HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
Case #98-057 Jim Ruzicka is requesting a .46 foot variance to permit a 49.54 lot
width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet and a 34 foot variance to
permit a setback from the top of the bluffof47 feet rather than the required setback of
81 feet for the property at 16099 Northwood Road.
Case #98-052 Tom Vidmar is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake instead of the required 50
feet for the property located at 4307 Grainwood Circle.
Case #98-048 Consider Amendment to City Code and Zoning Ordinance relat'mg
to the engineering certification requirements for building permit applications on
properties determined to have a bluff.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-048 (continued) James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious
surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 E~et~re[t~ ~ve. ~.,~flrior~a~e, M nnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 11, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The May 11, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by
Stamson at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners
and Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator
Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent ....
Kuykendall Pr e s ent=:?=~ii~!iii~iii'
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
' ' a ' ' "i~i:: ...... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Correction: Page 3, third paragr ph Cnego '~i::ii~....::?:ii::i~ ........
The Minutes
corrected.
Planner
meeting were approved as
A. Case
foot side
is requesting a 2 foot variance to permit an 8
of an attached garage on property
; Report dated May 11, 1998 on file in the
Cie
The Planni~gp~t received a variance application from John Beaupre proposing
to construct an"~d garage to an existing house. The proposed garage will be setback
59.2 feet from ~:'front property line, 5 feet from the southerly side lot line and 8 feet
from the northerly side lot line. This lot is a substandard lot. Section 5-4-1 of the City
Code requires side yard setbacks to be 10 feet; however, substandard lots can maintain
one side yard setback of 5 feet, as long as a minimum separation of 10 feet is maintained
on the adjacent lot. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance of 2' to the required
side yard setback.
The applicant will also need a variance to driveway setback. Section 5-5-5 requires a
minimum 5 foot side yard setback for driveways. The applicant is proposing to pave the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn051198.doc
existing driveway, which is 10 feet wide, centered on the front lot line. The front lot line
is 16.7 feet wide. This results in-a side yard setback of 3.35 feet for each side of the
driveway. Therefore, a 1.65 foot variance to driveway setback (for each side of the
driveway) is required. The proposed driveway setbacks are based on a verbal
conversation with the applicants surveyor, Allan Hastings (4/30/98). A revised survey
indicating these dimensions will be required.
Lot 12, Lakeside Park was platted in 1921. The property is located with[~ii~::l and
the Shoreland district. There is no bluff on the property and the
located out of the flood plain. The impervious surface coverage
The applicant is in the process of pumhasing this lot and does 'the
adjacent parcels. The legal building envelope is
variance was granted to allow a 9 foot setback on the
setback from the north property line for an addition
this request.
Staff concluded the ordinance criteria have been met.
the hardships pertaining to the lot. '%~::'
Criego asked if it was in the bluffarea. ~[i~:ii~o an expI~g:ed the elevations.
Comments from the public:
John Beaupre, 4251 Quak~ff~ii::~ said he ~g not have anything to add to Tovar's
comments and stated h~ld lik~[i~:have a g~ge,
Ku ykend all L ::::::::::~ ................ '::~ ::~ ~:~?~?:~
· Reasgg~i~::::~}~::..Tov~:~i~.request and setbacks.
· A~a with staf~:~nsisteni'::~i~'~;~: cu~ent setback ~om house. No o~er issues.
Crlego ================?=?====== = ....
· ¢on g"with taff.
Cramer:
· A~eed with Crmer. H~dsMp met.
s no control over
Stamson:
· Generally opposes variances for garage structures unless there is absolutely no other
legal alternatives, then only for the minimal mount. In this case, both issues have
been met.
· In favorofrequest.
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn051198.doc
Kuykendall:
· Supports the two car garage because it is consistent with setbacks from the existing
house not because they could not live adequately with a one car garage.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-13PC
GRANTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 8 FOOT SIDE
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET;
TO PERMIT DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 3.35 FEET INSTEAD ~
5 FEET. ALSO ADD THE
A.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-040 (continued) Eagle Creek Villas,
variance to permit a 62.46 foot setback from the center
(Franklin Trail) instead of the re a 1.2
coverage of 21.2 percent rather than
Planner Jeuni Tovar presented the
office of the City Planner.
REQUIRED
EXHIBIT
a 22.45 foot
a County Road
to lot
allowed o iercent.
1998 on file in the
The Planning
until May 11, 1998,
original request
Trail, and 1.2%
since revised
rathe:
· 13, 1998 and continued discussion
would be present. The
e centerline of Franklin
The applicant has
of Franklin Trail at 72 feet
the proposal does not
plan can be modified to meet all ordinance
for the applicants, stated this parcel is unique because it is
bordered by two county roads. The problem is not the owners'. The setbacks are 85 feet
from the center line. It is a substantial increase in the normal right-of-way which tums
out to be a 25% reduction in building area. The County has offered to turn County Road
39 (Franklin Trail) over to the City. Once this is complete, the road will be a re'mot
collector street with setbacks less than 85 feet, therefore, a variance would not be
required. The applicants feel, with respect to the variance from County Road 39, the
County will tender the road to the City, and the Planning Commission should evaluate the
matter under that transfer. Under the lot coverage issue in the ordinance, townhouses can
l:\98flles\98plcomm\pcnfm~rm051198.doc
have 20% coverage, multi-family dwellings can have 30% coverage. These buildings
have townhouse qualities but will be considered condominiums. This lot would easily
conform to 8 townhomes. Huemoeller quoted Rowell vs. City of Moorhead case.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego: :ii?:?:::~i~
· Questioned the County proposing to turn the road over to the City. ~::i~i::~:t is not
a done deal and has been going on for a few years ..... ?:iii::ii::::ii::i
· Was there some discussion at the last meeting regarding the
responded one cannot evaluate a variance request based on wfi~{!'may ~ii~ not
happen. ?::?:~iiiiii ::~::::?iiii!i~!;:~. '~::ii!ii!i~iiiii~iiii~ ....
· Kansier said under the proposed ordinance, the setback!i~:~:~:::~ street
feet and the ground floor area ratio would be 35%...::~,iiii?~ .........
· This is an adequate use of the property. Two bui~I~gs wili::~d:a better look
property.
There ~s a future possxNhty Frankhn Trml may becom*~a~mty street.
· The proposed ordinance will probably.raake this an acce~¢l~.use.
· Allow the hardship to carry because d~i~::dual county roaa~!ii~iiiili~!iiii~!::ili~i::ii!i
· Agreed with Criego that it looks like a g~d.:~¢elop~i?
· However, the hardship .i~i~!~p the desi:~.
· Reasonable use can ~!~i~ade o'~i~s propert~!!~:a 6 unit town_home would be better.
Kuykendall:
· Kansier and Tovar exp~.the setbacks.
· If the g~ii~!in Traili::~i!i}~ing~:to be a minor collector street it is low volume.
· It i~ii~ii::~asonabig~i~ii::::but not~!iiiii~{ it has not happened yet (road transfer). There are
..~g~onable alternati~}:: ,~ii::~
o.:i::iiiiii::::i~{l~ is no hardship.:?iiiiiii!ii
· Tl~i!~geloper shoulc~ii~ait until the changes take place.
· Unfo~l~!y ther~ii~ two jurisdictions.
· Support ~{~sm~endation.
Tovar pointed 0~t under the proposed ordinance this would not be a permitted use.
Stamson:
· Does not believe the existing ordinance denies potential development.
· There is plenty of space to create other designs that would work.
· Opposed to granting variances.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn051198.doc
4
Open discussion:
Criego:
· Other applicants have had two frontages and this is no different.
· What would be better, apartments or townhomes?
Cramer:
· There are apartments next door right now.
· Make a decision on what is before the Commission today.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO
RESOLUTION 98-11PC DENYING 62.46
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER.LINE OF
TRAIL) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT
SETBACK REQUEST 72.00 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET AND A 1.29 ~ TO
PERMIT LOT COVERAGE OF 21.2 % RATHER THAN
ALLOWED OF 20%.
Vote taken signified ayes by Cramer, Ku~dai~:"~?~[~g:~:: ~:hy by Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the a e.
B. Case
relating to the
to the Zoning Ordinance
g District.
file i:
he Planning Report dated May 11, 1998 on
~mmission reviewed a request to allow gymnastic
District. It was the consensus of the Planning
2onditional use in the B-P district.
this request to allow staffto address the conditions
Commission.
The app ginal proposal would have included gymnastic schools as a permitted
use in the B-P District. However, the Planning Commission felt this use was more
appropriate as a conditional use. The Conunission also suggested the standards for
maximum floor area occupied by the use, hours of operation and required parking must
be addressed before the amendment proceeds to the City Council.
Maximum Floor Area: The Planning Commission suggested the maximum floor area
for these uses be limited to 3,000 square feet. The effect of this limitation is that any
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcminknm051198.doc 5
gynmastic school established in the B-P District will remain relatively small. Larger
operations will be required to relocate.
Hours of Operation: The applicants indicated the general hours of operation for the
existing facility are evenings and weekends. The Planning Commission members felt by
limiting the use to these hours, there would be less interference with the business park
operation. Suggested hours of operation are 5:00 PM to
Friday, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Saturday and Sunday.
of the gynmastic facility even when school is not in session. The will also
have less impact on the business o1: a third shift.
Required Parking: The Planning Commission suggested
provided for this use, which equals one~
area. One important fact to remember here is that the d
spaces in the B-P District was intended for industria
require far less parking than other business uses.
school will eliminate parking available for the
third shift.
be
of
us ::i}ii gese uses t
,arki~ii~ the gymnastic
;' in the event of a
If approved, the following language shou:i~i~iii~rated into gi~i~n 6.15 (D)
(Conditional Uses in the B-P District) of tli~i~oi~l~iii~a~ce;,
7. Gymnastics Schools
of. floor area in the
5:00 PM to 11:00t
Saturda)
.floor area is
shared parking
~i~ore than 3,000 square feet
limited are limited to
and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on
'quare feet of
not to be combined or
,ss park.
The staff
Crie
Kuykendall re~'background on the issue. Tovar
situation. :~ii~i~ ....
While gymnastic schools are
District is not designed or intended for
owed'~fi the other commercial districts in the City.
parking. Tovar said the impact of use was discussed. The
all~ shared parking.
explained the problems and
There were no comments from the applicant. The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn051198.doc
Cramer:
· Questioned if the conditional use in this case would be reviewed on an annual basis.
Kansier said it can be, but as long as they are meeting the conditions the use would be
allowed to continue.
· Concera for parking.
· Trying to make this situation work. Value to the community.
· There are enough limitations to make this work and yet provide this
program until they can find a more suitable place for the school.
· Support the amendment.
· Feels it is
little'
Stamson:
· This is a valuable use for the community, however this ~
an industrial park. The increase in traffic, the
of the industrial area does not lend
· There was a lot of past
appropriately.
· Part of my concern is granting variances like this,
natural market which we are relying to:.create the~
· Having second thoughts on this amend~eri~:ii~ii~gc~n this
Criego:
· ; was gen~ted to dete~ a way to allow the use to stay
with the industrial park, evening use,
ase permit can be reviewed annually.
the industrial park at their cost?
insure this stays in Prior Lake.
This would fit
's undercutting the
wants in
would like
are located. Rye explained Waterfront Passage,
Road 42; The Comprehensive Plan designates other areas
· jacent to the Business Park, this feels different than an
Industrial Park.
· Different from industrial areas in Burnsville where traffic is a real problem. The
roadway system here is not congested.
· If there is dancing in the library why can't there be gymnastics in the business park?
· Maybe the City should be looking at a structure to make this happen.
· Ideally this would not be in a business park. Would like to address this as a
temporary use.
· Encourage the applicant to work with the City Council for downtown space.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn051198.doc 7
· Hold to ordinance.
· Agree with staff and deny the applicant the proposed change.
· Recommend the City Council investigate some temporary use. It is not for the
Planning Commission to decide.
Open Discussion:
.:iiiiiii::ii::~i~[:~ ......
Criego explained discussions from the last meeting. The reason the PI~
Commission limited the use at the last meeting was to allow it with ~ions. This
body has to have a human element into it. If the Planning Conm~i:~":~n't do
g h City i ~ty ....
somethin ere the s going to lose a great asset to the co
Cramer recalled P.L.A.Y. ran the program and dropped i~::ii~:::~iicant tried
resurrect the program on their own. There was a defi~i[~i?:ihtere~?y the communi~ii?
Agreed with Criego it is a valuable asset ..... ~::iiii~i!i!i!:::~ .... ======================= ':~?'
Kuykendall does not believe we should change the entir;::~ce f~r one issue. The
City Council should deal with the issue. Do not use a band2:~i~i~Proach.
Stamson questioned the ordinance allowi~:i~iii:~rary verbiag~ii!iiii?:i~ye said there,,is a
section in the State Planning Statutes that ~b~id;~:~i:i~ga,:.js ~fi~d Interim Uses .
That would entail a zoning ordinance amen~en~::i~$'~ st~::~i::~ have to do work on that
and bring it back, have headgg~iii~::~i,l~at and e~iish what~r procedure for what might
happen. Rye said he does.~:i~i~y comm~ty that has worked with it.
Criego questioned ~i:i~ould th~i:~M by allowing?gymnastics. It can't wait. All that
needs to be done is:~"~ii~:gs~:~t~iii~i~:::.::~i~!~i's not unusual, many cities do it on a
regular basis. '::~iii??~iii}iii?~ii!ii~ii!!!~ .............. :::::::¥::: *:*:::::::::::?::::::?:::: ....
Stamson~::~?~!igl~arly d~ii~et the intent. It is not being fine tuned. Felt there
are pr...o.~ms with e~i~g. Sp~g~:~ wording could be used for gymnastics and not
jusl~i~i~bs in general. ':~i!~i?~iiiiii}~ ,~i~ ....
MOTi'~igX CRIEG%~i~COND BY CRAMEP., RECOMMENDING THE
A~E~r~ AS M~Bn~mr> IN ITeM 7 WITH ~m~ ADmT~ON~d~ WOP,.DINa
STATING ~&$$iC SCHOOLS ARE UNIQUE IN THE REQUIREMENT OF
SUBSTANT~i~i~iLrNG HEIGHT. REMOVE THE SECOND "ARE L~M~TED"
AND MODIF¥iii~HE LAST SENTENCE TO READ "THE MINIMLrlVl PARKING
REQUIREMENT FOR GYMNASTIC SCHOOLS SHALL NOT BE COMBINED OR
SHARED PARKING WITH OTHER USES IN THE BUSINESS PARK."
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson and Cramer. Nay by Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #98-048 (continued) James Nerison is requesting variances for
impervious surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
l:\98files\98pl¢omm\pcmin~nn051198.doc
On April 27, 1998, the Planning Comanission continued the discussion on this request
until May 11, 1998, in order to allow the staffto gather additional information. On May
4, 1998, the applicant submitted a letter requesting the item be continued until the May
26, 1998, meeting due to scheduling conflicts on his part.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRA/VIER TO CONTINUE TO 6, 1998.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case #98-056 (continued) Consider a two foot setl
monument sign for Nordqmst Signs on behalf of Park Nl~!~t:~hmc.
:?:~,i.~i::~ ................... ~.
On April 30, 1998, the Pl~ng Depment received ~$~er ~ Nordquist
wi~awing ~e requested v~ces. No action wa~::::~ired.
6. New Business: "~::~}~?:::~:~?~ .........
7. Announcements and Correspo~gg~:
Zoning Ordin~ce workshop dates ~e Ma~gy~':'~}~.2~J~?* ....
Kuykendall ~d Cfiego will ~?:~:&~le to att~:he Domg~ Steering Co~iuee
meeting May 21. S t mso~::~fl~:::~:m ~e it. :~::~¢~.
There was a brief disg~)on on th~?ainbow Fo4 ::hevelopm t on Co~ty Road 42.
........ ~.~:?~?:?:::~::?? ......... ~:~}~::~ .....
The m~et~g~j:~:gt 7:5
Direc~l~ng ::~?;? Recording Secret~
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnm051198.doc 9
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND BLUFF
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR JIM RUZICKA, Case File
#98-057
16099 NORTHWOOD ROAD ~
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER,.~-~r
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
MAY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jim Ruzicka who
is proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family
residence. The lot is 49.54 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. Because the City Code does not
specify what measurement distances are in, the setbacks and other numerical
ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the existing lot width at the
front yard setback is less than 50 feet and requires a variance. No specific
house plans have been drawn up at this time. The lot is located in the
Northwood subdivision on Prior Lake.
There is a bluff on the property. The proposed structure is located 47 feet from
the top of bluff, rather than the required 81 feet. The 81 foot setback is
determined where the grade of the slope becomes less than 18%. Therefore, a
34 foot variance is required.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 89, Northwood was platted in 1911. The property is located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) districts. 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
Size Requirement to Variance
be Buildable Requested
(as a substandard lot)
Area 22,535 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet N/A
(above 904 el)
Lot Width 49.54 feet 50.00 feet .46 feet
(measured at setback)
OHW Width 50.20 feet N/A N/A
(approx.)
The survey indicates several easements including a private driveway easement
serving the adjacent property to the south (Lot 88), a 10 foot wide private water
service easement serving the property to the south (Lot 88), and a 15 foot wide
sanitary sewer easement held by the City. Exhibit B indicates the location of the
easements.
The building envelope (Exhibit C), exclusive of any easements, consists of five
separate portions of land. The largest portions are approximately 49 feet by 20
feet (980 square feet) and 14 feet by 160 feet (2240 square feet). The DNR has
not commented on this request.
Considering the private water easement does not serve the property to the north
(Lot 90), it could be relocated to the south side of Lot 89 or on the lot it serves,
Lot 88. This would result in a buildable area of approximately 75 feet by 29 feet
wide (2,175 square feet) that meets all of the required setbacks (Exhibit D).
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
existing condition. There is a hardship with respect to the property because
those dimensions cannot be changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance.
The hardship related to literal enforcement of the bluff ordinance is
dependent upon the removal of the private water service line. Reasonable
use of the property cannot exist without relocating the existing private water
easement.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
L:~98FILES\98VAR\98-057~98-057PC.DOC Page 2
The unique circumstances are the lot width, topography and the location of
private and public easements. Considering lot width is an existing condition
created in 1911 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance requirements,
hardship does exist for lot width. The properly was originally platted as 50
feet. The property owner of the adjacent Lot 88 was the previous owner of
Lot 89. The private easements were a result of the separate development of
Lot 88 in 1974.
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. While the lot area is 22,535 sq. feet,
the lot width is only 49.54 at the required front setback. These are conditions
which have been existing since the property was platted in 1911. The lot
width is a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's actions. The
applicant purchased the property in 1994 with the easements as indicated on
the survey. The easements are not a result of actions by the applicant.
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 is to allow for a structure that can
meet the required setbacks and still be of a reasonable size. Considering
there is an existing cabin on the lot and there are structures on adjacent lots
with similar lot widths, granting the lot width variance observes the spirit and
intent of the ordinance and is not contrary to the public interest. Considering
the existing cabin is set back closer to the lake than the proposed house and
that the recently adopted bluff ordinance requires an engineers approval
relating to slope stability and soil conditions, the granting of the bluff variance
may not be contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission feels it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate the
private water service line serving the adjacent Lot 88, then the legal building
envelope would appear to be of reasonable size. In this case, staff should be
directed to prepare a resolution of denial with findings. On the other hand, if the
Planning Commission feels hardship exists on the lot as it exists, and the
variance criteria are met, then staff should be directed to prepare a resolution
approving the variances. In either case, staff has concluded the variance
request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the
applicant has no control over.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-057~98-057PC.DOC Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. Direct
staff to prepare a resolution approving variance to lot width and bluff setback.
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. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staffto prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second giving staff the desired direction.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-057\98-057PC.DOC Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE II,~(! /~PR 'il"'
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To b~ Submltled wilh Building Pe~il Application) ~' '
For All Prope~ies Located in the Shoreland Distri0t
The Ms,mum Imperious Surface Coverage Pertained in 30 Percent;
Lot Area '7-~-- I ~"x°S Sq, Feet x 30% = ..............
LENGTH WIDTH SQ, FEET
HOUSE ~, qq. x ZO = _~i~,~
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.. ........ , ...........
· -'~x '7_._0 -1~
~.q x I ,~, . 'Z.'--tO
TOTAL'DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
~AREAS ~.'2.'~ x q.. - 7,. t ~ p,_ ~
--(firlv~.wiy-p~or not) ~ I x , ~ = t ~ o~
(Sidewal~king Areas) ~ X ~ = ~
TOT~ PAVgD A~AS ................. ; .......................
PATIOSWORCHES~ECKS . x =
bo~d~, wRh a ~lou~ ~ug~c~ below,
X
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
~q. x "1 = ~
TOTAL' OTHER .......................................................
TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Date Q.- V'I -~%
Phone #~.~k~.~
0
U.I
NOTE: THIS IS A REMINDER NOTICE. NOTICES WERE SENT ON APRIL
30TH AND MAY 1ST, 1998.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A .46 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA 49.54 LOT WIDTHAT THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET; AND
A 34 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMITA SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF OF 47 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 81
FEET
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-I (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND
THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16099
NORTHWOOD ROAD.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE
(Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Tuesday,
May 26, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Jim Ruzicka
16099 Northwood Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY Same
OWNER:
SUBJECT SITE:
16099 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 89,
Northwood, Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicant is intending to remove the existing structure
and build a single family house with detached garage. The
new house will meet all other setbacks and impervious
surface coverage. A house plan has not been finalized at
this time. The existing lot of record is 49.54 feet wide at the
front yard setback rather than the required 50 feet. The lot
consists of 22,535 square feet. The proposed house is to be
located 47 feet from the top of bluff rather than the required
81 foot setback from the top of bluff.
L \g8E LES\g8VAR\98=057\g8-057PN DOC
16200 Ea~]Te Cree~ A'Je.%'.E.,~'rior ~.ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variances with respect to the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written
comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed
construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-
listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 30, 1998, Revised meeting date notice sent May 1, 1998,
Reminder notices sent May 13, 1998.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-057\98-057PN.DOC 2
0~0bI O00MHJ.~ON
Monday, April 20, 1998
Planning Department
c/o Jenni Tovar
City of Pdor Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
From:
Jim Ruzicka
16099 Northwond Road NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1612
Re: Variance Request- Additional information
Them am several items that I would like to bring fon~ard in this request for variance. Them am
two variances that are needed to construct a new home on this property.
Lot width less than 50' (actual lot width as indicated on survey)
I have no additional comments on this item.
Set back from Top-of-Bluff, in regards to this issue I have several items that I
would like to address.
VARIANCE FOR TOP-OF-BLUFF
The dry sanitary sewer line encroaches on both ends of the line
instead of running along the property line. This makes my usable lot
width considerably less (as much as 14.5' including easement), as it
travels toward Northwood Road, than if this Sine was mn along the
property line as it should have been.
The depth of the sanitary sewer line in the parking area is
considerable, in excess of 20', and the City of Prior Lake (Building &
Engineering Departments) has informed me that it would be desirable
to maintain as much distance from this manhole as practical. This of
course seriously limits the building area available, not only from the
encroachment but also because of the depth of the line and the room
needed to service or repair it. The sanitary sewer line in ~3etween the
existing houses is sleeved so repair in this ares would be possible.
An additional pdvate water essement (see survey & title) is present on
this lot to provide water line access to the neighboring property. As
you can see on We survey this makes the setback determined by the
city to be unreslistic.
It should be noted that the above mentioned easement, as well as the
dty water main crosses my lot closer to Northwood Road (see survey)
making moving the structure further in that direction also impractical.
It should also be pointed out that a move in that direction would put
the structure directly adjacent to the manhole I have been told to stay
as faraway as workable,
In addition there is a ddveway essement on my property which
requires me to provide access to the neighboring lot (see survey and
title).
As a positive, even with the vadance that I request the house will still
be placed approximately +/-90' from the lake and +/-50' from the Top-
of-Bluff as designated by the City.
As you can see from the various items mentioned above, the survey and my title, the restrictions
on this lot are numerous. I have tded in my building design and site positioning to make this
proposal acceptable to the City of Pdor Lake and myself. I would like to indicate that this vadance
request is not to build an oversized stnJcture on a small lot, just a home/garage that can justify
the cost of this takeshore lot. I believe my request to be a good compromise and considering the
current conditions and existing drcumstances my only option. Thank you for taking the time to
consider this request and I hope that the outcome will be equitable to both parties.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW)
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR TOM VIDMAR, Case File
#98-052
4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~j/~
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
MAY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The applicant is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot setback from the
OHW of Prior Lake rather than the required 50 foot minimum setback for
proposed deck.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 18, Grainwood Park was platted in 1944. In 1996, the Vidmar's applied for
the following variances:
1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the
required 25';
2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43'
instead of the required 50.5';
3. A 5.5' variance from the lakeshore setback permitted under Section
9.1 (D)2 to permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'.
Staff had recommended denial of the request because there was an alternative
to build a structure within the legal building envelope. The item was continued
by the Planning Commission to a later date to allow staff time to review the
revised plan submitted by the applicant at the meeting. Attached are the
minutes from March 25, 1996. The Planning Commission never made a decision
on the request because the applicant withdrew the application and met the
required setbacks.
The approved plans from the building permit indicate the patio doors to be on the
west side of the house, behind the garage and on the north side facing the lake.
L:~98 FILES\98VAR~98-052\98-O52PC.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The city noted on the plans that no deck could be built facing the lake.
Therefore, the applicant only placed patio doors facing west and used windows
in place of patio doors facing the lake. The applicants constructed this house
with the full knowledge that the closest they could construct their house,
including a deck was 50.5 feet using setback averaging.
The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow a proposed deck to be 41
feet from the OHW rather than the required 50 feet. Attached is a legal building
envelope indicating an area on the west side of the house (where patio doors are
located) where a deck could be built.
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 property has been utilized as a single
family residence by the applicant for 2 years. Reasonable use of the property
has existed and will continue to exist as a single family dwelling without the
variance. There is no hardship with respect to the property. The legal
building envelope and placement of the patio door on the west side of the
house allow for a deck and reasonable use of the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances of the lot that warrant granting of the
requested variance. The applicant was aware of the required 50.5 foot
setback when they built the house. Considering there have been no
significant changes to the Zoning Ordinance affecting the circumstances of
the property and reasonable use, there is no hardship.
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 constructed this house in 1996. At the time, it was clear that
the required OHW setback was 50.5 feet. The applicant was aware of the
requirement and constructed a house with patio doom on the west side of the
house to accommodate a future deck. There is no hardship with respect to
the ordinance, as the ordinance has not changed resulting in a negative
impact on the property. The hardship is caused by the actions of the
property owner in the design of the structure constructed two years ago.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-052\98-052PC.DOC Page 2
The applicant was aware of the setback requirement in 1996. Therefore, the
granting of the variance does not observe the spirit and intent of the
ordinance and is contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request to OHW setback does not meet the
hardship criteria. The hardship, if any, was caused by the applicant and
reasonable use of the property exists without the variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the cimumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-14PC denying the variance to OHW
setback.
L:\98 FILES\98VAR~98-052~98-052PC.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-14PC
DENYING A 9.0 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 41 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR PROPOSED DECK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Tom Vidmar has applied for a variance fi.om Section 5-8-3 of the City Code on
property located in the R-1 (Urban Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts
at the following location, to wit;
4307 Grainwood Cimle, legally described as Lot 18, Grainwood Park,
Scott County MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-052 and held a hearing thereon on May 26, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback 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 setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has an
alternatives to construct a deck within the legal building envelope. The variance will
serve merely as a convenience to the applicant.
The Board of Adjustment finds the applicant has created his own hardship through the
design of the house built by the applicant in 1996. At that time, the applicant was
aware of the required OHW setback (50.5 feet using setback averaging). The
ordinance has not change to negatively affect the building envelope of the property
since 1996.
6. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinances cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
,~l:\9,Sfi.ks\91~val\gs-0,52¢reg~14p%do~ P ge I
16200 ~agte ~.reeK~ve. ~.r.., rrior ~_atqe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~ 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
8. The contents of Plarming Case 98-052 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 4307 Grainwood Circle, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 9.0 foot variance to permit a 41 foot setback from the OHW of Prior Lake
instead of the required 50 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 26, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\98files\98var\98-052h'e9814pc.doe
Page 2
TOM V~DM,AR
Valley Surveying Co., PA.
SUITE 120-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (61Z) 447-ZSTO
EL. 90~.
; ,3)
EXHIBIT A
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
Prope~y Address,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
Fro' All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent,
HOUSE
ATTACHED GARAGE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ, FEET
X =
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS,,,,~ ..................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
(Drlv~way-paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Ar~as)
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks 'A" rain, opening between
boards, wlt~ a pervious suffe;ce below,
ar~ not considered to be mpervlous)
· TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
OTHER
TOTAL OTHER....~ ..................................................
TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Date
Phone
~JRVE¥ PREPARED FOR:
TOM VIDMAR
14300 SALEM AVE. SO,
SAVAGE, MN, 55378
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 85372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - :~570
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 18, GRAINWOOD PARK, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing all visible
improvements and encroachments onto or off fco~ said property if any.
N~ES' Benchmark Elevation 921.39 top of the garage slab on Lot 17 on survey.
919.O Denotes existing grade elevation
~Denotes proposed finished grade elevations
Denotes proposed direction Of finished surface drainage
Set the pcoposed garage slab at elevatic~ 920.78
Set the top of block at elevation 921.11
The lowest floor elevation will be at 912.21
Net Lot Area above elevation 904.0 = 8,179 sq. ft.
Net proposed impervious coverage z 30%
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
~TE ~20-C ~ t6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
Fh ~NKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE ~ MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) ';47-2570
PRIOR
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
~i'TCHEN
G~P.O E~ ~
Kuykendall:
This is an improvement and compliment applicant on existing structure. Supportive.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
07PC.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION
PASSED.
A recess was called at 8:26 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m.
4.D 96-023 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES BY THOMAS AND CHERYL
VIDMAR, FOR PROPERTY AT 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Thomas and Cheryl
Vidmar, who proposed to remove an existing cabin and construct a new house on the
subject site. Construction of the house would result in the following variances and
setbacks;
1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the required
25';
2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43'
instead of the required 50.5';
3. A 5.5' variance from the lakeshore setback permitted under Section 9.1 (D)2 to
permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'.
Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation of
denial based on the lack of hardship and the fact the applicants have legal alternatives
which would allow reasonable use of the property.
Thomas Vidmar, 14300 Salem Avenue South, Savage, stated they are proposing a change
in plans. The home was designed in what he considers "in the spirit" of the
neighborhood. He feels the deck size is not oversized for the home. It is three feet in
front of his neighbor's home. Mr. Vidmar also feels his home design is comfortable for a
growing family. Mr. Vidmar said they would like to shrink the garage down to a 10 foot
third stall which would bring it up to a six and one half foot side yard setback. There is
24 feet from the garage door to the street. He does not think they overstepped their
bounds for what they want to do and are open to suggestions.
Comments from Commissioners:
Wuellner:
· Distance from garage to street. Leek explained the measurement is from the property
to the right-of-way line. It is 20 feet from the right-of-way line. In this case the right-
of-way is narrow compared to what would be done today.
· Appreciate the property owner is willing to deal with the width of the third stall. The
Commission has granted 5 foot side yard variances in the past.
Mr. Vidmar presented a new plan to the Planning Commission. The staff had not seen
the plan before and could not verify the dimensions.
Criego:
· The neighbor's setback is around 20 feet.
· The front yard setback is okay from the garage to the street; would rather give that up
than the lakeshore variance because it is consistent with the neighbor's variances.
· Concern lies in the side yard. There is plenty of room to bring back to 10 feet.
· A three car garage is nice but not necessary.
· Supportive of the lake shore and road side variances.
Loftus:
· Agree with comments by Commissioner Criego.
· Neighboring Lot 17 had a smaller building envelop.
· A three car garage is not a hardship.
· Stay within the ordinance guidelines.
· Supportive of the street variance and a small deviation to the deck.
Kuykendall:
· Applicant proposing a three level home with a total floor area of approximately 3,400
sq. feet.
· Neighbors (Lot 17) proposed a three car garage and ended up with a two and one-half
car garage.
· There was no hardship on the side yard variance.
· Difficulty finding a hardship on the 20 foot street side.
· Mr. Vidmar said their plan has been considerably down sized to get an impervious
surface coverage of 30%.
Criego:
· The applicant has tried to reduce the impervious surface by building three levels.
Kuykendall:
· The neighborhood is unique and is the only hardship.
· Leek said there had been one or two constructions in the area that were less than 20
feet. Probably around 18 feet.
· Support front yard setback.
· No lakeshore setback - only for a suspended deck.
Loftus:
Suggestion to the applicant to get a new design and review with staff.
Leek said staff's recommendation would be the same with a two car garage.
Wuellner:
Applicant has to work within the building envelop. A two and one-half garage is
reasonable and it is not a hardship to want a three car garage.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST
TO APRIL 22, 1996.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loffus, Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION
PASSED.
Commissioner Criego requested staff to look into a comment made regarding the
neighbor who did not follow the setback requirement. Leek said he would check into the
matter and report back.
4.E 96-017 - VARIANCE REQUEST BY GENE AND COLEEN TREMAINE FOR
PROPERTY AT 16500 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Gene and Coleen
Tremaine, who propose to construct a new house on the subject site. Construction of the
house would result in the following variances and setbacks;
1. A 2,302 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 5,198 square feet instead
of the required 7,500 square feet;
2. A 2 foot lakeshore setback variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 48 feet
instead of the 50 feet permitted under Section 9.3(D)2;
3. A 7% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 37% instead o~the
permitted 30%
4. A 14 foot variance to permit a front yard setback of 11 feet instead of the
required 25 feet; and
5. A 2 foot variance on the West to permit a side yard setback of 8 feet instead of
the required 10 feet.
Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996 with a recommendation to
approve the requested variances. Staff concluded the hardship criteria were met with
respect to the lot area, impervious surface coverage, and perhaps front yard setback, but
not with respect to the requested lakeshore and side yard setback variances. Staff
recommended the request be tabled to allow applicant to consider alternative designs. Pat
Lynch of the DNR faxed a minor modification of the deck which was consistent with
staff's recommendation.
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4D
CONSIDER FRONT, SIDE AND LAKESHORE
SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THOMAS AND
CHERYL VIDMAR
4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO
MARCH 25, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Thomas and Cheryl
Vidmar, who proposed to remove an existing cabin and construct a new house on the
subject site. Construction of the house would result in the following variances and
.setbacks;
1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the required
25';
2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43'
instead of the required 50.5';
3. A 5.5' variance from the lakeshore setback perrnitted under Section 9.1 (D)2 to
permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'.
DISCUSSION:
The subject site was platted as a part of GRAINWOOD PARK in 1944, prior to its being
annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area the subject site
was developed with a seasonal cabin. The applicants propose to remove the cabin and
construct a new, single-family house with attached 3-car garage.
Section 9.3(D)2 permits new structures on undeveloped lots to have a lakeshore setback
equal to the average setback of the existing structures on the adjacent properties or a
setback of 50', whichever is greatest. In those cases where an existing structure is first
being removed, the City has in the past deemed the site undeveloped, and applied setback
averaging. The average of the adjacent setbacks in this case would apply, and would be
50.5'. The proposed house would be setback 55', but the proposed deck would require a
setback variance of 5.5'
16200 L~'~PF~'~C~L~4[S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Section 9.12(B)l (a,)10 permits a substandard lot of record to have one 5' side yard
setback in certain circumstances. This provision does not apply in the present case
because the applicants' proposed house would encroach in other required setbacks. The
proposed side yard setback on the West is less than 5'.
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 proposed house would have 3 levels. The first level as indicated
on the attached survey would have a floor area of about 1,184 square feet. The size of the
proposed house could be reduced by 5,5' in order to comply with the lakeshore setback
average. This would result in the loss of 176 square feet of area for a net area on the first
floor of 1,008 square feet. The applicant could also consider locating a deck on the West
side of the proposed house.
Similarly, the side yard setback requirement could be complied with by reducing the size
of the garage and/or shifting it somewhat to the East. This is an approach the
Commission has taken in the past. (See e.g. VA95-25, Ron and Kim Anderson) It
appears to staff that even if these steps were taken, a small front yard setback variance
might be required to accommodate both the garage and house. Because there appear to
be a number of design alternatives available to the applicants, staffhas concluded that
reasonable use of the property can be made while still complying with lakeshore and side
yard setback requirements. Thus, staff has concluded that this criterion is not met.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship this criterion
is, de facto, not met.
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.
Any hardship results not from the application of the provisions of the Ordinance, but
from design decisions made by the applicants. Thus, this criterion is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
9623VAPC.DOC/RML 2
Tb, e proposed house would result in a structure not inconsistent with other houses in the
area. Thus, it does not appear that the requested variances would be contrary to the
public interest.
Approve the variances requested by the applicants, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that the applicants have legal alternatives which would allow
reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff
recommends Alternative No. 3.
ACTION REOUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9609PC.
9623VAPC.DOC/RML
, !
TOM VIDMAR
Volley Surveying Co., P.A.
96-023VA
0 30 60
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON
PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO HAVE A BLUFF
(Case File #98-006)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
MAY 26, '1998
INTRODUCTION:
In January, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance #98-01, which established
the bluff setback requirements. The ordinance also established a requirement
for engineering certification that any excavation, fill or placement of a structure
on a property determined to have a bluffwill not cause any slope to become
unstable, and will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent
properties, will not obstruct, damage, or adversely affect existing sewer and
drainage facilities, stormwater runoff, downstream properties, wetlands, or
bodies of water, or will not result in erosion or sedimentation. This engineering
certification is required before any building permit will be issued on a lot
considered to have a bluff.
On April 20, 1998, the City Council revisited this issue. The primary concerns
related to the potential cost of the required engineering study, the willingness of
engineers to certify the studies, the need for the studies for minor additions,
decks or garages, and the ability of property owners to reasonably comply with
the ordinance. After much discussion, as outlined in the attached minutes of the
Council meeting, the Council determined the potential cost of the study is not
unreasonable. The Council did decide the issues of the willingness of the
engineers to certify the reports and the need for a study for minor additions,
decks and garages should be referred back to the Planning Commission for
further study.
DISCUSSION:
1:\98files\98ord amd~_oning\98-O06\98006pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
In discussing this issue with several engineers, it appears that some are
reluctant-to certify that the slope will not fail. This is basically due to the fact
there are several factors over which the engineer has no control, such as what
occurs after the structure has been built. Most engineers are willing to sign a
report with recommendations for construction which should be adhered to for
each particular property on a bluff.
It was never intended that the engineer should be held responsible for conditions
which occurred after the site development. The purpose of the certification is to
identify any potential problems on the site, such as soil conditions or structural
loads. The preparation of a report which identifies these conditions and outlines
specific recommendations will achieve this purpose. The staff is proposing the
ordinance language be amended to state the following (new language is shown
in bold italics):
On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building
permit on that property shall provide cng!~ccr!ng cc,'tJficct!cn to tho
City a report prepared and signed by a,..~,v,,.,..,~-"";-*'----'~ professional
engineer registered by the State of Minnesota thct .~.c on the
impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on
the site and whether the excavation, fill or placement of
structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose
loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The
report shall also
...... ~ .....include the engineer's
recommendations so the site development will not inter[ere with
adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not
obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage
facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will
not adversely affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of
water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation.
The owner of the property shall provide certification from a
registered professional engineer that the final grading of the site was
completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that
the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have
been adhered to.
Another issue is the actual need for an engineer's study in all situations,
especially for minor additions, decks or garages. The staff agrees it may be
unreasonable to require this report in some instances; however, each property is
unique. To that end, the staff is proposing language which allows the Building
Official, Planning Director and City Engineer to waive the engineering study for
replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing decks, and additions or
new structures not exceeding 480 square feet under all of the following
conditions:
1:~98files\98ordamd~oning\98-OO6\98006pc.doc Page 2
· An inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion problems or
conditions.
· There is no history of bluff failure on the site.
· All required setbacks are met.
· The property owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a
declaration of covenants.
This language allows some flexibility in the report requirements, but also allows
the staff to require such a report in cases where the bluff stability is questionable.
A copy of the draft ordinance is attached to this report.
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. It is our opinion the proposed language
accomplishes the purpose of original ordinance, while allowing some flexibility.
ACTION RECIUIRED:
A motion and second recommending approval of the proposed amendments.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance Language
2. Minutes of April 20, 1998, City Council Meeting
3. Hearing Notice
1:~98flles\98ordamd~zoning\98-006\98006pc.doc Page 3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 98-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-8-3 (A,3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 9.3 (A,3) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
Section 5-8-3A.3 and 9.3A.3 are amended to read as follows:
3. Bluff Impact Zones, Bluff Setbacks and Engineering Report Required
Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed
in bluff impact zones.
Bluff setbacks: As measured from the Top of Bluff, the upper end of a segment at
least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%.
On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building permit on that
prope shall provide ~,,~, ......... ~, ....................... j a report prepared and
signed by a ~gist-er-ed professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota tkat
r~o on the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site
and whether the excavation, fill or placement of structures will cause any slope to
become unstable or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes.
The cng~nccr report shall alsow....j~"*:c" .~.~...~. include the engineer's recommendations so
the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent
properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage
facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely
affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in
erosion or sedimentation.
The owner of the property shall provide certification from a registered professional
engineer that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an
approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's
report have been adhered to.
The property owner shall 7.rcFzr: and record a bluff indemnification agreement and a
declaration of covenants ecn~t:.cn: an~ rc:~ict{cn: in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney which provides for owner maintenance of all man:zfazturc~ slope areas,
acceptance of all risks and liability associated with those areas and indemnification of
the City from all associated claims.
l:\98files\98ordamd~zoning\98 -006~Iraftord.doc Page 1
The Building Official, the Planning Director and the CitF Engineer may waive the
engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or additions to
existing decks, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet in size
under all of the following conditions:
1. A inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion conditions.
2. There is no history of bluff failure on the site.
3. All required setbacks are met.
4. The propert¥ owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration
of covenants.
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
day of ,1998.
1:\98 files\98ordamd~zoning\98-006klmttord.doc
Page 2
April 20, 1998 City Council Minutes
(FOR34ERL Y AGENDA ITEM 1 OB UNDER NEW BUSINESS) Consider Approval of Report
Regarding Certain Modifications to the Bluff Ordinance
City Manager Boyles introduced the item. At the January 20th Council meeting, the ordinance was
revised to provide for specific engineering work and certification to protect the bluff. At the last
City Council meeting, there were five concerns raised about the cost to comply with the
requirement. First, it could cost between $1,500 and $10,000 for the engineering work. Secondly,
there is a sign-off provision for engineers to certify that the bluff will remain safe. Engineers have
interpreted it literally and don't wish to sign it. A third concern was the need for the study at all. Do
deck footings necessitate this research? Fourth, the amount of investment required versus the value
of the home was a concern. Finally, indemnification is also part of the bluff ordinance, and there
were concerns about whether it was appropriate. Bret Anderson with STS consultants will address
the City Council.
Brett Anderson, a Geotechnical and Civil Engineer with STS Consultants, addressed the Council.
He said the firm has a lot of experience in slope stability issues. Slopes are often looked at by people
who don't really understand them. He showed a diagram of a bluff and how ordinances relate to
them.
Mayor Mader asked for Mr. Anderson's comments relative to the ordinance and whether he thought
the City's ordinance was reasonable and practical.
Mr. Anderson said he would like to commend the City for writing the ordinance. The impact of the
ordinance with only minor changes (i.e. decks) on the site is an issue. The analysis cost compared to
potential impact on the bluff is not good. Heavy loading and draining on the site are important. The
staff should be able to determine whether additional reviews are needed.
City Attorney Pace asked whether he could identify a set of circumstances where the staff could
waive the certification requirements or conversely if they do exist, undertake a more thorough
analysis? The staff report suggests that one option may be to use some discretion for certain
requirements. She said she was uncomfortable with that. Can the specific criteria be written?
Mr. Anderson said yes. Also, there are changes that may take place, such as a springtime thaw that
could trigger an event that was not originally quantified.
Councilmember Petersen asked whether he was saying where there is a surcharge load and
undisturbed ground, that this could be a dangerous situation?
Mr. Anderson said it depends on the height of the embankment. A 16 degree slope is not a concern.
A 55-60 degree slope would be a concern.
Councilmember Petersen asked whether even with a 25 foot setback it could be dangerous.
Mr. Anderson said it could be.
City Engineer said he indicated bluff height was a consideration. Isn't setback also a consideration?
He asked whether geometry of slope was a consideration.
Mr. Anderson said if there was sufficient information on subsurface soils conclusions can be drawn.
Prior Lake is a glacial drain, with every kind df soil. An engineer can make general assumptions by
going down 8-10 feet, but it is not cut and dried.
April 20, 1998 City Council Minutes
City Engineer Ilkka said property owners were asking engineers based upon their proposed setbacks
when in fact the engineer could recommend a different setback. He asked if a drill rig would be
necessary or if hand augers could be used.
Mr. Anderson said the problem with the site is that it is at a 25 foot depth. A hand auger would be
insufficient in that case.
Councilmember Kedrowski asked whether $1,500 to $2,000 is a reasonable figure to complete the
necessary engineering work.
Mr. Anderson said it is reasonable. He said they find in a lot of cases, people don't put money in the
foundation or review it to see if it is stable.
Councilmember Kedrowski asked if there was some other method for borings?
Mr. Anderson said past studies in nearby areas could be used to reinforce an estimate on what was
there.
Councilmember Kedrowski asked if that would be acceptable?
City Engineer Ilkka said it all depends on the consultant determination and working with staff t~
find what is acceptable.
Mayor Mader asked how close to a construction site does the boring need to be to reasonably project
soil type at 30-50 feet? For example, if the borings were done on the street side of the house instead
of the back yard.
Mr. Anderson said unless it is a unique situation, the soil boring will not change drastically in 30- 50
feet.
Councilmember Petersen asked with a 25 foot setback should there be a ratio with height and angle?
Mr. Anderson said the 1-I ratio which is in the ordinance is a minimal requirement. It is an
acceptable guide. Twenty-five feet is a good setback in general.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DIRECT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO LOOK AT ISSUES #2 AND #3 AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CLARIFY EACH.
There was discussion on how much of the ordinance should be revised.
Mayor Mader said as a friendly amendment he would like the engineering staff to look at it as well.
Planning Director Rye said the Council can impose its own restrictions. The Planning Commission
won't overdo it. The engineering and certification are the issues.
Councilmember Schenck said if the City is indemnified and the property owner does not get a
certification from an engineer, that puts the onus on property owner, which is the intent.
Mayor Mader called the question.
Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, and Schenck, the motion carried.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 5-8-3 (A,3) OF THE OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTION 9.3 (A,3) OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO HAVE A BLUFF
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE, on Monday,
May 26, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the
public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 5-8-3 (A,3) of the City Code and
9.3 (A,3) of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the engineering certification
requirements for buildiong permit applications on properties determined to have a bluff.
The Ordinance currently requires engineering certification for all building permits on
properties determined to have a bluff. This hearing is to determine if there are situations
where a certification is not required. The hearing is also to determine if the certification
language should be revised as to the conditions the engineer will be required to certify.
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 6th day of May, 1998 by:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON MAY 9, 1998
:\9 fil \98 d d~z i \9 - 06\9 O0 pn.
16200 ~§[ef ~re~°~ ~e.°~.~., ~nor ~a~e, ~v°fimnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONTINUED DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER A
SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR JAMES
NERISON, Case File #98-048
14294 ASPEN AVENUE .
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
MAY 26, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission continued the discussion on this request to gather
specific information regarding the boundaries of the Shoreland District (SD),
input from the DNR on lots located partially within the SD, and the policy relating
to use of easements.
Attached is a map indicating the boundaries of the Shoreland District. Mr.
Nerison's property is located entirely within the SD. The DNR also supports
staff's interpretation that lots partially within the SD must comply with the
impervious surface requirement on the entire lot. Attached is the section of the
ordinance relating to impervious surface. The language is specific to include the
entire lot. Also attached is a memo from engineering department relating to the
use of drainage and utility easements.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. 5.2% Variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2% rather than the
maximum allowed of 30%.
2. A 0.1 foot variance to allow a side yard setback of 9.9 feet rather than the
required 10 feet.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98048PC2.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The property has been utilized as a single
family residence for 15 years. Reasonable use of the property has existed
and will continue to exist as a single family dwelling without the variance.
There is no hardship with respect to the property. The legal building
envelope and 30% maximum impervious surface allow for reasonable use of
the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Considering the area was platted as a PUD, and most of the lots are 8,000 to
10,000 square feet in area, there are no unique circumstances of the lot,
While the impervious surface ordinance was adopted after the lot was
created, which the applicant had no control over, it does not warrant a
hardship.
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 area is 8,733 sq. feet and 65 feet wide. However, the hardship was
created by the applicant, not the property. The applicant can modify the plan
to reduce or eliminate the excess impervious surface. The existing driveway
is non-conforming (up to the lot line), and the applicant has options for
eliminating impervious surface. The setback variance can also be eliminated
if the porch is moved to meet the setback. The hardship is caused by the
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 maximum impervious surface is to reduce the surface run-off
to bodies of water located within the Shoreland District. Considering the
impervious surface can be reduced, the intent cannot be met as proposed.
The variance request to side yard has little if any impact on altering the intent
of side yard setback. Without mitigating measures, the granting of the
variance request is contrary to the public interest. The variance to impervious
surface can be reduced or eliminated upon a redesign of the structure and/or
removal of a portion of the driveway and patio.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervious surface can be reduced
or eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98048PC2.DOC Page 2
variance can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch. The fact the
structure is in place has no bearing on the hardship. If a permit application had
been submitted prior to construction, these issues would have been addressed
before any construction had began.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct the staff to prepare a resolution
approving the variances.
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 #98-12PC denying the variance to
impervious surface and side yard setback.
L:\98FiLES\98VAR\98-048\98048PC2.DOC
Page 3
~2
22~722
POINTE
OUTLOT
16t542
7
1ST
9
pRIOR LAKE
5-8-3
5-8-3
Natural Recreational General Tributary
Development Development Development Development
Lak~ Lakes Lakes Lakes
Structure.,,~
setback from
OHW (feet) 150 .-7-6 ~ KO 75
Top of bluff
(feet) 30 30 30 30
Unplat'ted
Cemetery (feat) 50 50 50 50
Struoture height
limitation (feet) 35 35 35 35
3. Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except
stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact
zones. ~-~ ,.~,.~,~,.~:~... ~I~ · ' ' ~- -
(B) Impervious Surface Coverage:
1. Impervious surface overages for lots in all zoning districts shall
not exceed thir~ percent (30%) of the lot area, except as provided in
the following sections. Such impervious surface coverage shall be
documented by a certificate of survey at the time of any zoning or
building permit application, according to the definitions of impervious
surface as Jisted in Section 5-1-7 of this Title.
(a) An e~dsting site which is being altered, remodeled, or
expanded without expanding the existing in.~pervious surface may be
allowed, provided that where appropriate and where necessary,
structures and practices for the treatment of storm water runoff are in
compliance with the Pdor Lake Storm Water Management Plan and
approved by the City Engineer,
(b) In all commercial and industrial zoning districts an~ for pul3~ic
recreational uses, new construction on conforming lots or an existing
site being altered, remodeled, or expanded which expands the
existing impervious surface coverage may be allowed where
necessary, provided the site conforms to the Prior Lake Storm Water
Management Plan, Best Management Practices and is approved by
the City Engineer, provided the impervious surface coverage does
City of Prior L~ke
896
Verlyn Raaen
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Tovar
Angle Jaspers; Bob Hutchins; Don Rye; Doug Hartman; Greg IIkka; Jeff Evens; Kevin Kleist;
Lani Leichty; Matt Saam; Paul Baumgartner, Susan McDermott
Easement Use Restrictions
The Engineering Department does not have a comprehensive written policy regarding which uses of easements
by underlying property owners are allowed and which are not, We hope to develop one in the near future.
In the interim I will be responding to inquiries as follows unless directed otherwise.
1. No structures including retaining walls are allowed in any easement, with the exception that within the
Shoreland District, special consideration will be given to retaining wails.
2. Garden and flower bed areas, etc. which create a bare soil condition in easements for drainage purposes are
not allowed.
3. Any landscaping feature, etc. which restricts the flow of stormwater within an easement for drainage purposes
and/or deflects it onto neighboring properties is not allowed. Steep earthen slopes are not allowed to be created
within easements for drainage purposes which force an inordinate amount of stormwater flow onto a neighboring
property. The exception to this is those areas where a subdivision grading plan has been approved by the City to
allow these slopes.
3. Fences, driveways, and sprinkler systems are allowed if they do not have an adverse impact on utility lines or
drainage.
4. When City infastructure exists and the setback to a proposed structure becomes a critical consideration, the
Engineering Department will attempt to accurately locate the facility in the field to determine that adequate setback
~s provided. The assumption that all of the City's utility lines which are illustrated on plan sheets to be located
within the confines of the respective easements were actually constructed as such is not a safe assumption.
Consequently, field verification is necessary.
Page I
RESOLUTION 98-12PC
DENYING A 0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9.9 FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK AND A 5.2
PERCENT VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF
35.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30
PERCENT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
James Ner/son has applied for a variances from Section 5-8-3 and 5-4-1 of the City
Code on property located in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD
(Shoreland Overlay) Districts at the following location, to wit;
14294 Aspen Avenue, legally described as Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Pointe
Second Addition, Scott County MN.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #98-048 and held a heating thereon on April 27, 1998. The discussion was
continued to gather additional information relating to Shoreland District boundaries
and use of easements.
3. The applicant requested the item be continued to May 26, 1998.
4. The Board of Adjustments continued discussion on May 26, 1998 and reviewed the
requested additional information.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the requested setback and
impervious surface 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.
The granting of the setback variance and impervious surface coverage variance is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant. The applicant has alternatives to eliminate and reduce the variances. The
variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant.
.... ~1:\9~ ti~s\9 8,v a~\9 8 - 0,-4 8~'e9~,12 Pc 4to~:
Pa~l
lozuu cagm ,..reeKave. ~.~., ~-rior ~-aKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6121'447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Board of Adjustment finds the applicant has created his own hardship through the
design of the proposed porch, expansion of the driveway and failure to obtain a
building permit which would have brought the issues to the applicants attention prior
to beginning construction.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinances cannot be met if
the variances are granted.
9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variances.
10. The Board of Adjustments determines it is the responsibility of the property owner to
know the ordinances of the city. The property owner failed to obtain a building
permit prior to construction of the porch, thus creating his own hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case 98-048 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 14294 Aspen Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description);
1. A 0.1 foot variance to permit a 9.9 foot side yard setback instead of the
required 10 foot setback from the centerline.
2. A 5.2 percent variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 35.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 30 percent.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 26, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\98files\98var\98-048h'e9812pc.doc Page 2
EXHIBIT A
LOT 16, BLOCK
SAND POINTE SECOND ADDITION
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
,30 o 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET
LEGEND
/ BOLTON
& MENK, INC.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted wi~ Building P~mit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Max/mum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address
LotArea B~r33 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. 7_.(~lq .qo
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE x =
~ x =
ATTACHED GA.R~GE x
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
D ETACI-[ED BLDGS x
(Garage/Shed) X
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
~paved or not)
(Sidewalk~arking Are~)
(Open D~k~ 'A" min. o~ening bev,v~.en
board~, wi~ a p~ious surface b~low,
not consid~ to b~ impe~io~)
OTH2EK
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .....................
x = ~cc3. z.q
X
X
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
x
TOTAL OTIq'Ir,~ ..................................................
TOTAL I1VEPERVIOUS SURFACE
Prepared By
Company
Phone #
zz -I
<?o-oso9
deoofe~ /r~o monorn~n/,
by ofher~.
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Top of lllock
Lowest Floor
G~rage Floor
l. or/~, Ezoc~ 4,
5~o Po/~r~ 2/vo
EXHIBIT C
~/IIVD~O£ D£Y£~ ODI~IEiVT
c/~no{~ /r,on mor')om~n/,
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Top of Block
tO~st Floor
Garag~ Floor
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4C
CONSIDER A SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND
. AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE FOR JAMES
NERISON, Case File #98-048
14294 ASPEN AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER,.~¢J)
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
APRIL 27, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On February 23, 1998, Mr. Nerison applied for a building permit to allow for the
construction of a three season porch, which he had already begun construction
on without obtaining a building permit. His property is located at 14294 Aspen
Avenue in the Sand Pointe 2nd Addition. The property is zoned PUD and is
within the SD Shoreland District. Upon review of the building permit it became
apparent that the proposed porch does not meet the required setback and
impervious surface ordinances.
On April 3, 1998, the Planning Department received a variance application from
James Nerison. The attached survey (Exhibit A) indicates a proposed
impervious surface of 35.2% and the proposed porch is setback 9.9 feet from the
side property line. The lot is approximately 65 feet by 130 feet and is 8,733
square feet. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot and can utilize one 5 foot
side yard setback (Section 5-4-1 City Code). The PUD provisions for Sand
Pointe also allow one side yard setback of 5' on the garage side of the house.
Section 5-8-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum impervious surface
coverage of 30 percent.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 16, Block 4, Sand Point 2nd Addition was platted in 1982. The house was
constructed in 1983 as shown in Exhibit B, with the garage side of the house
setback 5' from the side property line. The proposed porch is located on the
opposite side of the house. In 1985, Mr. Nerison added a deck and finished the
basement. In 1983, when the house was built, there was no impervious surface
requirement. The impervious surface requirement was adopted on May 4, 1987.
L:~98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PC.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447~4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The impervious surface on the lot, when the ordinance was adopted was 26.4%
(as the house was originally built). On November 13, 1987, Mr. Nerison received
a permit for garage addition. Based on the survey submitted for the garage
addition (Exhibit C), the impervious surface became 29.0% upon completion of
the garage addition. Sometime between this approval and February 23, 1998,
the applicant expanded the driveway to the property line and added a brick patio.
While permits are not required for such alterations, property owners must comply
with the ordinance. These additions and the recent construction of the porch
increased the impervious surface to over 30 percent.
The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2%
rather than the maximum of 30% and a side yard setback variance to allow a
setback of 9.9 feet rather than the required 10 feet for proposed porch. No
previous variances have been granted for this property. Mr. Nerison has owned
this property since at least 1985 when the deck permit was issued.
VARIANCE HARDSHIPSTANDARDS
'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 property has been utilized as a single
family residence for 15 years. Reasonable use of the property has existed
and will continue to exist as a single family dwelling without the variance.
There is no hardship with respect to the property. The legal building
envelope and 30% maximum impervious surface allow for reasonable use of
the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Considering the area was platted as a PUD, and most of the lots are 8,000 to
10,000 square feet in area, there are no unique circumstances of the lot.
While the impervious surface ordinance was adopted after the lot was
created, which the applicant had no control over, it does not warrant a
hardship.
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 8,733 sq. feet and
65 feet wide, However, the hardship was created by the applicant, not the
property. The applicant can modify the plan to reduce or eliminate the
impervious surface. The existing driveway is non-conforming (up to the lot
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PC.DOC Page 2
line), and the applicant has options for eliminating impervious surface. The
setback variance can also be eliminated if the porch is moved to meet the
setback. The hardship is caused by the 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 maximum impervious surface is to reduce the surface run-off
to bodies of water located within the Shoreland District. Considering the
impervious surface can be reduced, the intent cannot be met as proposed.
The variance request to side yard has little if any impact on altering the intent
of side yard setback. Without mitigating measures, the granting of the
variance request is contrary to the public interest. The variance to impervious
surface can be reduced or eliminated upon a redesign of the structure and/or
removal of a portion of the driveway and patio.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervious surface can be reduced
or eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback
variance can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch.
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 #98-12PC denying the variance to
impervious surface and side yard setback.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048~98-048PC.DOC
Page 3
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A 5.2 PERCENT VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE OF 35.2 PERCENT RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT AND
A O. 1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 9.9
FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED '10 FOOT SETBACK
FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED THREE SEASON PORCH
ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE PUD 4-83 AND SHORELAND OVERLAY
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14294 ASPEN AVENUE.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE
(Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday,
April 27, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
James Nerison
14294 Aspen Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
14294 Aspen Avenue, legally described as Lot 16, Block 4
Sand Pointe Second Addition.
REQUEST:
There is an existing single family home on the property. The
applicant is requesting a variance to impervious surface and
side yard setback to allow the construction of a three season
porch. The proposed impervious surface coverage is
35.2%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% on lots
within the Shoreland District. The proposed side yard
setback is 9.9 feet rather than the minimum setback
requirement of 10 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested
variances against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
L:\98FILI::S\98VAR\98-048\98-048PN.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
.AN EQUAL OPPORTUN;TY 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: April 16, 1998
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-048\98-048PN.DOC