HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1998
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-094 Timothy Boeck is requesting a 909 square foot variance to permit a
6591 square foot lot area instead of the required 7500 square feet to be buildable for
the construction of a future single family dwelling on the property legally described
as Lot 3, Fairview Beach.
B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen is requesting a variance to roof-top screening of
utility equipment and a variance to waive the irrigation requirement for new
construction.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
' AUGUST 10, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The August 10, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair
Vonhofat 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego a
Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
gonhof Present ..::~[~i~:~::~ .....
Kuykendall Absent ,.:~::~iiii::~ .... ...
Criego Present ~i[ ::~
Stamson Absent "~?:~iiiiiliiiiiii::~:~i?~ ........ ~:'
3. Approval of Minutes: ~i~i?i.. ..,
The M~nutes ~om ~e July 27, 1998 PI~g Co~g~g. meeti~ were approved
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case g98-070
Robe~ Jadet
Vice read the
hearing statement.
gust 10, 1998 on file in the
house size
for lot width is substantiated with hardships
) control over. However, the variance request to
criteria as the applicant has control over the
foot prints have been located on other lots with a
The DNR submitted a written objection to granting the bluff setback variance stating the
physical and visual integrity of the bluff is compromised on the proposed location of the
structure. The DNR does not object to the variance to the lot width.
l:\98files\98plcormn\pcmin~m081098.doe 1
Questions from the Commissioners:
Cramer: Were the existing structures built before the Bluff Setback Ordinance was in
effect? Tovar responded they were. The Ordinance went into effect in December of
1995.
Comments from the public: :~:
Bob Jader, 14960 Pixie Point Circle, said he resides in the adjacent 6~ :~quare foot
home which he hopes to sell and build a smaller home on this lot .~?fi*~g.en informed
this is a two step process, first, receive the variance to build, the~!~i~?thro~i~:..e' building
permit process. Many other items must be satisfied to get th~$ig~, soil bo'~.
engineering certified landscaping plan, erosion control, et~::iii~!i~!i~hased the
long before the Bluff Ordinance. Mr. Jader feels his p~9~ed l~pme is well withi~":~'¢::?~ ....
impervious surface requirements and fits in with th~,~gundiri~i!~yironment and:~::?
structures. However, with the erosion on his neigli~3~ii~[?pe~;.i~i~g:.not a good time to
be requesting a variance. "::?:::ii?~ii.!:i:i:!:i:i:!,i~i:i~.i ...........
Mr. Jader is working with Mr. Harte and:~ii~er of enginee~ii~i?~m.~e sure there will be
no slope erosion. He feels what he is prol~:~i~i~ili[~;~$onable. M~?~r stated if he can
satisfy the Commissioners that what he is ~ng"i:~:!9, [~::'satisfy the City he
does not know how the variance can be denting. ~?:Ji~ii~f:bn to say literal
enforcement of this ordinance..:~ogl~! result i~!i~::;~y signi~i~t financial loss. Mr. Jader
presented a letter to the C~?s from ~ilgrchitect ihdicating what kind of
structure could be built..~iii~e builc~ envelop)iiiiiiii~g~. Jader feels he is taking all the
necessary steps to m~iii~e requir~nts of the C~!~::' Mr. Jader presented pictures of his
current landscapin~!i~::::tlas [!!~ii~i~m~:~:~graphy as the proposed building site.
Mr. Jader plans to do th~::~¢i~ii~i::~e proposed property.
Mr. Jader:i~ii~i~!~.proviri~iii~i~ant precautions to avoid erosion. He will
.:::::::::::: .... .':::::::::::::::'"~:~i~:~:::"
guar~[~"there will/i~i~ any erd~fi. Mr. Jader pointed out other lakeshore lots that he
feelai::i~ not comparabi~!i~':~::~his prOPerty. He feels the plan presented is reasonable.
Comr~i~¢r Criego Mr. Jader if he considered a multi-level home, and if he did,
why not ~:~t~::it. Mr. ~[~r said they wanted one floor living. The reason for the height
is because ~:~i~i~u~0~ding structures, and he doesn't want it to look like an outhouse.
Criego pointed ~t the architect (in his letter) indicated there was not enough square
footage, but if a multi-level building was constructed there would be enough square
footage. Mr. Jader responded they did not discuss multi-levels.
Donald Johnson, 14966 Pixie Point Circle, opposed this structure in his letter dated
August 4, 1998. He is the neighbor, along with Mr. Harte, who had slope failure. There
is a law suit against the City for the failure on his property. He feels the City should not
waste anymore taxpayer's money dealing with slope failure.
l:\98flles\98plcormn\pcmin~tn081098.doc 2
Elizabeth Jader, 14960 Pixie Point Circle, owner of property, gave a brief history of the
property. She pointed out regulations have changed drastic~Illy in 1998. This property
will be their retirement home. Mrs. Jader feels they are the enemy invading their own
property. Now she has to deal with strangers to make decisions that will affect her life.
They have invested a lot of money and time in this process.
Mary Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks, (seasonal home) wanted to remind the
the Bluff Ordinance was to protect bluff lands, erosion,
no doubt there is erosion. The City of Prior Lake has a no-fail. He feels the
BluffOrdinance is for appearance only. Mirsch bluff
interpretation.
~.. "~i~
....
Brunette Johnson, 14966 Pixie Point Circle, said she lives..,~i~i'home
The bluffhas not moved in 50 years with all
Nature was taken away when Mr.
natural vegetation. If there was
have failed and they would have their hill. She pass the
variance.
100 trees and afi~e
Michael Harte, 14964 Pixie Point Circle
He believes if the engineering is done
working with Mr. Jader. Mr. Harte feels
asked the Commissioners to
on the slope.
will ~::'rectified. He is
Harte
Commissioner Criego
rejected b,.
proposal was
process.
Bob Jader stated he feek,
What he is proposing will not
Criego:
· There 1) to build on a substandard lot; and 2) to protect the slope.
· to demonstrate a little flexibility so all parties are
satisfied. ~'Lynch shows some leniency toward the applicant. In his letter he
basically states he does not like where it is but given an additional 15 or 20 feet, it
may be suitable. He could have said "I disagree completely and follow the
ordinance." The Planning Department has to enforce the Ordinance. It is up to the
Planning Commission and City Council to vary from the ordinance.
· Mr. Jader has to understand what he is doing impacts other people.
· Question to Mr. Jader - The garage is very large, if a two car garage was proposed
instead ora four car garage, would you be able to move the building back? Mr. Jader
l:\98files\98plcomm~pcminhrm081098.doc 3
did not feel it had an impact because of what he is going to do to the bluff. He is right
up to the setbacks.
· Question to Staff- What is the process to ensure a stronger bluff?. Rye said there is
limited ability to move dirt and all the vegetation on a bluff under the current
ordinance. The basic presumption of the Bluff Ordinance is any kind of development
activity, construction or landscaping will be held to the absolute minimum. That's
the point the ordinance takes. If anyone wants to do something differe~i::i~re is the
option of a variance or applying to have the code amended. .....
· Applicant has done wonders on his current home. The fact is the.~i~.iis trying to
protect the bluff. The City is being sued for bluff failure at
· Moving the house back to the footprint proposed by the staff?i~i!his Ol~:~g::...would
put it in a tunnel. The applicant needs to build closer to ~iiht~£but not ~ the
· The DNR tells us they do not want any destmctiog:~:{he bluff or shoreline. 'i!iiiii? ....
· Propose an alternative to what the applicant reqa~d. ':~iiiilili:::.~ .... ':~::i::~;
· The lot width variance is not a problem, t~ere is a def'mit'~::ii~ship.
· The initial bluff ordinance was far m0~iii~ii~ it is n0~!iii::i!~Shis new ordinance
is more lenient to build closer to the blt~. Eve~ii~g~:~f~erent opinion on how
close is right.
· The DNR has commen~::~m~:proposali::ii~gey are n6~[:~appy with this proposal
whether it is a persor~lii:'~pinio~ii~ not.
· The building envel"::~ still mal~reasonabl~::i~i!~bf the~ ...... lot. There are a lot of issues
· Agreed with Criego ift~iii~[backs were further back he would look at this again.
· .~ regard to appii~'s co~ents and inaccurate information from staff, staff has
,:~::iiiii::i:~gys made an effo~!~il? do the right thing.
· Tt~ii~i~ing Comm}~ioners are part of the community, not part of the staff. The
Co~3ers has~i!i~ interest in this community.
· He has S:~ii:~pp~t's property. The Jaders have a nice home and have done a nice
job with it?~ver, the Harte property had slope failure and has really come into
question. ,:!i?:~
· Under the variance process we consider the four hardship criteria. Agreed with
Cramer's comments to the lot width.
· The variance to the bluff setback are not met in this case. Especially when there is a
2,000 to 2,400 square foot foot print.
· There are buildable alternatives.
· Cannot support the variance.
l:\98files\98plcormn\pcmin~nn081098.doc 4
Open Discussion/Com~nents:
Criego: This issue is whether the building envelope is big enough. Would like to offer a
compromise and give a variance based on the DNR's recommendation. The DN-R is
super conservative but they are willing to go a few extra feet. There is a hardship. They
would have to put up a 2 or 3 story building.
Cramer: Agreed with Criego in one respect, there could be some leni~ with the lake
setback because of the other houses. Would be willing to
Vonhof: Stand with previous statment. There has been a bt~,f:..~ure adj~ii~ this
property. The adjacent homes are multi-level. Any one s[~i~:'is going
small against a two or three story house. No testimong.:~::'~een given to alter me"~
Cramer: Cannot pmture the bml&ng envelope tomght w[~:.~'the proper ~nformatton.
This property is buildable. Suggested to continue and have '~t~ant cheek into going
back at least 20 fee .... ,~i::i~::?:% =================================
Cramer and Vonhof explained there are tW~¢:P~m~onerS~t present who may or
, next month.
19PC
FEET INSTEAD OF
RESOLUTION 98-
, PERMIT A LOT WIDTH OF 44.38
BE BUILDABLE.
CARRIED.
#98-070
TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
SETBACK FOR ROBERT JADER (CASE FILE
14, 1998.
all. MOTION CARRIED.
Old Business: None
New Business: None
l:\98files\98pl¢omm\pcmin~n~081098.doc 5
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye explained Jane Kansier is working with the City Attorney on the Zoning Ordinance
Draft. The City Council will be conducting the public hearings.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ..::~iiiiii~ .....
Donald R. Rye Co~iCarls~iiiii¢i~:~.
Director of Planning ~g Secr~ii!iii~
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nm081098.doc 6
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR TIMOTHY
BOECK, CASE FILE #98-094
LOT 3, FAIRVIEW BEACH, SCOTT COUNTY, MN
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
YES X NO
AUGUST 24, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Timothy Boeck
who is proposing to construct a new single family residence on the vacant Lot 3,
Fairview Beach. The lot dimensions are S 60.37 feet, W 150.16 feet, N 40 feet,
E 126.85 feet, for a total area of 6591 square feet. Section 5-8-12 of the City
Code requires that substandard lots have a minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. feet to
be buildable. Thus, the existing lot area is 909 sq. feet less than the minimum,
requiring a variance. A sketch of the proposed house plans are attached. All
structure setbacks and impervious surface will be met.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 3, Fairview Beach was platted in 1926. The property is riparian and located
within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district.
There is no bluff on this lot and the proposed house location is above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. The lot was deeded as an existing lot of
record to Timothy Boeck from his father Robert Boeck on July 27, 1998. The
applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Robert Boeck does own
one adjacent parcel. Lot attributes are as follows:
Area
(above 904 el)
Lot Width
(measured st setback)
OHW Width
Size Requirement to Variance
be Buildable Requested
(as a substandard lot)
6,591 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 909 sq. ft.
51.62 ft. 50.00 ft. NA
40 ft. N/A N/A
L:\98FILES\98VAR\9g-094~98-094PC.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The legal building envelope is 36.62 feet wide at the 25 foot front setback with an
approximate depth of 72 feet W & 58 feet E, resulting in an area envelope of
approximately 2,340 square feet. The applicant has sketched the house design,
but has yet to submit complete building plans. The house footprint consists of
672 sq. feet of living area and a two stall garage of 400 sq. feet, for a total of
1072 square feet, plus the paved driveway area of 517 square feet, equals a
total impervious surface area of 1,589 square feet. This amounts to
approximately 24.1% of proposed impervious surface which is within the 30%
allowed. The proposed house and driveway will comply with all building
setbacks. The proposed garage is setback 6 feet and the driveway 5 feet from
the east lot line and the house is 12.25 feet to the west lot line. Proposed
access to the property is by a private 20 foot platted roadway that will be
bituminous paved.
Attached are comments from DNR Hydrologist Pat Lynch. The DNR is opposed
to the variance because of the State standard minimum lot size of 15,000 sq.
feet on a sewered general development lake. This variance is for a lot size of
44% of the State minimum. Minnesota Code of Agency Regulation 6120.3300,
regarding lots of record, require lot combinations and this lot was recently in
common ownership with the adjacent lot and could have been combined.
However, under the City's Shoreland Ordinance, the lot is an existing lot of
record and was legally conveyed to a different property owner.
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 enfomed. The lot area is an existing condition.
There is a hardship with respect to the property because the size cannot be
changed to meet the criteria of the ordinance. Without the requested
variance, the lot is unbuildable.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The unique cimumstance is the lot area. Considering that it is an existing
condition created in 1926 and cannot be altered to meet the ordinance
requirements, hardship does exist for lot area. When the property was
platted a minimum area was not required.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-094~98-094PC.DOC Page 2
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 6,591 sq. feet. This
is a condition which has existed since the property was platted in 1926.
Therefore, lot area is a hardship that is not the result of the applicant's
actions.
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 area requirement is to allow for a structure that
can meet the required setbacks and impervious surface and still be of a
reasonable size. Considering that all of the required setbacks and
impervious surface will be adhered to and the adjacent lots are of similar size
and have existing structures upon them. the granting of the lot area variance
is not contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the hardship criteria are met and the variance request for lot
area is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has
no control over.
ALTERNATIVES:
1, Approve the variance 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 #98-22PC approving variance to lot area.
L:\98FILES\g8VAR\g8-094\98-094PC,DOC Page 3
m
'l
,1
r- Z
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of'Waters / Metro Regio~
Project Type (check all that apply):
[] Preliminary Plat
[] PUD
[] Final Plat [] Subdivision
)2~afiauce [] Other
Yes No _~e~ No
FloodplaLu [] J~ Shoreland ~ []
(1M.S. 103F.101) (lvLS. 103F.201)
Yes No Ye~ No
Protected Waters [] ~ Water Appropriation [] J~
(lvI. S. 103 G.245) '- (M.S. 103G-.255)
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
(3) A guest cottage must be located or designed
to reduce its visibility as viewed from public waters and
adjacent shore!ands by vegetation, topography, increased
setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of
government, assuming summer leaf-on conditions.
~ D. Lots of record in the office of the county
recorder on the date of enactment of local shoreland controls
that do not meet :he requirements of items A to E and subparts
2a and 2b may De al!c"ed as building sites without variances
from !ct size requi~ents provided the use is permitted in the
zoning district, :ha lot has been in separate ownership from
abutting lands at a~ times since it became substandard, was
created compliant with official controls in effect at the time,
and sewage trea:men~ and setback requirements of the shoreland
controls are me~. Necessary variances from setback requirements
must b,~ obtained before any use, sewage treatment system, or
building permits are issued for the lots. In evaluating all the
variances, boards of adjustment shall consider sewage treatment
and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lots and
shall deny the variances if adequate facilities cannot be
provided. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under
%he same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the
requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot
must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the
purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with
the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more
parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of items A to E
and s~bparts 2a and 2b as much as possible. Local shoreland
controls may set a minimum size for nonconforming lots or impose
their restrictions on their development.
E. if allowed by local governments, lots intended as
controlled accesses to public waters or recreation areas for use
by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions must meet or
exceed ~he following standards:
(1) They must meet the width and size for
residential lots, and be suitable for the intended uses of
controlled access lots. If docking, mooring, or over-water
storage of watercraft is to be allowed ~t a controlled access
lot, then the width of the lot must be increased by the percent
of the requirements for riparian residential lots for each
watercraft provided for by covenant beyond six, consistent with
the following table:
Controlled Access
Ratio of lake size"
to shore length
(acres/mile)
Less than 100
100-200
20i-300
Lot
Frontage Requirements
Required increase
in frontage
(percent)
20
15
A-1.20
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ROOF-TOP SCREENING
OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO
WAIVE THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR DAVE
HANSEN, Case File #98-093
17001 FISH POINT ROAD
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES X NO
AUGUST 24, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The building is constructed and partially occupied. A building permit was issued
August 14, 1997. The property is located in the B-P Business Park zoning
district. The permit was issued with a plan for roof-top screening and a letter of
intent for the sub-contractor to submit a landscape irrigation plan. Temporary
Certificate's of Occupancy have been issued for the tenant finishes of
office/warehouse space. This request is due to the applicant's need for a
permanent certificate of occupancy. All outstanding items must be completed
prior to the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy. In previous
correspondence, the applicant has expressed concern to the City Council
regarding the requirements of roof-top screening and required irrigation.
DISCUSSION:
Section 5-5-10 of the City Code (Landscape Ordinance) states "All areas to be
lawn and landscaped shall have a built-in irrigation system...Permanent
underground irrigation is not required for existing, new or re-established natural
or native plant communities". The city received a letter on August 13, 1997
stating their sub-contractor will submit an irrigation plan. In an effort to expedite
the issuance of the building permit, this was acceptable as the contractor's
awareness and intention to comply with the ordinance for issuance of a building
permit.
Section 5~5-15 of the City Code (Business Park Ordinance) states "All utility
equipment, such as heating and ventilating equipment, meters and other devices
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
shall be completely screened from eye level view of adjacent residential
properties and streets....If on the roof, the equipment shall be screened with a
parapet or screen wall of materials compatible with the principle structure.
Vertical or horizontal wood slats, fencing or similar materials are not an
acceptable screening material." Attached is a specification of the proposed and
approved roof-top screening as part of the approved building permit.
Even though, the permit was issued in compliance with the ordinance and with
the necessary proposed irrigation plan, the applicant failed to submit an irrigation
plan or complete the installation of roof-top screening as approved as part of the
building permit. The applicant is now requesting a variance. The proposed
Zoning Ordinance allows for no irrigation if the developer posts a 2 year letter of
credit (LOC) as opposed to installing irrigation with the current one year LOC.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance states mechanical equipment is to be screened
from the general public or adjacent residential areas. This allows for the roof-top
units to be painted to match the roof to be screened.
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. Reasonable use of the property exists.
The applicants hardship is primarily financial. The applicant has also stated
he feels an irrigation system would waste water. There is no hardship with
respect to the property, as reasonable use exists if the variances are not
granted.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances with respect to the property that bring
about a hardship with enforcement of the ordinance. The property is situated
on a fiat, relatively Iow lying lot. Roof-top units are visible from the adjacent
Wilderness Ponds development. The lots in this residential subdivision are
situated on a hill over-looking the business office park where the roof-top unit
are clearly visible and the metal equipment produces glares on sunny days.
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 building permit was issued with the applicants full intent to provide roof-
top screening and to submit an irrigation plan. The hardship is primarily
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-093~98-093PC.DOC Page 2
financial as the applicant has stated in his letters he feels it is a waste of
money to screen the roof-top units and to install underground utilities. The
hardship is caused by the applicant, as other developers have fully complied
with the ordinance (Park Nicollet clinic, Wilds Clubhouse, etc.).
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
Roof-top screening is a specific requirement in the Business Park zoning
district, which, when uniformly adhered to, create an aesthetically pleasing
office/industrial park. The intent of the ordinance cannot be compensated or
protected in any other manner. The applicant has an alternative to the
irrigation requirement to use native plant materials rather than sod. This is to
preserve the intent of establishing turf and maintaining ground cover that
withstands time and weather. The proposed variances are contrary to the
spirit and intent of the ordinance and is contrary to the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance requests are not substantiated with hardships
pertaining to the lot and alternatives exists for compliance with the ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
2. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Adoption of the attached Resolution #98-21PC denying the requested variances
to irrigation and roof-top screening.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-093\98-O93PC.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-21PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP
SCREENING OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT AND A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE
IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
FOR DAVE HANSEN
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dave Hansen has applied for variances fi.om the Zoning Ordinance in order to waive
the requirement for built-in irrigation and roof-top screening of mechanical equipment
for recently constructed office/warehouse building on property located in the B-P
(Business Park) District at the following location, to wit;
~aar pm of Lot 1, Block 2, WA.T~z.R.FRONT PASSAGE ,4-DDITION, $co~ Count'/. Mi-?.~nescm
desc~bed as follows:
Begirm~g at ~ northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2, of said plat; thence North 00 d~=:s 10
~mez ~/eca~s East plar ~ea~g acng ae w~t I~e of said Lot I, Blcck 2, a di:mnc* ct
I47.00 fe:t; ~ence along a ~ge~l ca~e c~ncave ro ~e west, ~v~g a radiu~ ~f 525.00 fear, a
cuntrul angle of 02 de~c:s 50 ~nu~ 26 seconds, an arc leng~ of 26.08 fo=t; ~ac= Noruh 82
degrees 30 minnms 56 seconds E~t (not ~gen~ to said cur/e) a dismnc~ of 195.73 feet; ~ence
~e ncr~ I~: of s~d Lot 2, Block 2, of ~aid plat; ~encs Nor~ 89 degress 49 m/nures !6 sec:n~
West along said easterly exremion ~d ~e =eF~ l~e of said Lot 2, Block 2, a ~c= of 410.52
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #98-093 and held hearings thereon on August 24, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the denial of the proposed
variances will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to
1:\98files~98var~98-093~'e9821 pc.doc ]
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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.
5. The applicant was aware of the zoning requirements upon payment and receipt of the
building permit application. The approved building plans indicate proper roof-top
screening as required by the zoning ordinance and the intent to have the sub-
contractor submit an irrigation plan.
Reasonable use of the property exists without granting of the variance. The roof-top
screening and irrigation were not an issue when the permit was received by the
applicant and no hardship was expressed or variance applied for at that time.
The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property fight of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The City Code allows for alternatives to built-in irrigation and varying methods of
roof-top screening that are permitted without the variance.
8. The contents of Planning Case 98-093 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 Dave Hansen on property located at 17001 Fish Point Road:
1. A variance to waive the roof-top screening of utility equipment established in
Section 5-5-15 of the City Code; and
2. A variance to waive the built-in irrigation requirement set forth in Section 5-5-10
of the City Code.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 24, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R, Rye, Planning Director
h'O 8files\98vark98-093kre9821 pc.doc
~g-13-97 10:30A Construction 70. Inc. 1 '~12 781-0123 P.01
O EN Ei:i~IL CONTRACTOR
August =13,
City of Prior Lake
Attn: Don Rye, Jenni Tovar, Paul Baumgartner
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re:
Prior Lake Industrial Park
17001 Fish Point Road
Prior Lake, MN
Dear Don, Jenni and Paul:
This is in response to the August 1, 1997 letter from Jenni Tovar.
General Plan Revisions:
The irrigation system is to be designed by a subcontractor. We will submit an
irrigation plan for your records at a later date.
2)
3)
Trash enclosure will have a roof. Architect is dropping off a I~lan this morning.
Lighting plan and fixture information has been submitted to you.
4)
We added a fire hydrant as requested and is shown on the plans that were
resubmitted last week.
5) Revised landscape plan has been submitted to you last wee~<.
6)
Dave Hansen's bank is foxing over a Letter of Credit for 125% of the landscape/
irrigation costs.
Buildino Permit ReQuirements:
1)
Certificate of Survey -- we have submitted to you a signed Civil Engineered
Survey/Site Plan showing building setbacks, parking areas, 'and elevations. We
have hired a professional surveyor to layout the building and site. We will fax you
a letter from Paramount Engineering & Design as requested by Don Rye
2) Tenants will be required to submit for individual sign permits.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
PAR~L ROOF-TOP SCREENING PLAN
~ I I/~" -- r-al'
ENTRy
(~r.
Existing parapet
light ~uuge matul frame brace fo
mechanical unit
matching colored breuk metal screen
top of screen level with
fop of unit.
verify
treated 2x6 pads
roof
Screens to be installed on visible sides only of rooftop units
when viewed from the streen in front of the building.
Mechanical Screen Detail
1/2" = 1 '-0"
ICONSTRUCTION I~ULLETIN
FOR APPROVALECPRICING ONLY
Prior Lake Industrial
Prior Lake, Minnesota
date issued: 12723197
ret, sheet number:
Bri$ley Architecture Company
William D, Brisley, AIA
32~0 Irving Avenue South
Minneaoplks, Minnesota 55408
voice: 612.$24,8730 fa~ 612.$22.75~7
page--:. 612.318.1~
bulletin no:
1 of 1 sheets
D.O. Hansen
DOH Enterprises
8140 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
October 20, 1997
Ms. Lydia Andren, Mayor
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mayor Andren:
I am writing this letter regarding your ordinance pertaining to and requiring that I install a
lawn sprinkler system with the new office/warehouse I'm building at 17001 Fish Point Road
SE in Prior Lake.
First, I don't need it. This systemis totally unnecessary. Most of my plantings, trees, etc., shall
be o£ the evergreen and pine type, wh/ch require "personal" watering, etc.
Second, lawn sprinkler systems are a grotesque waste of water! Today, we are trying to
conserve and preserve our most hnportant natural resource -- water. We require toilets that
only use one and one half gallons to flush (they don'~ work, but the idea is there). We use
"saver" %rower heads~ etc.' Why would you pass an ordinance to promote wasting water?
Sprinkler'systems are hoi'ribly inefficienL I see precious water running down the gutter
wherever they're used. It's just a "lazy" way to accomplish a job and we pay for it by "waste."
I cannot install th/s system on my project/property. It's totally against my attitude to conserve
and preserve our precious water.
May I suggest to Prior Lake to repeal tkis ordinance which promotes, and forces us to waste,
and misuse our water supply. Th/s ordinance is definitely not needed.
Sincerely yours,
D. O. Hansen
CC:
Prior Lake City Council
Mr. Don Rye, Planning Commission
Mr. Robert Hutchins, Chief Building Inspector
D.O. Hansen
8140 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
January5,1998
Mr. Wes Mader, Mayor
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear MayorMade~
Back in October 1997, I sent a letter to the "past" mayor of Prior Lake and the
Council regarding the ordinance for mandatory lawn sprinklers in the city of
Prior Lake (copy enclosed), especially pertaining to my new office/warehouse
construction at 17001 Fish Point Road SE.
I feel that the City of Prior Lake should voluntarily repeal this ordinance. It is
totally worthless and wasteful.
I was in the process ofmaking an application to the demand that this ordinance
be dropped, or repealed, but the $350.00 fee is far too excessive!
I feel that the City of Prior Lake should m-examine this needless and wasteful
ordinance and repeal it voluntarily. Besides promoting waste of our most
precious resource, the ordinance has nothing to do with health, safety, and
public welfare of the community.
If the City Council wishes me to address this wasteful ordinance, there should
definitely be no cost to me.
I would wish yourself, or any council or planning member to call me at any time
at 941-0134.
Sinc~re~ yot}rs,
D. O. Hansen
Prior Lake Council
Mr. Don Rye, Planning Commission
Ms. Jane A. Kausier, Planning Coordinator
Mr. Robert Hutchins, Chief Bldg. Inspector
David O. Hansen
108 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
April 28, 1998
Mr. Wes Mader
Mayor, Prior Lake
3470 Sycamore Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: 17001 Fresh Point Rd. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN
Dear Mayor Mader:
In response to our telephone conversation, I am again responding to the two "problem areas"
I have with Prior Lake on my new office/warehouse at 17001 Fish Point Rd S.E. First, your
ordinance, or code, demanding roof "fencing" o£ our utility units. Second, your ordinance
demanding in-ground sprinkler systems.
I am very unhappy, and in total disagreement, with the response from the Planning
Commission regarding these ordinances. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy that defies
"change"!
The Planning Commission stated on the fencing issue that everyone has had to fence the units
up to this point so why shouldn't Hansen have to fence! This is a foolish, archaic and basically
untrue response. Just because mistakes have been made up to this point where builders have
had to fence where they shouldn't --- we should keep making this mistake (I'm glad your
planners aren't physicians). How foolish! Also, it's not true to say all commercial buildings
are fenced. There are buildings in Prior Lake that do not have fencing---and they do present
themselves cosmetically better!
I presented the City Council, and yourself, with pictures of my building showing clean, neat
utility units that are def'mitely cosmetically and design friendly. "Any" type of fencing would
be intrusive in this situation.
The in-ground watering issue is absurd! I will not waste precious water! On one hand, Prior
Lake wants to limit watering days. On the other hand, your Planning Commission wants to
promote waste of this precious resource. There is absolutely no reason for this! Yet this
bureaucratic area 0£your local government sees no reason to be sensible or to pursue a logical,
and popular, program of conservation!
I invite you and the City Council to view my building. This is a quality structure that Prior
,Lake should be proud to have within its city limits.
The two items I take exception with are changes that should be done voluntarily. The
ordinances should be changed, modified, or totally revoked.
I might suggest that the City Council still has the authority to run the City and to make
decisions even though they are "giving up" more and more or' this responsibility/fight to their
bureaucratic agencies or departments.
The City of Prior Lake should issue me voluntary variances on both the fencing ordinance and
the in-ground watering ordinance.
Issuing these variances would display common sense; address these problems ordinances with
a positive attitude of change, create a more "builder friendly" attitude in Prior Lake, and it
would send a message to your Planning Commission to employ a more open-minded approach
over an archaic dogma that refuses change.
As I stated in my letter of January 5, 1998, there should be no costs to me regarding variances,
or changes, in these ordinances.
I will look for a favorable response.
Sincerely yours,
D. O. Hansen
fcc: Prior Lake City Council
City o£ Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372