HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-982.
3.
4.
5.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Old Business:
A. Case #98-057 Variance Resolution for Jim Ruzicka
B. Case #98-048 Variance Resolution for James Nerison
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L 9 F \98P G Q0608 8. C
16200 EagI~rXee~ve.C~.~,.,~or ~ar~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANN.ING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 26, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The May 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego,
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning
Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Kuykendall Absent
Stamson Absent
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 7:41 P~::~i~ ........
3. Approval of Minutes: "!i~!:~iii:~: "~'::~i~ili~iii!i!iii!i?:?~ii?:i::!~:
Correction on page 2, under, "Agreed!;~h':'" ' :' Criego~i?
The Minutes 'ssion meeting were approved as
amended.
4. Public Hearin
a .46 foot variance to permit a 49.54
e required 50 feet and a 34 foot
~ of the bluff of 47 feet rather than the
for the property at 16099 Northwood Road.
26, 1998 on file in the
The received a variance application fi:om 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 substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be
buildable. The City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, thus, 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.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~rm052695.doc
There is a bluffon 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.
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 servic~!iig~ement
serving the property to the south (Lot 88), and a 15 foot wide sanitary s~::i~ent
held by the City.
The building envelope, exclusive of any easements, consists of fi~ii~epar~!i!~grtions of
land. The largest portions are approximately 49 feet by 20 fe~}~:square 14
feet by 160 feet (2240 square feet). The DNR did not co~:~:::iihis
Considering the private water easement does not se~ii~he prop~:.to the north (L~::'90),
it could be relocated to the south side of Lot 89 or ~:?~iii~O:t it s:d~::Lot 88. This would
result in a buildable area of approximately 75 feet b5 square feet) that
meets all of the required setbacks.
If the Planning private
water service line serving the adjacent Lot:~i~, )e would
appear to be of reasonable size. prepare a
resolution of denial with find/~g~::~:~)n the otti~::i~d, Commission feels
hardship exists on the lot :t~ii~i¢:i~{~i}ilgnd the ~anee criteria are met, then staff should
be directed to prepare a:13~lution ~roving th~!i!~a~!nces. In either case, staff has
concluded the varian¢~!i~quest for::~i~i width is s~tiated with hardships pertaining to
the lot that the appli~ no
Stamson asked..~[~r.clarificai¥:~!?~gtTthe new bluffsetback ordinance. Tovar explained.
Comme~t~ from th~:'~illic:
J~!~:~cka, 16099 Nor~:.~ood Road, explained his neighbor is not willing to release the
privat¢::::~r easements..:,?~e has been working with an attorney for the past 8 months on
this issu~?~i~hg city se~:?iine encroaches all the way to Northwood Road and does not
run on the p~ !~::!::' It is 7 to 8 feet on his property and increases the setback. The
city engineerin~i!~ment has told him to stay as far away from the manhole as
possible. The s~r line is about 25 feet deep. The 18% is totally different - needs a
soils engineer to build where the City tells him where to build. This has been a long
struggle. The bluff ordinance has changed several times. He feels his request is
reasonable as he is moving further away from the lake.
Todd Flom, 16095 Northwood Road, has no problem with the variance request. He feels
the applicants have been through a lot to get this house built. The request is reasonable.
The hearing was closed.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn052698.doc
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Unusual situation with private easements within a variance.
· Hardship standards are met with regard to lot width.
· Bluff setback issue - difficult with the neighbor not willing to release ti
easement rights. Would like to see something in writing regarding
response rather than testimony at the hearing.
Criego:
· Agreed with Vonhofon the lot width, it meets the hardshi~¢~:
· Confusing with the easements - sewer, water and ddx~y. "
· Mr. Ruzicka said he bought the property in 1994. ~i~iitle shows a share~
but he was unaware of the private water eas,e,m~{i ii[~
· The driveway had been there since the 1950 s. ' .........
Cramer:
· Agreed with Commissioners
testimony the hardship
· Difficult piece of property to work
· Recommend approval of the.
Stamson:
· Agreed with the
· Hesitate to
build. If a variance
The:
away
s on lot width}~:ii~'~based on
bluff set~*k.
but in this case a variance is needed to
' is unbuildable for a new structure.
~ is that it lessens the impact on the bluff. It is moved
less than the current
TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RES~ UPON THE TESTAMONY AND DATA
~ APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
GRANTING LOT VARIANCE OF .46 FEET AND
BLUFF SETBA~ VARIANCE FOR 34 FEET BASED ON THE FOUR VARIANCE
HARDSHIP CRITERIA BEING MET.
AMENDMENT BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
DOCUMENTATION THE NEIGHBOR WILL NOT RELEASE THE WATER
EASEMENT.
Criego asked where the garage doors would be facing. Ruzicka said they would face
Northwood Road.
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~n052698.doc 3
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. 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.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staffreport dated May 26, 1998, on file ~::~i~O office of
the City Planner. ..::?::??~ .....................
.... ?:[?:???:~ ....
The applicant is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot set~::ii~hm the OHW
of Prior Lake rather than the required 50 foot minimum setback
Lot 18, Grainwood Park was platted in 1944. In 1996, the.:,~t~ applied fo~:~(~:::~[:..
following variances:
1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit ~i::!i~:~ili~ack:~Bd of the required
2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side ~ii~etback of 4.43' instead
of the required 50.5'; :~i:ii!~?~ii::i!?:~ ........
3. A 5.5 ' variance from the lakeshor~}i~g~::~g~rmitted und'~ii~tion 9.1 (D)2 to
permit a lakeshore setback of 45' i~ea3:'~i~i~ii~tgired 5~!'~'.
Staff had recommended deni~ , request:~b~tse there~ii~s an alternative to build a
structure within the le ~:~e item was continued by the Planning
Commission to a the revised plan submitted by the
applicant at the made a decision on the request
because the met the required setbacks.
The
side
on the.~l~s that no
pla~!ipatio doors
using ~(~k averaging.
patio doors to be on the west
on the north side facing the lake. The city noted
the lake. Therefore, the applicant only
e lake?~he applicants constructed this house with the full
including a deck was 50.5 feet
The applica~!i~!igOX~esting a variance to allow a proposed
the OHW rath~i~:ihe required 50 feet.
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.
deck to be 41 feet from
Comments from the public:
Tom Vidmar, 4307 Grainwood Circle, said he wanted to go back to 1996 with comments
from the DNR stating "the deck is of modest size". Vidmar quoted comments from the
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn052698.doc
Commissioners agreeing to a suspended deck. He did not come back before the
Commissioners because of constraints by the builder~.. He ran out of time and was
waiting for the City to pass the substandard lot ordinance with the 5 foot side yard
setback. Mr. Vidmar said the former planner told him to go ahead and plan a deck. He
felt his hardship is that the lot is small, long and narrow. Mr. Vidmar said at the time of
the variance the lake setback was 75 feet. He was under the assumption he could see the
lake when he built on it. The side door was put on as a catwalk.
pictures of the neighborhood with lake setbacks much closer than he is s
to previous comments from the commissioners two years ago he
Craig Hinz, 3314 Grainwood Circle, explained if Vidmar's deck~
would hinder his property values. Also, his view of the lake
e side it
The heating was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Does not remember the exactly what
important point is lake setback at
with the two adjacent nei
always been stringent on moving
Commissioners who do n
is to
items.
· Does not
But the
¥:~is Commission has
of
50 feet. The intent
a water quality standpoint.
of those
31icant still has use of the property.
· ......... foot setback two years ago. We
would haw:~ma~!e~ure t~!~?djj!f~ was within the setback averaging.
======================================================= q~:i:~.. ·
· .::~:~s not believe th~¢~dship"hteria has been met. The Commissioners are split on
'=i==?~ ~acks. To go ~ less than 50 feet does not make it a hardship, especially in
this':=~:: This hous~i~as constructed when the setback was 75 feet.
Vonhof: ....... ~:..
· Concurred."~::~he variance hardships have not been met.
· There are alternatives within the legal building envelope.
Stamson:
Agreed.
Tom Vidmar, 4307 Grainwood, said he understands the Commissioners do not want
people encroaching any further. He feels he is not asking for an unusually large deck and
does not feel he is encroaching on the neighbors. Obviously if there was a problem the
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nnO52698.doc 5
neighbors would be at the meeting. Mr. Vidmar said he tried to work with the City in
building a small house. When the building official approved the doors on the second
floor, the assumption was for a deck.
Criego:
· Going back to notes of March 25, 1996 - explained his comments regarding the fi-ont
and lake setbacks.
· Mr. Vidmar said he has a 3 car garage .....
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROgg!~kUTION 98-
14PC DENYING A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 41 F~ SE~EK FROM
THE ORDiNARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR L~:~m~EAD
REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED ~K?
.... ~!i:.!::i::::~i .... .:?:?:~ i[~!~5[!~ ....
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRI~i}:~i~ .... ":~::i:i:::.i~ ':~i?:::~ ....
.... ~:~;,~:~:~:~....::~:;:~:~:i:~:~:~::.. ..::
Tovar explained the appeal process. ...............................-:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:: ::.'..::.::.:.:.::.::.:.:.::.:.::.:.:..
C. Case #98-048 Consider Amendable:tO City Code a~ii~n~g Ordinance
relatin to the en ineering certificatloh~:'::i~ments for buil'J~i~:'permit
applications on properties determined td:'ilaave"h~i! ....
Planning Coordinator Jane K~resented':~:~Planning:~port dated May 26, 1998 on
file in the office of the Pl~i~::~tor.
In January, 1998, tho~[~y Councik~opted Ordir~e #98-01, which established the bluff
setback requiremefiii. '~:.:::;e~rd~i~i::gg~t~i~iaed a requirement for engineering
certification that any exc~¢~; fii'["~:;:~i~'~bnt of a structure on a property determined
to have a blufl[:~:!kJ~0t caus~:'::~g~:~!ope to become unstable, and will not interfere with
adequate :~i~i~ii!~i?~lhe site ~:;i~j~;~t properties, will not obstruct, damage, or
adver~!~:::~ffect exi~ii~wer ar~i~inage facilities, stormwater runoff, downstream
protOtYPes, wetlands, or':~ies of~kter, or will not result in erosion or sedimentation.
T~[::~eering certific~n is required before any building permit will be issued on a
lot co~¢i~ted to have a ~ff.
On April 207~{!, !~ii::~ity Council revisited this issue. The primary concerns related to
the potential cd:~ili~;~ihe required engineering study, the willingness of engineers to certify
the studies, the ~d 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 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.
In discussing this issue with several engineers, it appears some are reluctant to certify the
slope will not fail. This is basically due to the fact there are several factors over which
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 6
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 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· ~g~:~[eparation
of a report which identifies these conditions and outlines specific reco~hs will
achieve this purpose. The staffis proposing the ordinance language be::i~ended to state
On properties determined to have a bluff, the applican[::!!o,~:..~i~'(~ilding
on that roe shall rowde cng ......... ,, ....................... ~ a r ~po~ ......................
prepared and signed by a rcg:.:tcrca profession~[:~ineer registered by
State of Minnesota th:t nc on the impact an~::ii~avatio~i!i?,g!.l or placement~iii
of structures will have on the site and w~?~ii::::[the ~tion, fill or
placement of structures will cause any slope t0":~ un~'~ble or will
impose loads that may affect the safety of structures d~ii~l~pes. The
report shall also cc.~fy t~hat inclt~g~tlte engineer's r~gttdations so
the site development will not inter[~i::!~::?:adequate drain'~i!~r the site or
adjacent properties, will not obstru~, d~!~i?~iB~::~adversel~?affect existing
sewer or drainage facilities, will ~:~ a~r~'~i~iiii~t the quality of
stormwater runoff, ~t~::~i!iii~g~ adver~i?~ffect d~nstream properties,
wetlands or bodies o~i~:~ will not"~ult in erosion or sedimentation.
The owner o~:?:!~ property~iiii~hall provid~!i~i!~tification from a registered
professional :~i~. thg~::ili~::i:::~g~:~l~' of the site was completed in
compliance, with ~::ili~:~:~:~':i!~i~ and that the recommendations
contain~l:.~..the engi~g;!$ report have been adhered to.
~o~e is th~::~:need g~;ngineer's study in all situations, especially for
min~::~dditions....:...:...~:~ decks '~?'~ages~:'?:The..~: . staff a~ees it may be u~easonable to requke ~is
re~::~}~:.some instances;:~wever, each prope~y is ~que. To that end, the staffis
prop0~:~}~t~age whi~j~llows ~e Building Omcial, Plying Director ~d Ci~
Engineer':~give ~e ~neefing study for replacement decks, new decks or ad~tions to
existing de~}~}~d aS~iions or new smctures not exceeding 480 squ~e feet under all of
the following
~ inspection of ~e site does not indicate ~y obvious erosion problems or
conditions.
There is no ~sto~ of bluff hilum on the site.
All required setbacks ~e met.
The prope~y o~er records a bluff indemification a~eement ~d a decimation of
covenmts.
l:\98files\98pIcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 7
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.
Staff feels the proposed language accomplishes the purpose of original ordinance, while
allowing some flexibility. Their recommendation to City Council is to approve the
proposed amendment or with changes specified by the Plarming Commission.
Questions by the Commissioners:
What would happen if the applicant would disagree with staff's {~i~w o~'~ng the
inspection done by an engineer? How would they appeal? ~s.i~ii~aid it W'~i~::~be the
normal appeal process ....
Cramer: .... ?:iiii!ii!~ .... ":*:i!i!i!i~ .... .:~i!7
Engineering okay with certification on the grading~?:5~}~?
If an addition to the house is approved by staff, does thai::~tli~::ihe f~ht paragraph, the
property owner basically indemnity the City when then rna~i~:.addition? Kansier said
"Yes". ::?.~:???:a~:~
Vonhof: :~iiiiiii::
Questioned the language with professional ~gin~e!?:'~!~id it should be the same.
Regarding the criteria on pago:::~?;~a, history [ i i ffailura :;'the site, what about the
adjacent property? Vonhof;:~ded to ~and and ii'elude the 2 adjacent lots with
a history of lot failure...::~i:? i!iiiii!iii?
Comments from t~i~=:=~i~!i~: .=~==iiiilliiiiiiiiiii== =:==::=:=;=::;~==iiiiiiii:::~
Win Simonsc!~:::!:~.87 Nol~i~ Road said he is applying for a building permit to add
on 4 ~iii~i~aance passed in January was great but was over
done £r~i?:::~ituations l~i~i~. He likes the new wording with common sense in the
ord~ce for m~nor addI~, s. ,*:.ii??
Jim Ai~::16043 North~od Road, wanted to commend staff for attempting to clarify
what he ~ii~s some p~ems in the ordinance. The City Council acted in haste when
they passec~::~iiibrdi~:e. This ordinance was taken primarily from Minnetonka's
ordinance (hana~i~t ordinance to Commissioners). A lot of the verbiage came from
that ordinance. ,~i'~ point was it allowed building on the slope, not with the setback Mr
Albers went on to say a while ago he objected to staffs interpretation of a bluff and then
dropped it for a variety of reasons. This ordinance addresses a lot of the issues for people
who want to do minor changes.
Mary Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks (seasonal address), 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, would really
like the Commissioners to stop and consider what they have in this ordinance. He has 35
years experience working in the defense industry and knows what a safety factor is. He
feels there are three redundancies, first is based on the DNR. The 18% slope cannot be for
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm052698.doc 8
safety because the City allows a 30% slope for ben'ns. Mr. Mirsch gave his interpretation
of Bret Anderson's (a geotechnical and civil engineer with STS Consultants)
interpretation of what the ordinance should be.
The second redundancy is the engineering requirement. The third is the indemnification
of the City. Mr. Mirsch feels this is beyond fail-safe. He can understand an engineering
report so let him build on a bluff. There are too many requirements in the c
it keeps coming back and coming back. Why not sit down and fi be
done? His neighbor's house is fairly large but he does not worr to fall
down. Mirsch said the City is build his
house.
The public hearing is closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Crflmer:
· This is the first I have seen of the City Council's
significantly allows more use of the 1.
did. This
engineers. According to
good ordinance.
· Recommend Council a
It has
ordinance
in general this is a
Stamson:
· Do we need an
averages just
· Kansier said "Yes".
just marginal, if it just
do we need a study?
Vonh,
her of vacant properties and open
~ on it. It is a big issue.
recently. It was not an issue brought before the
· ' have an ordinance to protect the bluffs. We do have a
the houses are not falling offthe bluff or causing erosion
into the lake a bluff. There are other bluffs in the community.
· have been with engineering reports.
· With any new ordinance it might come back for fine tuning.
· Agreed with language changes recommended by staff.
· The Commissioners will review this annually with applications coming before us.
Criego:
· The verbiage is fine. It does what it is suppose to do.
1:[98 files\98plcornm\pcminh-~m052698.dec 9
· There are deeper problems. This ordinance is hard to explain. We owe it to ourselves
and the public and see if it can be put in terms everyone can understand. And further,
is that what we really want to do?
· The city engineers should explain to us again.
· I can not answer all the questions.
· The request for change was established based on a need. Kansier explained the City
Council heard from residents and came back with these two issues. ..::iiiiii!iJ}?:i::::~ ........
· In full support of the ordinance because it eases it. But in conjuncti~ii~:::~t there
should be something in place to have the engineering departmer~:,~.~anning
Commission go through this.
· Support the changes .....
· Agreed with Vonhof and keep an eye on the issue .~fl' see h~ it is working. .*~*~
· Is the intent to put this in the proposed ordinance bein~:{~:.~wed by the Council?
Rye said this is an amendment to the ~[~reland Ordinan6'~::i!~,~::.svil] be incorporated
into the new document.
· Are we reviewing what Council is rev~i~:?:i{~i~ould make:~se to make sure that
when the entire new Zoning Ordinance language will be
incorporated at that time. . '::'::}i?~::i::..::? ...... ?~?
· Is the intent to review i[:~a~{~iii!}!~ii::i~..
· We should not ~{~::what m~i~::done, Tla~!~:ianning Commission and City Council
considered this a loti::~!ii~i~:::~i::!~!~i~!::~
· We should watch it car~}~.to make sure it does not go into a direction that we did
· Ci~g.}~g'~ncil d~i::~B:ilg~is is t~i~:~i!~ they want to go
· Tl~:~i~cil does no~i~derstand the ordinance. This has been brought up a number
of ti~*~iiii~ither the ~ it is explained or the interpretation is not understood.
· Maybe them::~ould be a 30 minute presentation by staff. The difficulty in writing the
ordinance is to cover everything. This is an area we have not covered before. Work
with what we have and go fi-om there. See how it affects the cases.
Tovar said there are two different issues. One is the current ordinance and the
interpretation of that. The city staff can decide where the house goes but the concern is
the safety factor, slopes, soils and weight. The soils vary from lot to lot. We brought this
to the Council because they had the same questions the Planning Commission did.
1:\98 files\98pleomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc
10
Cramer:
· Has concern if it is just introduced to the Planning Commission.
Include diagrams within the ordinance itself so it is clearly understood.
· Kansier said the diagrams are in the ordinance.
Vonhof:
· The soils speaker should be videotaped and available for viewing by
furore commissioners.
MOTION BY CRIEGO,
AMENDMENTS AS STAFF
PARAGRAPH 2, "THE
CERTIFICATION FROM
REGISTERED ENGINEER." AND
MODIFY MOTION BY CREIGO,
BE CHANGED FROM "THERE IS
SITE" TO "THERE IS NO HISTORY
ADJACENT SITES.
THE SITE AND THE
Vote taken signified ayes by all.
MOTION BY CRIEGO TO
REVIEW THE
WHAT
' STAFF
COMMISSION, WITH
gTANDING AND IF THAT IS
IN THE NEXT MONTH.
Rye said staff would
would
two meetings because of
City Council. Mr. Anderson's schedule
decided to discuss this issue at
imperviom
James Nerison is requesting variances for
yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 26, 1998 on file in the
office of the Planning Director.
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.
h\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mnO52698.doc I 1
A map was presented indicating the boundaries of the Shoreland District. Mr. Nerison's
property is located entirely within the SD. The DNR algo supports staff's interpretation
that lots partially within the SD must comply with the impervious surface requirement on
the entire lot. The language is specific to include the entire lot. A memo from the
engineering department relating to the use of drainage and utility easements was included
in the report.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. 5.2% Variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2% rather than!~ii~imum
allowed of 30%.
2. A 0.1 foot variance to allow a side yard setback of 9.9 feet::~at~ than tl~i::~uired 10
feet.
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervio~iii~hrface ~::be reduced or ':~::ii¢~ ....
eliminated upon redesign of the structure or drivevC~ii~3tiq~iiiii~::::~etback variance
can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch. Th6::~i~[~ stni'~ture is in place has
no bearing on the hardship. Ifa permit application had bee'~::!i~mitted prior to
construction, any?:~g~ction had began.
Comments from the public:
James Nerison,
his lot was,
Shoreland District.
lot was in there
and should not be an
He knows roof.
City and asked where
lot was in the
been shown a map and his entire
Now the line
put in was okay
his lot is in the Shoreland district.
Rick ~ said he does not have a problem with
the.~!::'Nefison's . :~i!i::::~ ....
Com~:from the ~ ii~ ,ne
· Clearly the'::~ty is in the Shoreland District. Cannot support the impervious
surface requ~.
· The one inch side yard is not significant and can be dealt with.
Criego:
· The porch is up at this point.
· No problem with the inch setback. It was built by accident. The hardship has been
met.
· Pretty stringent with the 30% in the Shoreland District. Not in favor of the 35.2%
impervious surface.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn052698.doc
· Nefison said he put the structure up without a permit and will take the roof off.
Cramer:
· Criego and Vonhof summed up his feelings. Concur with the side yard setback.
· Can not go along with the impervious surface.
Stamson:
· If the applicant would have applied for a building permit,
have been caught? Tovar said it would have been cau
inspector would have been senl
· Tovar pointed out that even with removal of the roof, the
the 30% impervious surface.
· Agreed the impervious surface hardship has
· Support the side yard setback in regard
have been required.
An
1 be over
Criego:
surface
· Net/son said he
· Tovar
place. Net/son would have
opfions~
· Net/son
· Tovar
into
r in.
in
talked to him about
laid in sand.
Rick Sheldon
Prior Lake?
have on the entire community of
into it and it makes a difference.
wants the
~ runoff from the addition that goes into an overflow basins
would that have any affect? He is not the only person in the
problem.
Tova~ City works on a complaint basis. Someone filed a complaint and the
City had to investigate and found out Nerison did not meet City Ordinances and enforced
and enforced the complaint. The City does not go out and drive around looking for
violations.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, DENYING A 5.2 PERCENT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 35.2 PERCENT
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT. AND APPROVE A
0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9.9 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD
)F THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR AN UNCOVERED DECK.
98filcs\98plcomm\pcminXrr~052698.d~¢
13
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, felt if the City is going to have impervious
surface for the Shoreland District it should be the same for the entire City. There are
many commercial and residential developments that are outside the Shoreland District but
still drain into the lake.
Stamson responded the Commissioners did look at it in the new The
areas
is being restricted with floor ratios and maximum lot coverage.
6. New Business:
The study session on the new ordinanc~ ;:30 p.m. at
Maintenance Center.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Donald Rye
Secretary
l:~95files\98pleorm'n\!~cminXnmO52698.doc
14
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SA
CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING LOT WIDTH
VARIANCE AND BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
JIM RUZICKA, Case File #98-057
16099 NORTHWOOD ROAD
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X. NO
JUNE 8, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On May 26, 1998 the Planning Commission heard a request from Jim Ruzicka
who is proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single
family residence. He was requesting the following variances:
1. A .46 foot variance to permit a lot width of 49.54 feet rather than the minimum
required lot width of 50,00 feet to be buildable; and
2, A 34 foot variance to allow a structure located 47 feet from the top of bluff,
rather than the required 81 feet.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and directed staffto prepare a
resolution approving the requested variances. The Planning Commission also
requested a written statement regarding the attempts made to relocate the
existing private water easement with the adjacent property owner, Attached is
Resolution 98-15PC and the requested written statement.
RECOMMENDA.T. ION:
Adoption of Resolution 98-15PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1, Approve Resolution 98-15PC approving variances requested by the
applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems
appropriate in the circumstances.
~,00 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
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. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
denying the variance requests.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 98-15PC,
L:\98FlLES\98VAR\98~057',98057PC2.DOC
Page 2
10:35 FAX 612 5454289 ADVANTAGE TITI~ COMPANY ~002
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY 01;' HENNEPIN )
AFFIDAVIT
William C. Peper, licensed attorney in the State of Mirmesota, ID No. 230960, being first
duly sworn, on oalh deposes and says:
1. That he is the attorney for the Jm'nes Ruzicka ("Ruzicka").
2. 2'hat on August 4, 1997, he met with Jane Crosson ("Crosson") and Ruzicka to
discuss the feasibility ufa rele~kqe of the water line easement by Jane Crosson; said water line
easement encumbered Ruzicka's property.
3. That subsequent to the above meeting, 1 forwarded a copy to Crosson of an
instrument to release the water line easement.
4. That subsequent to the above meeting, 1 discussed with Crosson the release of the
water line easement; but ~at Crosson has refused and is unwilling to execute such an insmtment.
5. That Ruzicka has incurred and continues to incur substantial delay~ and costs,
including attorneys fees, in attempting to obtain a release by Crosson of the water line easement.
6. That this Affidavit is made tbr the purpose of substm~tiatb~g Ruzicka's statements
to thc City of Prior Lake that Ruzicka h~ls exerted all reasonable effort aa~d cost to obtain release
of the water line easement from Crosson; but that Crosson is unw~,'lling to so release the water
ine easement burdening Ruzicka's propet~ty.
Subscribest and sworn to before me
this ~q X'~day of May, 1998.
Notary -P'u~li d
.My Commission expircs:__..~/~3t,/2OS~
RESOLUTION 98-15PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 0.46 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT
WIDTH OF 49.54 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE
BUILDABLE; AND
A 34.00 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF OF
47 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 81 FEET,
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jim Ruzicka has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
the construction of a single family residence with detached garage on property located
in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at
the following location, to wit;
16099 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 89, Northwood, Scott
County, MN.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #98-057 and held hearings thereon on May 26, 1998. After completing the
hearings, the Plarming Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution approving
the variances as requested.
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 diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
l:\98file~98var\98-057~e9815pc.do¢
16200 Ea§leCreekAve. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph.(612)447-4230 / Fax (612)447-4245
AN EQUALOPPORTUNITYEMPLOYER
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 substandard lot size,
the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city, the location
of private utility and driveway easements, and the adjacent property owner's refusal
to release those easements.
The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation mad 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 garage without the variances.
The contents of Planning Case 98-057 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.
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 (survey) for future
single family dwelling and detached garage;
1. A 0.46 foot variance to permit a lot width of 49.54 feet instead of the required 50 feet
to be buildable; and
2. A 34.00 foot variance to permit setback fi.om top of bluff of 47 feet instead of the
required 81 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 8, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\98files\98varX98-057~re9815pc.doc 2
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING SIDEYARD
SETBACK VARIANCE AND DENYING IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE VARIANCE FOR JAMES NERISON, Case
File #98-048
14294 ASPEN AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
__YES . X NO
JUNE 8, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On April 22, 1998 the Planning Commission heard a request from James
Nerison who had built a porch without a permit and is now 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.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and continued the request to
allow staff to present additional information. On May 26, 1998 staff presented
the requested information and the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
a resolution denying the requested variance to impervious surface and a
resolution approving the side yard setback variance. Attached are Resolution
98-12PC and Resolution 98-16PC.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of Resolution 98-12PC and 98-16PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolutions 98-12PC and 98-16PC or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolutions 98-12PC and 98-16PC.
L:\98FiLES\98VAR\98-048\98048PC4.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION 98-12PC
DENYING 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 Nerison has applied for a variance from Section 5-8-3 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 hearing 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.
The Board of Adjustments continued discussion on May 26, 1998 and reviewed the
requested additional information. On May 26, 1998 the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial.
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 coverage variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
applicant has alternatives to reduce impervious surface, thus eliminating the variance
request. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant.
I:\ 8fi s\9 v \98- 4 e 12pcdo Pag 1
16200 Ea~e i~e~el~ ~{ve. ~.~,~rior EaSe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) ~47-4245
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 applicant's attemion prior
to beginning construction.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinances cannot be met if
the variance is granted.
9. The Board of Adjustment has concluded reasonable use can be made of the property
without the variance.
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 5.2 pement variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 35.2 percent
rather than the maximum allowed of 30 pement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 8, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\98 files\98var\98-048h'e9812pc.doc Page 2
RESOLUTION 98-16PC
APPROVING A 0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK
OF 9.9 FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 10.0 FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
James Nerison has applied for a variance from Section 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.
The Board of Adjustments continued discussion on May 26, 1998 and reviewed the
requested additional information. On May 26, 1998 the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval.
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 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 applicant.
.... ,~1:~8 fi.l~s\91}va/\98-048,uXre9816pc.doc Page 1
o~uv magic LreeK ~ve. S.m, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Board of Adjustment finds the applicant intended to meet the setback and was
utilizing a survey that was inaccurate. Had the applicant applied for a permit for the
deck, a revised survey would not have been necessary and the 0.1 foot discretion
would most likely have gone unnoticed.
8. The Board of Adjustment finds the spirit and intent of the ordinances is met if the
variance is granted.
9. 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 approves the
following variances for 14294 Aspen Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A (survey and legal
description) for a proposed structure (deck, porch or other addition) as shown in the same
location as proposed porch;
1. A 0.1 foot variance to permit a 9.9 foot setback rather than the minimum
setback required of 10.0 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 8, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\98 files\98var\98-048h'e9816pc.doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
C~RJ~Yi~YCd J~ OlW SURimi~ i~Oi~. '
LOT 16, BLOCK
SAND POINTE SECOND ADDITION
SCOTT COUNT'f, MINNESOTA
30 0 60
GP, APHIC SCALE - FEET
JO0 NO. TSgS.00,.16 FILE NO. 1386 NET TSO56SBl.*
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted wi~ Buildiag Permit Ap~:lir..ation)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address 14ZAP- ;~hQeyl ~.
LotA.rea ~-35 Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............
************************************************************************
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE x =
ATTACIq2ED GA_P,~GE x =
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTLrR.E ......................
X
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ...................
DR/V'EWAY/PAVED AREAS
~paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Are~)
=
~RCHEbR/D ECKS
(Open De:k.z 'A" min. opening be.'w~'en
boa.q:ts, with a p~ious sumac= below,
not consid~ to bc imperious)
OTHEK
TOT.~L PAVED A.R_EAS .........................................
x = .<'5 · ES
T OT.~L DECKS ........................................................
I caS.
TOT.AL OTt!ER. ................................................
TOTAL IIM2:~ERVIOUS SURFACE
Prepared By
Company .
Date
3o~. ~7__ i
~-53.7_Z- . t
Phone # ~90- 0509