, even for a water oriented accessory structure) be required to be removed as part of the redevelopment of the lot? PUD AMENDMENT/PRELIMINARY PLAT- WINDSONG ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION The applicant has worked with the DNR, and provided me with several pot"ntial subdivision scenarios for the subject property. DNR has no objections to the proposed PUD amendment and preliminary plat. I recommend some sort nf assurances be made to maintain Outlots A and B in undeveloped open space. bqUY, TIPLE VARIANCES- LOT 28. NORTHWOOD (3204 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE) This proposal requests several variances I deem to be minor. It appears the applicant has done a commendable job of sizing and locating a structure sensitive to the lot constraints. The DNR is not opposed to consideration of the approval of the requested variances. Is a deck proposed lakeward of the sU-acture as depicted? I note the proposed setback 0f54 feet. Ifa deck is not proposed at this time, the applicant should be informed that future addition or expansion into the 50' setback will require a variance. It would be advisable to address this issue at this time, so as to avoid the potential for a future variance request. DN R Information: 612-296-6 [ 57, 1-800-766-6000 · TTY: 612-296-5'48~.. [ -800-657-3929 J'ane Kansier March 2, 1998 page 2 Th~nk you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject zoning matters. Please call me at 772-7910 [t'you have any questions. Sincerely, Area Hydrologist NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A 28.13 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 21.87 FOOT LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE BUILDABLE; AND A 2.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 32.4% INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30%; AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 3.5 FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 5 FEET FROM SIDE LOT LINES. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 3204 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE. 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, March 9, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: Charles Olson and Joan Holsten 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd. Suite 920 Minneapolis, MN 55437 PROPERTY OWNERS: Donald Hastings 5212 Overlook Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 SUBJECT SITE: 3204 Butternut Circle, legally described as Lot 28, Northwood, Scott County, MN. REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct a single family detached house with attached tandem garage. The proposed house will meet all setbacks. The existing lot of record is 21,87 feet wide at the front yard setback rather L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-026\98-026PN.DOC ] 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER than the required 50 feet. The lot consists of 8,900 square feet above the ordinary high water mark (904 el.). The proposed driveway will be setback 5 feet on one side and 3.5 feet on the other. The minimum setback for driveways is 5 feet on each side. The proposed impervious surface coverage is 32.4% rather than the maximum allowed of 30%. 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. 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: February 24, 1997 L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-026\98-026PN.DOC i-'/'5588 A Prior L~k~ SITE LOCATION mo..n PRIOr LAKE TOP OF ICE EL 902.1 PLANNING REPORT AGENDAITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4C PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REQUIRED NOTICE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REZONING (Case File #98-024) JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR X YES NO MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the publication dates for a comprehensive rezoning. The proposed amendment will bring the required publication dates into conformance with the newspaper publication schedule and the meeting schedules. DISCUSSION: Section 7.9 F of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedures for a Comprehensive Rezoning. Subsection 3 of this section states the following: Notice. The Zoning Officer shall publish notice in at least three (3) weekly issues of the official newspaper on the proposed rezoning amendment. The public hearing shall be held not less than ten (10) or more than fifteen (15) days after the last publication. The problem with this requirement is that it does not coincide with the publishing schedules of the newspaper and the meeting date. For example, if the newspaper were published on Fridays, or meetings were scheduled on Tuesdays, we could meet these timelines. Since we cannot meet the timelines prescribed by the ordinance, it is necessary to change the ordinance. The proposed change is relatively simple, and does not change the intent of the ordinance. Notice will still be published in three weekly issues of the paper. The public hearing date will be held not less than nine (9) or more than sixteen (16) days after the last publication. 1:\98files\98ordamd~zoning\98-024\98024pc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Council approve the amendment as proposed, or with changes specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed amendment. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments. REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance Language 2. Hearing Notice 1:\98files\98ordamd~zoning\98-024\98024pc.doc Page 2 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-6-10 (F,3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 7.9 (F,3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Section 5-6-10 (F,3) of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 7.9 (F,3) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Notice. The Zoning Officer shall publish notice in at least three (3) weekly issues of the official newspaper on the proposed rezoning amendment. The public hearing shall be held not less than ten nine (-gO _9) or more than fi~ccn sixteen (4-5 1~) days al~er the last publication. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this day of ~ 1998. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 day of ,1998. 1:\98files\98ordamd~zonins\98-024~draftord.doc PAGE 1 /NNESO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-6-10 (F,3) OF THE OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTION 7.9 (F,3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REQUIRED NOTICE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REZONING You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public heating at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday, March 9, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public heating is to consider an amendment to Section 5-6-10 (F,3) of the City Code and 7.9 (F,3) of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the required notice for a comprehensive rezoning. The Ordinance currently requires publication of the notice of the City Council public heating in three weekly issues of the newspaper. The public heating must then be held not less than 10 days nor more than 15 days following the publication of the last notice. This amendment will require the public hearing be held not less than 9 days nor more than 16 days following the publication of the last notice. This change is consistent with the schedule of meetings and the publication of the newspaper. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Prior Lake Planning Department at 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Prepared this 18th day of February, 1998 by: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON FEBRUARY 21, 1998 ~l :\9 ~ fil~\98o~'dajndXzojligg\98~-024\9 ~ 024pn.qo~ r. 16200 aag~e creek ~ve. ~.a.,rrior ~.ake, Minnesota ~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN KNOWN AS WINDSONG ON THE LAKE AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS V~INDSONG ON THE LAKE THIRD ADDITION JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-N/A MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 1998, to consider this request. The Planning Commission continued action on this item until March 9, 1998. Two of the Commissioners suggested the applicant work with the homeowner's association on this request. The developer has notified the Planning staff he cannot schedule a homeowner's association meeting until March 17, 1998. He is therefore requesting that this item be continued until the April 13, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staffrecommends this item be continued until April 13, 1998. ACTION REOUIRED: A motion and second to continue this item until April 13, 1998. EXHIBITS: 1. Letter from H & H Land Development ~, ~]:\9~fil~\98gud~\wind~oqg\wctdpc2.~oc. .~ 1620u ~ag~e t. ree~: ~ve. ~.~., e'nor ~-a}~e, minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~[7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 15:53 $128840990 RALPH HEUSCHELE ATTY PAGE 01 By FAX and by U. S. Mail FAX No. 447-4245 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT 10315 Thomas Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431-3315 (612) 884-5037 (612) 884-0990 Fax March 2, 1998 Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Windsong on the Lake 3~ Addition Dear Ms. Kansier: We are unable to schedule a Windsong homeowners meeting in time for the March 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The homeowners meeting will be scheduled for March 17, 1998. Since I will be on vacation on March 23, 1998, I ask that you put us on the April 13, 1998, Planning Commission calendar. I hereby waive the 60 day review period limit and request that the review period be extended an additional 60 days to June 3, 1998. I did not receive a copy of the Thompson letter to the Planning Commission. It seems to me that I should have been provided a copy at the time of the hearing. I ask that you send me a copy now. Very truly y /NNE$O PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5B CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-05PC DENYING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE BURDICK PROPERTIES, Case File f~97-132 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE ,~, JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO MARCH 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: On February 23, 1998 the Planning Commission heard the request for variances on the respective lots on Commerce Avenue. The requested variances related to two existing commemial properties located on Commerce Avenue. Resolutions 98-01 PC and 98-02PC were adopted approving the setback variances for the principal structures and the variance to fence height. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying the 43.7 foot variance request to allow the existing trash enclosure to be setback 16.3 feet for adjacent residential property. The attached Resolution 98-05PC denies the requested variance and lists specific findings as discussed at previous hearings by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the variance requested by the applicant. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Approve the variance application. In this case the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance request. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission feels the hardship criteria are inclusive of previous discussion, the resolution should be adopted. However, if the Planning Commission feels there are should be changes, such changes should be made upon adoption of the resolution. 16200 L:\97FILES~97VAR\97-132\97132PC4.DOC Page 1 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 98-05PC. L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132\97132PC4,DOC Page 2 RESOLUTION 98-05PC DENYING A 43.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REAR YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OF 16.3 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 FEET FOR THE EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS Burdick Properties has applied for variances from Section 5-4-1 E of the City Code on property located in the B-I (Limited Business) District at the following location, to wit; 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #97-132 and held a hearing thereon on January 12, 1998 and January 26, 1998. The Board of Adjustments closed the hearings on January 26, 1998. The Board of Adjustment discussed the variance request and determined additional information was required. Specifically, the developer was to submit a revised landscape plan and the location and height of the fence and berm were to be located in the field. The Board of Adjustment continued discussion on the variances to February 23, 1998 to obtain this information. 4. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the additional information on February 23, 1998. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed trash enclosure variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the trash enclosure variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 7. The Board of Adjustment has stated there are alternative locations for the trash enclosure on Burdick property that meet the setbacks. The Board of Adjustment concludes the developer is responsible for the knowledge of City Ordinances and contends the developer has created their own hardship by locating the trash enclosure in a location violating the City Ordinance. 9. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the required 60 foot setback from adjacent residential property cannot be met if the variance is granted. 10. The Board of Adjustment has concluded that the cost to relocate the trash enclosure is not a hardship with respect to the property, because reasonable use can be made of the property. 11. The contents of Planning Case 97-132 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances for 14180 Commerce Avenue, legally described as Lot 4, Block 1, James 1st Addition, Scott County, MN, as shown in Exhibit D; A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing trash enclosure. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 9, 1998. ATTEST: Anthony Stamson, Chair Donald R. Rye, Planning Director L:\97FILES\97VAR\97-132kRE98-05P.DOC 2 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ EXHIBIT D MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A-1 AND C~I DISTRICTS TO THE R2 DISTRICT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS MADE BY STAFF. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND ~ROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS GLYNWATER, SLrBJE~ii~i~E CONDITIONS LISTED 1N STAFF'S REPORT EXCEPT DELETE I~M 4 REGARDING SIGNAGE OVER THE UTILITY EASEMENTS...::?:::ii?~::::i?~ii?~!~?:~ Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED .... ?:~,::. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TQ::[~O~END APPROg~5!6F THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT T~ii~E CO~I. TIONS LISTEO':'IN Vote taken signified ayes by all MOTION CARRIED 5. Old Business: :?::=::==:iii!iiii" ' A. Case File #97-132 Contmuahon ofthe::Bur~e ~a~ 'es varmnee request. ...... ~:~i~!:~:~!:r:~ .... '?:?:?:i::?i .... .:i::ii::[~ Planner Jenni Tovar presm~::::i~¢i}~i~f report ~ged January 23, 1998 on file with the Planning Department w}t~:i~e city:[~Prior Lak~:! ...... On January 12, 199~::[~;~iii!~::~i~ke~i!~hrd the request for variances on the respective lots on Comm~::::~ii~:::::~:~:~ested variances relate to two existing commercial p.[gg~8~es locat~.~..Commerce Avenue. 14180 Commerce Avenue was built in l~i¢!~::!i!~:~:..Com~:~g~nue was built in 1997. The following variances are b~i~::~pplied fof~!:i~ resped~::~hddresses: .... ?:!::i7 ..... :::?:i:.?.iii::?:i5 :~i:.ii:.~ ..... i!ii::i?:!::?:!i::i, ::::::::::::::::::::: 14:: ...... · ' · I~OMMERCE A~NUE. A 2 foot ~e to p~ a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 58.00 feet niffig~!ithar~i::tI~ required 60 feet for existing building; and ========================== .... A 2 foot vafian~::~0 permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maximum allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties; and A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater than 3:1 for additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. 14180 COMMERCE AVENUE: h\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin~nn022398,doc 13 A 2.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 57.30 feet rather than the required 60 feet for existing building; and A 43.7 foot variance to permit a rear yard setback adjacent to property zoned residential of 16.3 feet rather than the required 60 feet for an existing trash enclosure; and A 2 foot variance to permit a fence height of 8.00 feet rather than the maxirg~ allowed 6 foot height for additional screening between the adjacent residential pr~!::ii~d A variance to permit an enlarged berm height and slopes greater th:...::~":~iii~!~::~!~ii~. .::~.:..:.~:~additional screening between the adjacent residential properties. :~::iiiiiiliiiiii! ..... ~::ii~iii!ii::ii::~:,.., The Planning Commission continued the hearing and reqg~:::::~to supply information. On January 26, 1998 the Planning Co~$ibn ~ provided additi0~? information as requested. The item was continued to;~bruary'~]~::..1998 to allow applicant sufficient time to submit a revised landsch~g::~!~..and::5~ii~!~e posts in the field indicating top of berm and fence location. This has bee~:5~f~ied.":~e applicant has submitted full size copies of a landscape plan and color ph~phs of the proposed '~i::::~:::::: ===================================================== ...... The proposed landscape plan includes reqt~i~qd i~::.i~d 15 t:;::i!~i~rubs. While the ordinance does not require a specific numbd~!i!g.f ~b~:i:~:~?i~t be planted to meet certain criteria such as screen~g~i~he City h~::~:letter of ~tit on file to insure the landscaping plan is compli~!i~li~l all plan~s survive one winter. The proposed pl 's ~{~mum req~ents as stated in the landscape landscape an exceeds .~:"City .... ?:~i::::i .... ::::!iiii::i? .iiiiiiiiiiii::::il .... ordinance .... ::::::::::::::::::::: ..?:ii::?? ..:,~:~ ,;:.::i? '":'::~::::ii~i???~iiii~ .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................................... As stated in the staffrepg~!i~~i~[~i~:~¢iiiiii¢98, staffhas concluded the hardsh/p criteria have b0~.:~et, con~gg the structures are existing and both sites are at maxim~::~i~iii~i~th resp~!i~!::~.~3ng and setbacks. Considering that the trash enclo~i~ located"~?~..draina~ utility easement, staff recommends a "Use of Pu~::~asement agree~t be s~gned and recorded by the apphcant (as amended ~n l~on 98-01PC). R~lution 98-01 PC and 98-02 PC include the condition that the fence 6~hgtinuous with::~6 breaks, the landscaping and screening be completed as in revised t~i~d that ~'ing be completed as previously approved. Due to lack of~nt information the variance request to berm slope should be denied. The applicant iaii~0posing to construct a 6' high fence. The applicant has verbally stated their intent to withdraw the variance request for an 8' fence, however, staff has not received this request in writing. The Planning Commission should also deny this request based on lack of hardship if a written request for withdrawal is not received. l:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn022398.doc 14 Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: The applicant has exceed the recommendation of the berm and screening height. Support the two foot variance request. · Opposed to the condition on the variance of the trash enclosure - there are other places on the Burdick property to locate the enclosure. The neighbors ~O~Ot need a in their back yard. .~::~i::i!?:~:? dumpster · Question for Mr. Kelly regarding the 3 to 1 slope. The intentl~ was t~::i~thdraw the 3 to 1 berm height. Kelly stated the berm was in fact 2 t~:?~i~i?:~::/.~.i?~i~. · Tovar explained the landscape codes. She also stated.~::~i~g plan of 2 approved. The variance is not needed ..... ~!::i~i::::::~ .:~!::::~ .... Criego: %::" ================================= ..... ~:: i!i::~ .... · Went out to the site and observed the berm, string, h~!!!~d setting. The best we can do with a 6 foot fence is that you, ate not going to se~tI of the buildings, only the rooftop. With the berm you won '~!ii~:.~ cars or lights??~?~iii~ii~ii::?:~ii::::iiiili: · Agreed with staff on the continuous f¢~::~ii~i~tt[:of being br~ in two parts. · Concern for the trash enclosure. But ht~[:ofth~?~i!g~mtai~{~r has been there for many years. Not sure the o~r half wili!i~:h~::::~oo r~i~ference. · Regarding the two foot~.:g~qili~..There ~ii~nly two points that go beyond 2 feet. · Tovar explained the..~lutio~i~-02ec re~gnqes Exhibit B which shows the two points, not across..~:board var~ce for the ~!~ng. · With the adjust~?:~..and ~:~l~::.~::::~hould be approved. van~:.se![l~ack hardship has been met. · Th~::::i~iice heigli~::~::~t'eet is ~ii~:"vafiance plan. Tovar explained it would have to .~!i~lded. ':~ii~i~}i~ ::?:::ii::~ .... · .?~ ......... concern for the:::!~sh enclosure. The only reason for leaving it there is if it is s~:~!!at extensive ~!?~hove. It is not a hardship. Cannot vote to approve the trash enc 1;:~.~::.a:~.: c los e..:.:~:.:.:..t~!~hvate property. · Asked staff:i~i~i~e landscape for Building #3 has to be done within a year. Tovar said there is no deadline but could make a condition for both buildings. Criego: · Concern for fencing around the trash enclosures. Tovar pointed out the landscape plan on the overhead. · Eldon Hugelen, the landscape architect, explained the trash enclosure plan starting out planting 8 foot arbiviateas growing to 20 feet. · The buildings are blocked off up to the roof. 1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\nm022398.doc 15 · Questioned garbage pick up times. Rye said the current ordinance does not regulate times in commercial and industrial areas. · Should be changed near residential areas. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMEND APPROVAL GRANTING RESOLUTION 98-01PC WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF A 7 1/2 FOOT CONTINUOUS PRIVACY FENCE ALONG SIDE THE T~g:.. ENCLOSURE IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT G .... C ER ADDED ADDITIONAL CONDITION TWT BE COMPLETED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE LETTER OF C~IT E~S FOR Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIEI~:~i:? MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY 98-02PC GRANTING A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED R .... Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTI~i~:~:~!~D. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CONTAINER BE LEFT Discussion by Co oners: ..~?:~? Criego: · We hav~.:.~g~..much'~[~ii~an to fence, berm and cover up. City Council will deal · .,!!ii?.~i3iii~¢etm~,~,: is too close. ~re are other options. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to ~}:~ge enclosure~i~ay from the property. It is screened. MOTION BY 8yAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION BASED ON FINDINGS. Vote taken 2 ayes, 1 nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained to the public the 5 day appeal process. Harry Ray, 5726 West 98 1/2 Street, Bloomington, jumped up, waved his arms and shouted he was appalled the residents did not have the right to speak. He did not realize l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn022398.doc 16 the public hearing was closed several weeks ago. He felt there are still many things to be discussed by the neighbors. The City Manager assured them there would be an ordinance relating to the garbage proposed to the Council. The second issue is the drainage runoff. The residents expected the right to be heard and want justice. Mike Marxens, 14231 Timothy Avenue, questioned the city code states parking lots should be 25 feet fi.om residential area. Tovar stated it was 20 feet and the. i~t~licant was in compliance. ..::~i!??ili!i~?:ii~ili ::i ::::ii? June ehillipp, 14211 Timothy Avenue, asked if there is going to b~::i~i~g wall in her back yard. She is assuming there will be a retaining wall behind:~lding~}'" ~ '"""'"' !~ovar will give her a copy of the plan ..... ~!::::::~::::. '~i?~ii~¢i~: '::~::::ii!~?~?~?~i?:~ .... 6. New Business: .... ~::i? .... .. "~!}iiii!i}? The Commissioners briefly discussed the .:~iiii!~iiii?i?i!iiiiii!i~iiiii~?~.. · The training session has been scheduled for March 31 · There was a short discussion on the · The zoning ordinance · Enforcement o f ordinances is a concer~ii~iiii::: ':~ii!~ 7. Announcements an~::!~ponden~~ .... ':~:: ? 8. Adj ou rnment :::?:::ii?' ':iiiiiiii!?~:' Dir e~i:~ f P lanning"::~:'ii}}}i}ii}:i:i: i;::ii}:i¢iii¢ .... Recording Secretary fire hall. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXtnn022398.doc PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program None Donald Rye, Planning Director YES x NO-N/A March 9, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At the joint meeting with the City Council 2 years ago, Commission members expressed a desire to become involved with the Capital Improvement Program development process. The Council agreed that this was an appropriate role for the Commission. BACKGROUND: Attached is a summary of the 1998-2002 CD report including maps of the locations of major projects. Typically, projects which are not constructed in the current year are carried over to a subsequent year. In some cases, projects are dropped from the CIP if it becomes apparent that there is no need for the project or that another project may achieve the same goals. DISCUSSION: The summary describes the CIP process and the financing sources available to the City in completing the projects. As always, the primary constraint on developing capital facilities is the availability of money. At present, the largest issue facing the City in terms of capital projects is the financial commitment required to planned and programmed County road improvements. During 1996 and 1997, the City's share of County road projects is expected to be $1,125,000. This is approximately 1/3 of the total City capital expenditures during this 2 year period. Recognizing that there are real monetary constraints on projects, the job of the Planning Commission is to review the projects proposed in the current CIP,' decide whether they make sense from the perspective of community planning and development and make specific recommendations concerning either programmed projects or projects not currently in the CIP which the Commission feels would better achieve goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission does not need to feel constra'med to restrict its consideration only to those projects contained in the current CIP. Any recommendations for changes to the CIP should indicate what particular goal or policy in the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced by the recommended project. The thing to keep in mind is that all projects are competing for a limited amount of money and the CIP will be limited to those projects having the highest priority. Docum~nt2/DR 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 487-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Included in your material is a time schedule for adoption of the CIP. As you can see, the time available for review is limited. Please give this your careful attention prior to the meeting. ACTION REOU1RED: Motion to recommend changes in projects and priorities as the Commission determines Document2/DR 2 CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY 1998 CIP PROJECTS Project Description Fire Department 1. BunkerTumout Gear 2. Signal Light Control Signal Project Amount 6,500.00 10,500.00 Park Department [DeveloPment) 3. Backstop (Sand Point Park) 4. Ponds Athletic Complex Picnic Sheltem 5. Park Appurtenant Equipment 6. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds 7. Community Park improvements 8, Ponds Athletic Complex Field Expansion (.Trails) 9. Knob Hill Public Works (Buildinos/Plant) 10. GIS Base Map 11. Lift Station Renovation (Imorovements) 12. Duluth Avenue Street Reconstruction 5,000.00 6,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00 182,000.00 18,000.00 80,000.00 88,000.00 445,000.00 800,000.00 1,015,000.00 13. CSAH 23 Realignment 14. Pleasant/Colorado Street Reconstruction Water Resources (Imorovements} 15. Fish Point Park Channel Stabiliza6on 16. Sunset Hills Pond Storm Sewer Realignment 17. Cates/Dutch Avenue Channel Stabilization Totals ... Financing Source Summary Project Tax Levy Operating Budget Storm Water Utility Fund Capital Park Fund Trunk Reserve Fund Municipal State Aid Fund Special Assessments Intergovernmental To~ls... Financing 6,500.00 10,500.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00 182,000.00 18,000.00 80,000.00 88,000.00 City Cost Tax Impact Dollar Percentaoe c.p. c.p. c.p. c.p. c.p. c.p. 167,000.00 3.65 0.61% 178,000.00 s.a. 100,000.00 m.s,a. 50,000.00 s.a, 340,000.00 m.s.a. 410,000.00 i.g. 609,000.00 13.32 2.24% 406,000.00 s.a. 6,000.00 6,000.00 s.w. 11,000.00 11,000.00 s.w. 30.000.00 30.000.00 s.w. 2,803,000.00 2,803,000.00 Project Amount Tax Impact Dollar ~ $16.97 2.85% 776,000.00 17,000.00 47,000.00 311,000.00 168,000.00 440,000~00 634,000.00 410.000.00 2,803,000.00 -16- CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY 1999 CIP PROJECTS Project Description Project Amount Fire Department 1. Bunker Turnout Gear 2. Signal Light Control Signal 6,500.00 10,500.00 Park Department (Development) 3. Park Appurtenant Equipment 4. Community Park Improvements 5. Sand Point Beach Parking Lot Lighting 5. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds (Trails) 6. Park Playgrounds Resilient Surfacing 7. Fish Point & Sand Point Parks 10,000.00 15,000.00 18,000.00 24,000.00 10,000.00 93,500.00 Public Worke (Buildinqs/Plant) 8. Lift Station Renovation (Improvements) 9. Street Sealcoating 10. Candy Cove Reconstruction 761000.00 65,000.00 900,000.00 11. CSAH 42 (CSAH 21 to western city limits) 2,385,000.00 Water Resources (Improvements) 12. Center Road Water Quality Pond 13. Cates Stmat Dam 14. Storm Sewer Outlet Dredging 15. Storm Water Pond Dredging 16. Catch Basins Replacement Financing Source Summary Project Tax Levy Operating Budget Storm Water Utility Fund Capital Park Fund Trunk Reserve Fund Special Assessments Intergovernmental 5,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 Totale ,.. 3,663,500.00 Project Amount 805,000.00 17,000.00 50,000~00 170,500.00 261,000.00 360,000.00 2,000,000.00 Totale ... 3,663,500.00 Financing 6,500.00 10,500.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 18,000.00 24,000.00 10,000.00 93,500.00 76,000.00 City Cost Tax Impact Dollar Percentaqe c.p. c.p. c.p. c.p. c.p. 65,000.00 1.40 0.23% 540,000.00 11.50 1.89% 360,000.00 200,000.00 4.30 0.70% 185,000.00 t.r. 2,000,000.00 i.g. 5,000.00 s.w. 10,000.00 s.w. 10,000.00 s.w. 10,000.00 s.w. 15,000.00 s.w. 3,663,500.00 Tax Impact Dollar Pementage $17.30 2.82% -17- CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 CIP PROJECTS Project Description Project Amount Fire Department 1. BunkerTumout Gear 2. Signal Light Control Signal 6,000.00 6,500.00 Park Department (Development) 3. Park Appurtenant Equipment 4. Community Park Improvements 5. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds 10,000.00 15,000.00 24,000.00 Public Works (Buildinos/Plant ) 6. Lift Station Renovation (Improvements} 7. Trunk Watarmain (CSAH 21 to CSAH 42) 8. Street Sealcoating 9. Fish Point Road/Fairlawn Shores Trail/150th 81,000.00 115,000,00 65,000.00 1,260,000.00 10. Oak Ridge/Pixie Point Reconstruction 900,000.00 Water Resources (Imorovements) 11. Cates Street Dam (Phase II) 12. Catch Basins Replacement 13. Storm Water Pond Dredging Financing Source Summary Project Tax Levy Operating Budget Storm Water Utility Fund Capital Park Fund Trunk Reserve Fund Municipal State Aid Fund Special Assessments Financing 6,000.00 6,500.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 24,000.00 81,000.00 City Cost Tax Impact Dollar Percentaoe c.p. c.p. 115,000.00 t.r. 65,000.00 1.37 0.22% 504,000.00 s.a 756,000.00 m.s.a 540,000.00 11.40 1.81% 360,000.00 s.a. 10,000.00 10,000.00 s.w. 15,000.00 15,000.00 s.w. 20.000.00 20.000.00 s,w. Totals ... 2,527,500.00 2,527,500.00 Project Amount Tax Impact Dollar Percentaoe $12.77 2.03% 605,000.00 12,500.00 45,000.00 49,000.00 196,000.00 756,000.00 864.000~00 Totals... 2,527,500.00 -18- CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY 2001 CIP PROJECTS Project Description Fire Department 1. BunkerTumout Gear 2. Signal Light Control Signal Park Department (Develgf~ment) 3. Park Appurtenant Equipment 4. Community Park Improvements 5. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds Public Works (Buildinas & Plant) 6. Telemetry System/SCADA (Imcrovements) 7. Trunk Watermain (CSAH 21 to the Wilds) 8. Trunk Watermain (west or CSAH 21 along CSAH 42) 9. Street Sealcoating 10. Carriage Hills Road (Knob Hill east extension) 11. 170th Street Realignment Project Amount 7,000.00 6,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 26,000.00 415,000.00 45,000.00 115,000.00 65,000.00 175,000.00 700,000.00 12. Fish Point Road Street Reconstruction 13. Shady Beach Trail Street Reconstruction 440,000.00 745,000.00 Water Resources (ImDrqv~rnents) 14. CSAH23/T.H.13 Water Quality Pond 15. Catch Basins Replacement 16. Storm Water Pond Dredging Financing Source Summary Project Tax Levy Operating Budget Storm Water Utility Fund Capital Perk Fund Trunk Reserve Fund Municipal State Aid Fund Special Assessments Intergovernmental Financing 7,000.00 6,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 26,000.00 415,000.00 City Cost Tax Impact Dollar Percentaoe c.p. c.p. 45,000.00 t.r. 115,000.00 t.r. 65,000.00 1,34 0.21% 175,000.00 m.s.a. 200,000.00 m.s.a. 200,000.00 s.a. 300,000.00 i.g. 264,000.00 5.43 0.85% 176,000.00 s.a 447,000.00 9.19 t.43% 298,000.00 s.a. 8,000.00 8,000.00 s.w. 15,000.00 15,000.00 s.w. 20.000.00 20.000.00 s.w, 2,802,500.00 Totals ... 2,802,500.00 Project Amount 776,000.00 13,500.00 43,000.00 46,000.00 575,000.00 375,000.00 674,000~0 300.000.00 Totals ... 2,802,500.00 Tax Impact Dollar Percentaae $15.96 2.49% -19- CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY 2002 CIP PROJECTS Project Description Fire Department 1. BunkerTumout Gear 2. Signal Light Control Signal 3. Satellite Fire Station Park Department [Develooment) 4. Park Appurtenant Equipment 5. Community Park Improvements 6. Neighborhood Park Playgrounds Public Works (Buildinos & Plant} 7. Water Filtration Plant {Imorovement~) 8. Condon/Gateway Shores Street Reconstruction Project Amount 8,000.00 6,500.00 750,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 28,000.00 5,000,000.00 1,180,000.00 Water Resources (Imorovements~ 9. Catch Basins Replacement 10. Storm Water Pond Dredging Financing Source Summary Project Tax Levy Operating Budget Storm Water Utility Fund Capital Park Fund Special Assessments Referendum Bonds Revenue Bonds Totals ... Totals ... Financing 8,000.00 6,500.00 750,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 28,000.00 City Cost Tax Impact c.p. c.p. 5,000,000.00 rev. 708,000.00 14.28 2.17% 472,000.00 s.a, 15,000.00 15,000.00 s.w. 25.000.00 25.000.00 s.w. 7,032,500.00 Tax Impact Dollar Percentaoe $14.28 2.17% 7,032,500.00 Project Amount 708,000.00 14,500.00 40,000.00 48,000.00 472,000.00 750,000.00 5,000.000.00 7,032,500.00 -20- Prior Lake 1999-2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Timetable & Process for Completion March 2, 1998 Finance distribution of completion schedule, CIP forms, and cover instructions to departments. March 6, 1998 Administration distributes current CIP document to all advisory committee members. March 9-27, 1998 Advisory committees review their portion or the ~-_ current CIP to suggest project priorities. April 6, 1998 Departments return completed CIP project forms to Finance. April 13-17, 1998 Finance/Engineering compiles preliminary CIP ........ ~ * ~:?~ ........... ~::::: :::~ ........ ] project worksheets. April 20-24, 1998 City Manager & Finance reviews draft CIP with department heads for priority, rank and year I designation. May 4-8, 1998 5:30 p.m. Finance finalizes and distributes the draft 1999-2003 Workshop : CIP to Council, departments and advisory committees. May 18, 1998 City Council conducts informational hearing on 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Program, receives advisory committee recommendations and adopts CIP if appropriate