HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-98REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent:
A. Case #98-094 Boeck Resolution
1. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-098 Eagle Creek Villas/Hillsbury Townhomes Preliminary Plat -
requesting 0.76 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for townhouse units located by the
intersection of 160th Street and Franklin Trail.
B. Case #98-108 Crcekside Estates/Assisted Living Facility - requesting a variance to
permit a building more than 35 feet in height for the property located at the
intersection of Five Hawks and Priorwood Street.
C. Case#98-105 Gleason Gymnastic School - requesting a conditional use permit for a
gymnastic school in the Waterfront Passage Business Park District.
D. Case #98-106 John and Jeri Tmlson - requesting a variance to construct an
ornamental iron fence at 48 inches on the property located at 14296 Reuters Street.
E. Case #98-085 and 98-116 Holiday Stores - requesting a conditional use permit and
variance to construct a car wash for the property at 16800 Duluth Avenue.
F. Case #98-118 Mark Sudheimer - requesting a variances to construct a 1,368 square
foot garage and a variance to permit one off-street parking stall for the property
located at 16211 Birch Avenue.
G. Case #98-019 Consider an official map for a ring road in the southeast comer of
Highway 13, from Franklin Trail to Tower Street.
16200 L~Ls~b~,°~f~]aL~',~ca~i~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
H. Case #98-109 Sandy Silfverston requesting variances for a front yard setback and
setbacks from a county road to construct a garage addition for the property located at
16196 Arcadia Avenue.
1. Old Business:
A. Case #98-070 Robert Jader - request to table a continued public hearing for a lot
width variance and bluff setback variance for the property located at 14962 Pixie
Point Circle.
1. New Business:
2. Announcements and Correspondence: "
3. Adjournment:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The August 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuyke~l~a. Stamson
and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning ~{~tor
Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
Vonhof Present .~::i
Kuykendall Present ....~:'~:~ .... ..
Criego Absent '? ....
Cramer
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Planning Director Don page 2, third line,
Mr. Johnson states there is a law suit a property.
(Fact: There is no law suit a(.:~::ii~e.)
The Minutes from the t 10, i~8 Planni~ii~ission meeting were approved
4. Public
A. requesting a 909 square foot variance to
of the required 7500 square feet to be
bu~l~le for 0~i::~ future single family dwelling on the property
l~ii~scribed *:::::~: Fairview Beach.
Planner ~.!~;~var-~::,.Pl~ted the Pl~ng Repo~ dated August 24, 1998, on file in the
office of ~e '~[~er. .
Staffhas conclu~ ~e h~ds~p criteria ~e met ~d the v~ce request for lot ~ea is
subst~tiated wi~ h~ds~ps pe~ng to the lot ~e applic~t has no consol over.
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
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcrain~mn082498.doc 1
Shoreland Ordinance, the lot is an existing lot of record and was legally conveyed to a
different property owner.
Comments from the Public:
Tom Huntington, 17410 Sunset Trail SW, stated he was opposed to the request. He feels
the lot is too small for today's standards. One of his concerns is the garag~:.i~g~}ocated 6
feet from the property line. Mr. Huntington also does not like the fact tl~[~¢~iiti5 request
variances because the lot is too small and it is not appropriate to have..~ther small house
· .
~n the neighborhood .... ~::?' ":~::~::::?
' ~.::~.::::.i.: '": ..i.::i~i.:: ..........
Dave Hansen, 17001 F~sh ......... Point Road SE, ~s ~n favor of the r~g~:,s.~ii¢:,The lot'~': :::: ~i~!atted
several years ago with the intention to build a house. Neig~}~S have to
compromise. A house could have been built a long ti~g~'o.~:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:...:(ii?~i?:i~~ .:~::iiiiiiii? ....
Scott Shanesy, 3000 Fairview Road, feels the pict~i::~g..~nte~?i~i~ceiving. He is the
immediate neighbor and objects to the proposal. It is a S~rd 13~ like his own and
will crowd his home. Mr. Shanesy stated there have been ~ous ......... complaints on his
own lot. There is no parking and no pla~i~::i~ around. Sh~i~od he also has the
same house plan. Another problem is ou~ii~. He does n~i~e the looks of cars
parked in a driveway. He does not undersold ~ii~i~7 wout~:~llow this proposal.
Tim Boeck, 17394 Sunset Tr~:[~ed he ow~::i~ly one l~?He does not own the
surrounding lots as stated g:~i~!ii::::~esy. ~!il~oeck concurs with staff and pointed out
Mr. Shanesy has a sma[~"~0t. "ii?~i~i :i~i~ii~i
Bob Boeck, 17394:~ii~rail,:~::ith~::~ commented on a buildable lot. Mr.
Boeck explained his hou~!ii~g$1~':~iiiS~ili~:"there ,could not be ~y more building.
The proposed IoLab?00 fee~:~r th~ the nei~bors. It has been a lot of record since
1926. Tho~g~::~.gts in ~a.}gst like it.
Th~lic"':::~: he~ng w~ed at ~'5 p.m.
Com~g !rom the Cq~issioners:
~e lots ~ co--on ownership.
With reg~d~:.:~the v~ce request, ~e fo~ h~ds~p criteria have been met.
A condition ofapprohng the v~ce b~ed on the StaffRepo~ stating no Mditional
v~ces will be requested. A letter ~om the applic~t should be submi~ed
indicating no o~er v~ces will be requested.
Kuykendall:
* Concurs. Supported staff's recommendation.
· Add the condition with no additional variances.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn082498.doe
Cramer:
· Agreed the hardship criteria have been met.
· Impressed that with the number of variances before the Commission, especially with
smaller lake lots they usually come before the Commission with numerous variances.
Attempts have been made to keep it to one variance.
· Agreed with Vonhof's amendment.
Stflmson:
· Concurred
· Variance hardship criteria have been met.
· Commend design of the house.
· The DNR opposed this request based on lot
ownership.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY
22PC APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO LOT
CONDITION THAT NO J
~s not"~t~nt
THE
Vote indicated ayes by all MOTION C
B. Case #98-093 David O. Hansen iS:::i~que~!~i~ii~gg!~ to roof-top screening
of utility equipment and a variance to wai~: ~::'irrig~{l~i:::~equirement for new
construction.
Planner Jenni Tovar
office of the Cit,
1998, on file in the
Staff concluded the
the lot and
uests are not 'substantiated with hardships pertaining to
fl!,ance with the ordinance.
£
that he
,ffice warehouse on 17001 Fish Point Road, said time was
~ started the work program and many things were presented
r with at the beginning. Mr. Hansen said he did not submit
hind not to put them in. His company took a lesser
n the property. He disagrees with the Planning Commissioner's
screening and feels the ordinances are outdated. Today rooftop units
are clean and technologically advanced. He knows of no other fencing that would
enhance the property. Neighboring businesses have smaller units like his on the building
and look fine. Hansen said there is nothing less intrusive than what he has now. He has a
large investment in Prior Lake and wants the building to look attractive. Mr. Hansen
stated he will comply with the new ordinance.
With regard to the underground sprinklers: Hansen feels the underground sprinklers are
not effective. On one side we are trying to be resource smart then on the other side we
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmnO82498.doc 3
are wasting water. Hansen asked to strike the inground water system because he feels it
is a total waste.
Kuykendall asked if there were other landscape alternatives. Hansen said there was not.
He feels he has the best and needs his Certificate of Occupancy.
Tovar explained requiring a Letter of Credit for two years versus the irdgat~g..system.
She also read the Business Park requirements regarding screening. .:~:: i~i~:'ii~::i?:iiiiiiii~:
Gary Horkey, owner ofne~ghbonng Keyland Property, said he co~gl~i~&~ll all the
screening and inground watering system and did not receive any ~ition~::~.~mces to
· Supports staff recommendations base~ii~i~:,i~iii~.:~f the info~on presented. What
is reasonable? When there are architec~al c~or~s t~:~re not tightly defined
it leaves a lot in the eyes of the designer~¢~he~::'~::~ii~:meet that definition.
· Regarding the water: .~8~e impos~ii$o no matter who owns the property it is
maintained. Ther~:~ii~ii~ assur~ if the pro~[:is sold the next owner will comply.
· Support the sta~i~gommen~on in regar6~i~:"the inground water system.
· Tovar pointed ~t i~i~Z.~:~!i~i~ered Mr. Hansen's suggestion. City
Manager Boyles cont~?~. Ha~s~':'~':'~w weeks ago with alternatives which Mr.
Hansen
· Mr. the City Manager's suggestions because the
was very ~sive. stated he told Jenni Tovar and Don Rye he
g~[~ithem ~ letter indicating he would comply with the new
· is and feels he does not have all information.
Cramer:
· Asked * if he would be amicable to a condition on the variance such as
painting the'bquipment to match. Hansen responded he would do it immediately.
· Agreed with Kuykendall, could approve the variance with conditions to meet the
intent of the ordinance.
· Adding any additional rooftop screening will look worse than it already is.
· Shared the concern with the inground sprinkler. The propose of the ordinance is to
attract new business to the area.
· Will deny that part of the variance.
l:\98files\98pl¢orrma\pcminXnm082498.doe 4
Stamson:
· Agreed with arguments to some extent by the applicant. The rooftop units could be
painted and provide efficient screening.
· The applicant makes good arguments about the irrigation system, however what we
are working with and our legal definitions for granting a variance and the conditions
put forth just do not warrant a variance. Applicant should negotiate with the City.
The variance is not an appropriate vehicle. -
·Does not support granting a variance,
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Stamson on the rooftop screening.
standards than the rest of the City. It was intentional.
· Applicant brings up good poims. Sometimes in
obviously. Perhaps variance condition
may be met. Agreed with that point.
· Agreed with Chair Stamson that this is not the
up valid points, this is not the proper vehicle. The
up.
· The firstt
· There are other options.
· Sympathize, but this is not the vehicle. '~iiiiiii~:~
Kuykendall:
Encouraged the ~
is bringing
are the standards we set
the variances for the reasons stated.
the City Manager.
Cramer:
It is apparent his
~ass and will support the rest of the Commissioners in
TO APPROVE
WAIVE THE ROOF-TOP
~AIVE THE
Vote taken ~
Stamson exg
5. Old Business:
~ all. MOTION CARRIED.
appeal process.
l:\98files\98plcorran\pcminhnm082498.dec 5
6. New Business:
Kuykendall suggested the City re-visit the screening ordinance. Rye explained the City
Council has discussed the options and will be addressed.
There was a brief discussion on screening.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
ec :: ecr '
1:\98 files\98plcomm\pcmin~mn082498.doc 6
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT AREA
VARIANCE FOR TIMOTHY BOECK, CASE FILE #98-
094
LOT 3, FAIRVlEW BEACH, SCOTT COUNTY, MN
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On August 24, 1998 the Planning Commission directed staffto prepare a
resolution approving a lot area variance for Lot 3, Fairview Beach. A hearing
was conducted and public testimony was received. The Planning Commission
reviewed the requested variance with respect to the hardship criteria and found
all of the criteria were met. A condition was placed on the variance that no future
variances are to be granted. Attached is the resolution.
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\98VAR\98-094\98094PC2.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 98-22PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 909 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A LOT AREA OF 6591 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7500
SQUARE FEET TO BE BUILDABLE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Timothy Boeck has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a single family residence with attached garage on property
located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
District at the following location, to wit;
Lot 3, Fairview Beach, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for lot area variance as
contained in Case #98-094 and held hearings thereon on August 24, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
o
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
and the fact that the property was platted in 1926 prior to the incorporation of the city.
1:\98filesX98varX98-094Xre9822pc.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. $.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property fight of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
7. The applicant has met all of the conditions of Section 5-8-12 (j) for development on a
substandard lot.
8. The contents of Planning Case 98-094 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
City Code the variance 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 variance has failed to
obta'm any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements including a future structure.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variance;
1. A 909 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 6591 square feet instead of the
required 7500 square feet to be buildable.
The variance is subject to the following condition;
1. No future variances are to be granted for the property.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:\98files~98var~98-094'a'e9822pc.doc 2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
PLANNING REPORT
5A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS HILLSBURY
TOWNHOMES
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-NIA
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary plat for
the 0.76 acre site located at the intersection of Franklin Trail and 160th Street, The
preliminary plat, to be known as Hillsbury Townhomes, is the former site of the Apple
Valley Ready Mix Plant. There is a 4-unit townhouse under construction on this site.
ANALYSIS:
Applicant:
John Mesenbrink
Mesenbrink Construction
7765 175th Street East
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Project Engineer:
Hanson Thorp Pellinen OIson Inc.
7565 Office Ridge Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644
Location of Property:
This property is located on the east side of Franklin
Trail (CR 39) and on the south side of 160th Street
(CSAH 44).
Existing Site Conditions:
A 4-unit townhouse is presently under construction
in this site. The site was graded in May, 1998,
under an approved building permit when the existing
buildings were demolished and construction on the
new buildings began: There were no wetlands or
significant trees on the site·
Zoning and Land Use
Designation:
The property is zoned R-3 (Multiple Residential).
The 2010 Comprehensive Plan identifies this
property as R-HD (High Density Residential).
Adjacent Land Use and
Zoning:
North: Across 160th Street is the Safe Haven for
Youth group home and a vacant lot, zoned R-3 and
· I 8 i r t~h' bu c
16200 ~~e~ ~.~., ~r,or~,~nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (6~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
South: The driveway and parking lot for Prior Manor
senior apartments, zoned R-3.
East: Prior Manor senior apartments, zoned R-3.
West: Memorial Park, zoned C~1.
Proposed Development:
The proposed plat consists of 0.76 acres to be
subdivided into 1 lot for townhouse units. The total
density of this site is presently 5.2 units per acre.
The developer is proposing to build an additional 3
or 4-unit build, which will bring the total density of
the site to 10.5 units per acre. The R-3 district
allows a maximum density of 14 units per acre.
The proposed lot is 33,220 square feet in area, and
the frontage on the lot is 120 feet. The minimum lot
size in the R-3 district is 13,000 square feet and the
minimum frontage requirement is 100 feet. The
proposed lot is consistent with these standards.
Streets/Access/Circulation:
There are no new streets located within this plat.
Access to the lot is from Franklin Trail. Comments
from the Scott County Highway Department indicate
no additional access will be allowed from 160th
Street (CSAH 44). These comments also indicate
the existing curb cuts on 160th Street must be
closed at the developer's expense. The City has no
authority over the County read right-of-way. This
condition must be enforced by the County Highway
Department.
Grading/Erosion Control:
The grading on this site was approved as part of the
building and demolition permits. No additional
grading will be done.
Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain:
Sanitary sewer service and water service are
located in Franklin Trail and in 160th Street. The
developer installed service lines to serve the new
units.
Landscaping:
This development is also subject to the
requirements of Chapter 7 of the Subdivision
Ordinance, which requires one (1) street tree per lot
frontage and one (1) front yard tree per lot. The
developer must submit a landscaping plan showing
the proposed location of the required trees, as well
as the minimum size and types.
Parkland Dedication:
The park dedication requirements for this
subdivision will be satisfied by a cash dedication in
1:\98fles\98subdiv\preplat~hlllsbu~hillspc.doc Page 2
lieu of a land dedication,
Finance/Assessment Fee
Review:
This subdivision will be subject to a collector street
fee. This fee is calculated on the net acreage of the
new lot. This charge will be paid at the time the
developer's contract is executed. A summary of the
charge is shown on the attached memo from Ralph
Teschner.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, it should be subject to the
following condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as
required by Section 6-7-1 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
Recommend the Council approve the preliminary plat of Hillsbury Townhomes as
presented and subject to the conditions listed above, or with specific changes
directed by the Planning Commission.
Table or continue the public hearing to a date and time certain and provide the
developer with a detailed list of items or information to be provided for future
Planning Commission review.
3. Recommend denial of the application based upon specific findings of fact.
..RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion recommending approval of the preliminary plat of Hillsbury Townhomes is
required.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat of Hillsbury Townhomes
3. Memo from Scott County Highway Department
4. Memo from Ralph Teschner
1:\98fdes\98subdiv~oreplat~hillsbur~hillspc,doc Page 3
l
zl
~0o
SCOTT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISIO
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339
(612) 496-8346
BRADLEY J. LARSON
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
Fax: (612)496-8365
August 18, 1998
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16000 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subiect:
Preliminary & Final Plat of Hillsbury Townhomes in Prior Lake
SE quadrant of CSAH 44 & CSAH 39
Dear Ms. Kansier:
We have reviewed the preliminary and final plat for Hillsbury Townhomes relates to Highway
Department issues and offer the following comments or concerns:
Access for the site has been approved on CSAH 39 approximately 120' south of the intersection
with CSAH 44 (see attached permit #1688). No additional access from CSAH 39 or CSAH 44
will be allowed.
· The existing curb cuts on CSAH 44 must be removed and replaced with curb sections of the
same design as the existing curb along CSAH 44. All cost for this work is the responsibility of
the developer.
· The preliminary plan shows sidewalks connecting the building to CSAH 44. No parking is
allowed on CSAH 44 as per the no parking resolution passed by the City with the CSAH 44
project.
· The right-of-way shown on the plat should be 40' (see attached document # 357337).
· No berming, landscaping, ponding, or signing will be allowed within the County right-of-way.
· Any grading or utility work required within the County right-of-way will require a permit prior
to the work commencing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact us if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
~r
Greg Ilkka - City of Prior Lake
John Messenbrink - Developer
Tom Deno- Scott County Surveyor office
w:\wor~review\98_plats\hillsbry.doc
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
Ralph Teschner
Hillsbury Townhomes
(assessment/fee review)
August 10, 1998
A .76 acre parcel previously developed as the old pj'ior Lake Ready Mix site (PIN #25 901 002
0) is proposed to be platted as Hillsbury Townhomes. The unplatted parcel was originally served
with sewer and water utilities under Project 71-1 (Old Parcel No. PL 18) and has been assessed
for lateral sewer and water improvements and trunk acreage charges. Also, the parcel was 100%
assessed for storm sewer improvements in 1973.
Since utilities are available to the property site, the cost for the extension of services internally
will be the responsibility of the developer. In addition to these improvement costs, the
subdivision will be subject to the following City charges:
Collector Street Fee $1500.00/acre
The application of these City charges would generate the following costs to the developer based
upon a net lot area calculation of .76 acres of townhouse units as provided within the site data
summary sheet of the preliminary plat description:
Collector Street Fee:
.76 acres ~ $1500.00/ac = $1,140.00
Assuming the initial net lot area of the plat does not change, the above referenced collector street
charge would be determined and collected within the context of a developer's agreement for the
construction of utility improvements at the time of final plat approval.
There are no other outstanding special assessments currently certified against the property. Also,
the tax status of the property is current with no outstanding delinquencies.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S~E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5B
CONSIDER A HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR CREEKSIDE
ESTATES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, Case File
#98 -l 08
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO"
SEPTEMBER '14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Eagle Creek
Villas, who are proposing to construct an assisted residential living facility on the
property located at the intersection of Five Hawks Avenue and Priorwood Street.
A Preliminary PUD Plan for this facility was approved in September, 1997. The
applicant is in the process of preparing Final PUD Plans.
The proposed building height is 40 feet above grade, with an ornamental spire is
60 feet high (Exhibit A). Section 5-4-3 of the City Code allows for a maximum
height of 35 feet, except that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance to
height regulations if the structure is any of the following: television and radio
towers, church spires, belfries, monuments, tanks, water and fire towers, grain
elevators, stage towers and scenery lofts, cooling towers, ornamental towers and
spires, chimneys, elevator bulkheads, smokestacks, conveyors, flag poles, silos,
air conditioning and heating units and wind generators (Exhibit C).
DISCUSSION
Generally, the Planning Commission reviews variance requests as they meet
four specific hardship criteria. However, in this case, Section 5-4-3 of City Code
specifically states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance to height
regulation if the proposed building setbacks are increased one foot for every
additional foot of height or if the proposed structure is, among other things, an
ornamental tower or spire.
There are no specific hardship criteria to review. Therefore, the Planning
Commission can review the variance request to some other unspecified hardship
criteria or can approve the variance because it is an ornamental spire and the
1:\98files\98var~98-108\98-108pc,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
Ordinance allows variances for spires. The building is within a PUD, allowing for
specific site review and approval by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the height variance request is substantiated because it is
permitted upon approval by the Board of Adjustment with or without justification
of hardship findings.
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 #98-025PC.
1:\98ffies\98var~98-108~98-108pc.doc Page 2
RESOLUTION 98-25PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 60 FEET AND A 5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALLOWED OF 35 FEET FOR EAGLE CREEK VILLAS
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Eagle Creek Villas has applied for height variances from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of an assisted living residential facility including with
a building height of 40 feet above grade and a 60 foot spire on property located in the
PUD (Planned Unit Development) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at
the following location, to wit;
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter (W 1/2 of SW 1/4) of Section 2,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North of a line commencing at
the Southwest comer of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence North along the
West line thereof 2080.5 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence South 88° 51' 30" East to the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter
and there terminating, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the plats of SPRING BROOK
PARK, SPRRqG BROOK PARK 2ND ADDITION, PRIORVIEW FIRST ADDITION
and PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION, also EXCEPTING THEREFROM the
following described property:
That part of Block 2 and part of Holly Circle of vacated Holly Court according to the
recorded plat thereof in Government Lot 2, Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter (W 1/2 of SW 1/4) of Section 2,
Township 114, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying North of a line commencing at
the Southwest comer of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence North along the
West line thereof 2080.5 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence South 88° 51' 30" East to the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter
and there terminating, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the plats of SPRING BROOK
PARK, SPRING BROOK PARK 2ND ADDITION, PRIORVIEW FIRST ADDITION
and PRIORVIEW SECOND ADDITION, also EXCEPTING THEREFROM the
following described property:
Also:
16200 El~[fi~?~a~rl~.e,9~orF'~t~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612)4~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
That part of Block 2 and part of Holly Circle of vacated Holly Court according to the
recorded plat thereof in Government Lot 2, Section 2, Township 114, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 4, said Block 2, thence on an assumed bearing
of South 00 degrees 45 minutes 06 seconds West along the east line of said Block 2 a
distance of 147.15 feet to the southeast comer of said Block 2; thence North 88 degrees
04 minutes 10 seconds West along the south line of said Block 2 a distance of 300.05
feet to the southwest comer of said Block 2; thence North 00 degrees 45 minutes 06
seconds East along the west line of said Block 2 a distance of 144.29 feet to the
northwest corner of Lot 2 of said Block 2; thence North 86 degrees 23 minutes 51
seconds East along the north line of said Lot 2, Block 2 a distance of 99.46 feet to the
northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence South 88 degrees 39 minutes 11 seconds East
99.64 feet to the northwest comer of said 'Lot 4, Block 2; thence South 83 degrees 42
minutes 00 seconds East along the north line of said Lot 4 a distance of 101.66 feet to the
point of beginning.
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #98-108 and held hearings thereon on September 14, 1998.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. City Code Section 5-4-3 allows the Board of Adjustment to grant height variances for
spires with no additional setback.
5. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The contents of Planning Case 98-108 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be
null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variances has
failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements including the future structure, yet to be designed.
l:\98files\98varL08-108~re9825pc.doc 2
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variances per Exhibit A for future development on the lot meeting
required setbacks;
I. A 25 foot variance permitting a 60 foot height of a spire instead of the maximum
height allowed of 35 feet.
2. A 5 foot variance permitting a building height of 40 feet instead of the maximum
height allowed of 35 feet, providing the necessary setback of 40 feet from all property
lines can be maintained.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planuing Director
l:X98filesk98var\98-108h'e9825pc.doc 3
VINYL
HANDRAILS
OREEKBIDE ESTA1
ASttlSTED LIVlN~
12560 RF, tER RIDGE BLVO.
P.O, BOS 1497
BURNSVILLE, IdlNNEBQTA ,55357
1~12 894.-9BE,2
FAX 612-Bg~--gg18
ARCHITEOTURAL, ~iUII.D
ARCHITECTS LLO
300 EAST 13TH STREET
Sll~X FALLS, SOUTH DAkOTA
57107
605-532-5150
FAX 605-352-+702
OERTIFIOATION
I H[R~IY C.~,qTl~¥ THAT ~HIS DOCUMENT
WAS PR£PAR~D BY OR UNDER MY D~RECT
SUP£RYl$10N AND ~AT I AM A DULY
~75~
REGISTRAllON NUMBER
ROBERT WEIDENAAR NA
I IIii I I I
JULY g, lgg8
EXHIBIT B
(B)
(C)
(b) The City Council considers the land to be an essential part of
the agricultural region; and
(c) The parcel was a parcel of record pdor to January 1, 1980;
or the land was an agricultural preserve prior to becoming a separate
parcel of at least twenty (20) acres.
4. Contiguous MunicipaUy-certified land meeting the total acreage
requirements, but located in an adjoining municipality as well as in
Pdor Lake so that the minimum acreage requirement is not met in
one or more jurisdictions, is eligible through joint resolution of the
affected local governments.
Duration: An agricultural preserve continues indefinitely until either
the owner or the City initiates expiration, after which the duration is
eight (8) years. A land owner may initiate expiration by notifying the
City on a form provided. The City may initiate expiration by changing
the planning and zoning so that the land is no longer planned for
long-term agricultural use or is rezoned to another use. (Ord. 84-02,
1-9-84)
Cluster. Where there are two (2) or more contiguous quarter/quarter
sections under single ownership, the owner may, by conditional use
permit, cluster the permitted number of dwelling units in one
quarter/quarter section. All lots created under this provision must
meet all of the other district requirements, including those for
setbacks, driveway spacing and lot area. One of the conditions of
approval shall be the filing and recording of an agreement signed by
ali of the affected property owners, relinquishing any right to a
residential building site on the quarter/quarter section from which the
building site eligibility has been transferred. (Ord. 90-05, 5-21-90)
5-4-3: HEIGBT I~EG[j-r_.,AT/ONS: No structure shall exceed thirty
five feet (35') in height above average ground level unless
approved by the Board of Adjustment. The Board may authorize a vadance
to the height regulations in any district if:
(A) Ail front, side and rear yard depths of buildings are increased one
foot (1') for each additional foot of height; or
(B)
The structure is any of the following: television and radio towers,
church spires, belfries, monuments, tanks, water and fire towers,
grain elevators, stage towers and scenery lofts, cooling towers,
ornamental towers and spires, chimneys, elevator bulkheads,
5-4-3
5-4-4
smokestacks, conveyors, flag poles, silos and air conditioning,
heating units and wind generators. (Ord. 83-6, 6-24-1983)
5-4-4:
(A)
(B)
(C)
TOWERS WITH ANTENNA:
The erection of a tower with antenna requires a building permit. The
antenna on an existing tower may be changed or altered without
permit.
The City shall be exempt from this Section.
The maximum height of a tower with antenna shall be seventy five
feet (75'). However, a tower with antenna cannot be in excess of a
height equal to the distance from the base of the tower to the
nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one
dwelling or place of business, less five feet (5'). In the case of an
extendable tower, the retracted height of the tower shall be
considered its height for purposes of this Section.
5-5-12
5-5-12
(d) Other uses permitted in the zoning district in which the
planned unit development is located.
6. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross land for private
or public open air recreational use protected by covenants running
with the land or by conveyances or dedications as the Planning
Commission may specify shall be an integral part of the plan. Such
open space areas shall not include land devoted to streets, parking
and private yards.
7. Density increases of up to thirty percent (30%) from those outlined
in column 7 of the table following subsection (P) in Section 5-4-1,
may be allowed in propo~lion to the number of conditions listed
immediately below which have been fulfilled provided that traffic
patterns will not be adversely affected and that public utilities and
facilities are adequate.
(a) The location, amount and proposed use of common open
space, ten percent (10%).
(b) The location, design, setting of dwelling units, ten percent
(10%).
(c) Location adjacent to existing or proposed collectors or
arterial street, five percent (5%).
(d) Physical characteristic of the site, five percent (5%).
8. Building setbacks from all property lines which form the perimeter
of the total PUD shall be twenty five feet (25') of the height of the
building, whichever is greater. The setback for any building from all
interior and exterior dedicated street right-of-way lines or from the
edge of the road surface or any private interior streets shall be
twenty five feet (25') or the height of the building, whichever is
greater.
9. The height limitation for all buildings in the PUD shall be thirty five
feet (35').
10. The total coverage by buildings shall not exceed twenty percent
(20%) of the total area in the PUD.
11. All PUDs shall have community sewer and water service
available.
City of Prior Lake
695
D
UJ
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5C
Conduct public hearing to consider a conditional use
permit (CUP) for Gleason's Gymnastics School (Case
#98-105)
Larry Gleason
17001 Fish Point Road, located in the Waterfront Passage
Business Park
Jenni Tovar ,.~
X YES NO-N/A
September 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The City received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP) from Larry Gleason
on August 14, 1998. This item is a result of Ordinance 98-10 which was adopted on June
6, 1998 permitting Gynmastic Schools in the B-P Business Park Zoning District as a
conditional use. When the amendment to allow gymnastics schools in the B-P zoning
district was first proposed, the staff expressed concern that this use was incompatible with
the allowed and existing uses in the BP zoning district. The concerns included conflicts
with traffic and parking. However, both the Planning Commission and City Council
believed these conflicts could be allowed through the conditional use permit process, and
through the specific conditions attached to this use. Attached is the ordinance detailing
specific conditions for approval.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed CUP should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria found in Section
7.5(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7.5(C) provides that a conditional use shall be
approved if it is found to meet specific criteria. The criteria are discussed on the
following pages. In addition, Ordinance 98-10 states the following conditions must be
adhered to:
1. 4,000 square feet maximum space.
2. Hours are limited to 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and 7:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
3. One parking space per 300 square feet is required.
4. The minimum parking cannot be shared or combined with other uses.
· \ C \8- 8- P . .
16200 Et'g~cg~ J~)~. ~0.~, ~9~cr~.~cke' Minnesota 5S3~2-1714 / Dh. (612) 647-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
SITE ANALYSIS:
The existing building is 25,520 square feet in area. The submitted building plan indicates
one designated 2,414 square foot tenant space and one half of an adjacent tenant space
(2,447 square feet total) of 1,224 square feet resulting in total area of approximately
3,638 square feet to be used for the gymnastics school.
The building is designed with 2,000 square feet of office, requiring 8 parking stalls and
23,520 of warehouse. Parking for warehouse use is based on one stall per employee.
Diversified Snacks has 5 employees, Tomac has 4 employees, Premier Industries
currently has 1 employee, but intends to have 4 or 5 total employees in the near future,
and Star Tribune has no employees but has contract drivers who pick-up papers f~om the
site and work outside the building. The required parking is 13 for warehouse employees
and 8 for office use resulting in 21 stalls being used for current businesses. There are 41
parking stall on site, leaving 20 stalls for the gymnastics studio. Based on 3,638 square
feet, the gymnastics studio will require 12 stalls. Parking requirements are thus met.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS:
Section 7.5(C) sets forth several criteria for approval of a CUP. These criteria and the
staff analysis of compliance with these criteria are set forth below;
1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use
provisions and all general regulations of this Ordinance.
The proposed use is consistent with the conditional use provisions for the B-P Business
Park zoning district and conforms to all general regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
(upon satisfaction of conditions).
2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may
be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons, shall
comply with the performance standards listed below.
The proposed use of a gymnastics school does not appear to be dangerous, injurious or
noxious to other property or other property owners. The specific conditions for approval
have been met.
3. The proposed use shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious
relationship of buildings and grounds adjacent to buildings and properties.
The landscape ordinance does not apply. The use is a leased tenant in an existing
building for which a landscape plan has been approved and a letter of credit is on file.
4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which
is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood.
L:\98FILES~98CUP\98-105\98-105PC.DOC
The building is constructed and the use is a leased tenant. The visual impression and
environment is consistent with the neighborhood.
5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic
congestion within the neighborhood.
The existing site has 41 parking stalls and only 20 of those are required for existing uses.
There is adequate parking, based on the ordinance, for the proposed use. There are 10
stalls directly in front of the gymnastics school and overflow parking can be
accommodated by utilizing parking in front of the site or in the rear by the loading docks.
Congestion within the site will occur at the beginning of practice and at the end of
practice. Depending on the number of scheduled classes per day, this congestion could
occur once per day or more. However, the duration of the congestion should be less than
20 minutes. Turn around for the students can be accomplished in the designate drive aisle
or in the loading dock area on the east side of the building. There is no land available for
creating another drive aisle for exiting purposes only.
6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this Ordinance and shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The current Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Business Office Park. The
proposed use is educational or commercial. The Comprehensive Plan states primary uses
as corporate headquarters; and professional and administrative offices; and limited
research, development and manufacturing facilities. Related secondary uses such as
restaurants where food is ordered and consumed on the premises, hotels and other
businesses having limited contact with the general public and no retail sale of products
could be allowed as conditional uses. While this is not specifically listed as an intended
use, it is a result of actions of the City Council to fill an umnet need in the community not
anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
The performance standards are set forth in Section 7.5(D) and relate to the following
factors;
· Fire protection · Electrical disturbance,
· Noise · Vibrations,
· Odors · Air pollution,
· Glare · Erosion,
· Water pollution.
The proposed project is not expected to result in any of the nuisance factors set forth in
the performance standards and is thus consistent with these standards.
CONCLUSION
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use would be appropriate to the proposed
location given the recent ordinance amendment to allow gymnastic schools as conditional
uses. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CLIP with
the conditions specific to ordinance 98-10 such as hours of operation and parking to be
incorporated into the resolution.
ALTERNATIVES:
Motion and second to recommend the City Council approve the CUP with specific
conditions as presented or with changes recommended by the Commission.
Continue the public hearing to a date and time certain to allow the developer
and/or staff to provide additional information specifically requested by the
Planning Commission.
Based upon expressed findings of fact, recommend the City Council deny part or
all of the application based upon consistency of the proposal with specific
regulations of the Zoning Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends Alternative #1, motion and second recommending the Council approve
the CUP with the following conditions:
1. The gymnastic school must be located as shown on the approved plans.
2. Hours are limited to 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday-Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
3. Twelve parking spaces must be reserved for this use. These spaces must be signed for
use by the patrons of the school during designated hours.
4. The applicant has until one year from the date of adoption of the resolution by the
City Council to complete the required improvements and record the resolution or the
Conditional Use Permit becomes null and void (Section 5-6-8). A certificate of
Occupancy will not be issued until proof of recording of the resolution has been
submitted to the City.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second of recommendation to the City Council.
L:\98F ILl'S\98CUP~98 ~ 105\98-10$PC.DOC
4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-5-15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 6.15 (D) OF THE PRIOR LAKE
ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake doe9 hereby ordain that:
Section 5-5-15 (D) of the Prior Lake City Code and Section 6.15 (D) of the Prior Lake
Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to add the following:
Gymnastics Schools: Gymnastic schools are unique in the need for high ceilings.
They are permitted as a conditional use, provided that such use occupies no more than
4,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure, hours of operation are limited
to 5:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on
Saturday and Sunday, and a minimum of one parking space per 300 square feet of
floor area is provided. The minimum parking requirement for gymnastic schools
shall not be combined or shared parking with other uses in the business park.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 1st day of June, 1998.
ATTEST:
C M~yor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 6th day of June, 1998.
Drafted By:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
r:\council\ordinanc\ord9810.doc PAGE 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQLAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Z
LU
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii'..'
PROJECT:
PRIOR LAKE INDUSTRIAL
PRIOR LAKE, MN
Brisley Arcl'fitecture Company
William D, gtisley,
~ ~o
,I,) ~, ItEI)IJI~TIO~!!
03/25/1998
18:32
WALSH PARTNERS
PAGE 82
c:~,..~:.: Brisley Architecture Company
Prior Lake Industrial ~"'"~'~'a~.~'~ ~'~ Wi~iam D. Bri~I~y, AIA
C-70/Walsh Par~xers ~,,, ~,,~,~,, 3220 Irving Avenue 5outh
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5D
TO CONSIDER A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR
JOHN & JERI TRULSON, CASE FILE #98-106
14296 RUTGERS STREET, PRIOR LAKE , SCOTT
COUNTY, MN
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Jeri
Trulson proposing to complete construction of an ornamental iron fence at 14296
Rutgers Street. The fence posts are forty eight inches (48") high and alternating
fence pickets are forty six (46") and forty two and three quarter inches (42 & 3/4")
in height. The current City Code does not allow a fence to exceed forty two
inches (42") in height along the front lot line or side lot lines in the front setback
area. Therefore, the fence posts and alternating pickets exceed the maximum
forty two inch (42") fence height ordinance, requiring a variance. Attached are
pictures of the existing fence. The fence height along the remaining side and
rear lot lines is in compliance with the City Code.
DISCUSSION:
The City Code for Screening: Sec. 5-5-11 (E); in part, In residential districts, a
fence not exceeding forty two inches (42") in height and having an opacity of not
more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and side
lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principle building.
Because of the unusual setback distance of approximately one hundred and
eighty three feet (183') to the principle structure, the minimum setback of twenty
five feet (25') for this district shall be considered the required front setback area
(see attached City Code 5-4-1: Lot and Yard Requirements).
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-106\98-106PC.EK)C ].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The portion of fence at issue runs along the front lot line dimension of one
hundred thirty nine point four eight feet (139.48') and continues back along the
side lot lines to a minimum setback point of twenty five feet (25'). The fence
posts are forty eight inches high (48") and the fence pickets alternate between
forty six (46") and forty two and three quarter inches (42 & 3/4") in height.
Therefore, a variance of six inches (6") is requested. The fence opacity is
approximately fifteen percent (15%) which is less than the maximum allowable
opacity of twenty five percent. The applicant does not own any of the adjacent
parcels. The property is riparian and located within the Suburban Residential (R-
1) and the Shoreland Distdct (SD).
The legal description for the property at 14296 Rutgers Street, Prior Lake, MN:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21,
Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: (see attached lengthy
metes and bounds description).
Included with this report are fourteen (14) copies of a petition letter composed by
the applicants and mailed to their neighbors for response and opinions on the
fence. All fourteen (14) responses submitted to the Planning Dept. are in favor
of the applicants fence as is and they feel the variance should be granted.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria applies to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The fence height requirement is not a
condition of undue hardship with respect to the property. The construction of
a forty two inch fence height is possible in this front setback area,
Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no known circumstances unique to the property that apply to the
fence height.
L:\98FILES~98VAR\98-106\98-106PC.DOC
Page 2
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions by persons presently having an interest in the
property.
Ordinance provisions do not appear to have caused a hardship in this case.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the ordinance restricting fence height is to provide open space
and to ensure that traffic views are unobstructive. The requested variance
may not be contrary to this intent because the required opacity will be
adhered to and the fence does not obstruct traffic view.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff has concluded that all of the hardship criteria
have not been met and the variance request for fence height is not substantiated
with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve a variance the
Planning Commission deems appropriate under 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:
of the attached Resolution #98-~J~PC, denying the variance to fence
Approval
height.
L:~98FILES\98VAR\g8-106\98-106PC.DOC
Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-kOb~PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 INCH HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT
LOT SETBACK AREA IN PLACE OF THE 42 INCH HEIGHT ALLOWED.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
John & Jeri Trulson applied for a variance fi.om the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a forty eight inch height fence on property located in the
Suburban Residential District (R-l) and the Shoreland District (S-D) at the following
location, to wit;
14296 Rutgers Street, legally described as That part of Government Lot 3,
Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows; (see attached metes and bounds description).
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #98-106 and held hearings thereon September 14, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has control over the fence design and height, such that the hardship
created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists
within the requirements of the City Code Section 5-5-1 I(E) Screening.
1:\98 files\98var\98-106h'e9824pc.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There are no justifiable hardship circumstances unique to the property that requires
the granting of a variance.
The granting of the variance is not 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, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The factors listed above allow for an alternative fence structure to be permitted
without the variance.
The applicant has submitted copies of a written petition by the residents in the
neighborhood stating their approval of the fence and support for the granting of the
variance.
9. The contents of Planning Case 98-106 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 fence variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A (survey);
A six inch (6") variance to permit construction of a forty eight inch (48") height fence
in the front setback area in place of the maximum forty two inch (42") height
requirement.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
l:'O8files\98varL08-106~re9824pe.doe 2
.¸0
~TH
42
/
122%13
4
THE
7
HARBOR
3RD
/'TH
'1'
I--4
SITE LC
FHE~'
956067
149 -305 --
212.5"5
241218
CETT.
C¢...R"f. ~17 66.
200.5'
~3
24
BOU£
MI
~4
4
'TLoT
4
5-5-1 1 5-
SCREENING:
(A) S.creening shall be required in residential zones where any off-street
parking area contains more than six (6) parking spaces and is within
thirty feet (30') of an adjoining residential lot line.
(B)
Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage)
is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that
business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of
the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a
business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but
not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front
as determined by the Zoning Officer.
(c)
The screening required, herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall
not less than five feet (5') nor more than six feet (6') in height but
shall not extend within fifteen feet (15') of any street or driveway
opening into a street. The screening shall be placed along the
property lines or in case of screening along a street, fifteen feet (15')
from the street right of way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass
and other plantings) between the screening and the pavement.
Planting of a type approved by the Zoning Officer may also be
required in addition to or in lieu of fencing.
(D)
Where planting is required a landscape plan shall be prepared
including complete specifications for plant materials and other
features. The Zoning Officer may issue a temporary zoning
certificate for the principal building on a project before full
completion of planting or fencing, if such items cannot be furnished
at the same time as the building. Temporary zoning certificates shall
be good for one year and shall not be renewable. As soon as the
screening is completed, the temporary certificate may be cancelled
and a permanent zoning certificate issued. If any portion of the
required planting and fencing is not complete within one year, the
Zoning Officer shall cause all use of the premises to be stopped.
In all districts, a fence six feet (6') high or shorter may be erected on
the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return to the nearest front
corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not
exceeding forty two inches (42") in height and having an opacity of
not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front
lot line and the side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front
line of the principal building. Fences shall not be permitted in any
right of way. Fences shall be constructed in a professional,
aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and
695
City of Prior Lake
a~l~'I .~o?.~d./o £~.D
968
==o_~5'
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
0
0
Z
~3
'n
-H
0000
0000
z ~
c c
L- -g
LEGAL DESGRIPTIO
·
DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:
That part of Government Lot 5, Section 30, Township J15, Range 21, Scott
Minmesota described as follows:
Begir~g at a point on the northerly line of Lot 48, BOUDIN'S MANOR, acoordi~
to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of D~e~
in ~d for said Co~t~ ~ld S~te, said point being 26.6 feet easterl~ from %~
northwest corner of said Lot 48; thence northwesterl~ at right ~les to s~
north line of said Lot ~, a die.ce of 53 feet to the no~herly l'~e of
foot road to the po~t of ~g~ng of the land herein to be described; theD~
North 9 degrees 46 minutes W~ a die.ce of ~03.5 ~ee%~>~e~ Sout~
degrees 40 minutes ~est a ~s~oe of-81.6 feet; thence Sou~
minutes West a die.ce of ~.5 'feet %o %he shore of~ Prior ,~e,3'~' %h~
southwesterly along said shore of Prior Lake, ~ its intersectioh~ with a t~
~awn North 45 degrees 38 minutes West from a point on the n%rtherly
said 33 foot road in ~UDIN'S ~OR dis~nt 41.1 fe~t~southwesterly from ~
point of begi~ing; thence South 45 degrees 38 minutes ~ast ~ a po~t on ~
northerlM line of said 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S ~OR dist~t 41.1
southwesterly from the point of begi~ing; thence No~th'~ 79 degrees 45 minu~
East ~ong said l~e a diet.ce of 41.1 feet to the point of begi~g. ~ce~ t
that part of said tract ly~ southerly of a l~e ~awn from a po~t on
easterly line of said tract 151.75 feet northerly from the southeast corn~
no~hwesterly from the southwesterly corner thereof. ~d bxoept tim
southwesterly 25 feet meas~ed at right angles to said southwesterly line
said tract. Together with ~ easement for road p~poses over the easterly 8
of the first described exception.
AND
That part of said Gover~uent Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 2J,
Co~ty, ~irhqesota described as follows:
Begir~ing at a point on the northerly line of Lot &8, BOUDIN'S ~NOR, accordi:~g
to the plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds, Scott
Minnesota, said point being 26.6 feet easterly of the northwest counur of sa~d
Lot 48; thence nortnwosterly at right ~gles to the north line, of Lot no. 48,~a
diet.ce of 33.0 feet to the northerly line of a 33.0 foot road to the point of
beginning of the land herein to be described; thence North 09 degrees 46 minutes
West. a distance of 303.5 feet; thence North 65 degrees 40 minutes East ;a
distance of l&O.O feet; thence South 10 de,tees 2~ minutes East a diet.ce ~f
333.9 feet to the northerly line of the 33.0 foot road of said BOUDIN'S MANOr;
thence South 79 degrees ~5 minutes West along said horsefly line a diet.ce ~f
140.0 feet to the point of begi~ing.
PETITION LETTERS
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out fi'ontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet ofoor lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petitien and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Tmlson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the plarming commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From Address
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally ali made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut dorm, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fitl it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Signature "~ _~a..x--~ Date
Dear neighbors, .
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of oar neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a liUtle too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Oar fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%.
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 M"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is f'mally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence inok proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From o~?~.~J~4, g','.',]/~12:~J~ Address
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out fi'ontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is £malty all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a retum envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeff Tmlson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From '~(2[~ ,~. '¢- ~(4.9' ~'1'~£t9 Address
Cormments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out fi.ontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~"
and the tallest is 46" ). The fi.ont part ofonr fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the sanae height.
From
Signa~ Date ~--~'~ 2 ~'- 70~
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one ofoor neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 45" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 W'
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18~ 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeff Trulson .
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out fi.ontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~A"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is t'mally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petitinn and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeff Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From /~t 2_ ~ Address
Signature (~) ,.~a~-'~'x, Date
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 W'
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th I998 and it is finally ali made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Tmlson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Signam-~~ Date X~_~d~
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi'om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 W'
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From ~./~L ~'~t~ ~C~~a~j Address
Stgnature' ~~ ~/ ~ Date
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can ~
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18~h 1998 and it is £mally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't bo cut dowa, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will a~ee with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Comments;
2 11998
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper fi.om all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeff Tmlson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers SU'eet and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Signature
Comments;
Dear neighbors,
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint fi.om one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~"
and the tallest is 46" ). The fi.ont part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18o/o. '
We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John&Jeri Trulson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
Comments;
August 19, 1998
We feel the fence on your property (14296 Rutgers Street) has been built in
a very pleasing manner and will add property value to all of us in the
neighborhood.
We also feel the City of Prior Lake has very poor judgement as to what
looks good, what looks bad and what is in the best interest of all parties
involved.
Any fence of any height can be appealing if built professionally and in good
taste to your property and to your neighbors.
A prime example of a fence of poor taste, and that degrades all of our
property values and neighborhood is the fence installed at 14375 Watersedge
Trail.
The City of Prior Lake has accepted the fence constructed between 14375
Watersedge Trail and 14279 Rutgers Street.
The fence is in poor condition, mismatched, broken and is an eye sore to our
neighborhood.
Another example of the city using poor judgment and allowing the disrepair
is the fence and sheds of 14375 Watersedge lake property and~lltassilalo~n 6~
violation of city ordinances, by being located within 3 feet of Watersedge
Trail, also belonging to the same owner of 14375 Watersedge Trail.
We all need to be responsible Citizens and follow city guidelines. However,
the Prior Lake City ordinances are not the best possible solution...they are
the worst solution that is still in their mind fair for everyone.
The City of Prior Lake would be doing themselves a big favor if they would
try to treat each case individually and with the respect of everyone and
everything in mind. Maybe the city would be more inviting and more
appealing as well as our neighborhood to future homeowners.
Dear neighbors, -
The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According
to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be
over 42" mil in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be
72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 ~A"
and the tallest is 46" ). The front partth of our fence, can't be over 25% opamty,' the fence is less than 18%. '
We ordered this fence on May 18 1998 and ~t is ~'mally all made and portions are installed. The way the
fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade
and the posts redone.
Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make
the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us.
We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because
time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out
for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures.
Sincerely,
John & Jeri Tmlson
To the City of Prior Lake,
I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks
or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can
be all the same height.
From ~'d ~' ~/ ~'~4"ra~i~g.:~ Address
Signature - ~fi. a.._~ Date
Comments;
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5E
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN
AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT THE HOLIDAY
STATION (CASE FILE #98-085 & 98-116)
HOLIDAY STATION
16800 DULUTH AVENUE SE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
SEPTEMBigR 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The City received an application for a conditional use permit and a variance from the
Holiday Station. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' by 45' automatic car wash
addition to the south side of the existing building located at 16800 Duluth Avenue SE.
This property is zoned B-3 (General Business). Car washes require a conditional use
permit in the B-3 district.
In addition, the proposed car wash eliminates the existing parking spaces located along
the south side of the building, reducing the number of parking spaces from 29 to 19. The
Zoning Ordinance requires 24 parking spaces for this use. The applicant is therefore
requesting a variance to the total number of spaces.
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit should be reviewed in accordance with the criteria
found in Section 7.5(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7.5(C) provides that a
conditional use shall be approved if it is found to meet specific criteria. The criteria are
discussed on the following pages.
The variance request must be reviewed in accordance with the criteria found in Section
7.6 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance. These criteria are also discussed on the following
pages.
1~-,~^~, ,4:\98file.~\98cu~98-085~98085~c.dcc..
o~t~ ~agie t~ree~ave. ~.m, r~rlor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
SITE ANALYSIS:
The subject site consists of 31,372 square feet located on the south side of Highway 13,
west of Duluth Avenue and east of the Dairy Queen. The site is adjacent to the Dairy
Queen on the west, vacant commercial land on south and, across Duluth Avenue, is
Marquette Bank. There are single family homes located on the north side of Highway 13.
The proposed car wash will be located on the south side of the existing building, adjacent
to the vacant commercial land. Access to the site will be from the existing driveways on
Duluth Avenue.
The building itself will be constructed with brick and block materials matching the
existing building. The building will also be designed with a flat roof, rather than a hip
roof. The building is designed so vehicles will enter the car Wash from the west side, and
exist on the east to Duluth Avenue. The plans do not identify the stacking area for
vehicles waiting to use the car wash. The applicant is also proposing a landscape area
along the south side of the addition to replace the existing landscaping on the south side
of the building. Illuminated charmelized letters will be located at the exit and the
entrance the car wash.
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 lot area and the buildings on the lot are existing
conditions. Literal enforcement of the ordinance does not allow staff to count the
spaces at the fueling islands as parking stalls. This results in undue hardship with
respect to the property. If the stalls in fi'ont of the pumps are considered parking
spaces, adequate parking is achieved.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
There are unique circumstances pertaining to this property. The property was platted
in 1979 and the first gas station was conslxucted in 1980. In 1996 a major renovation
of the site cornrnenced. There is a 25 foot wide private easement on the property,
located on the south lot line. This easement is to allow thru access to the Dairy
Queen. The easement results in the use of land that could otherwise be used to
accommodate required parking.
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 ordinance does not presently allow us to count the spaces at the pump islands as
parking spaces. There are 8 pumps, with 2 parking spaces, each on this site. If these
l:\98filesLOScup\98-085\98085pc.doc 2
parking spaces are included, the applicant would exceed the required parking for the
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to thc public interest.
The intent of the required parking spaces is to ensure adequate on site parking for the
use, and to ensure parking does not encroach onto the public right-of-way, or adjacent
properties. The proposed use requires 24 spaces. The applicant has provided 15
spaces, along with the 16 spaces at the pumps. This number is consistent with the
intent of the ordinance.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS:
Section 7.5(C) sets forth several criteria for approval of a CUP. These criteria and the
staff analysis of compliance with these criteria are set forth below;
1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use
provisions and all general regulations of this Ordinance.
The proposed use is consistent with the conditional use provisions for the B-3
(General Business) zoning district and conforms to most of the general regulations of
the Zoning Ordinance (upon satisfaction of conditions). The applicant has requested
a variance to the parking provisions as a part of this application.
The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may
be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons, shall
comply with the performance standards listed below.
The Engineering Department has noted several items which must be addressed prior
to approval of the plans. Briefly, these include the sanitary sewer connection, the
pavement design and the discharge of the runoff. These items are discussed in detail
in the attached memorandum dated September 3, 1998. These issues must be
addressed prior to approval of the plans.
3. The proposed use shall be sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious
relationship of buildings and grounds adjacent to buildings and properties.
The landscaping on the site is consistent with the existing landscaping, and meets the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment
which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood.
The building is designed to match the existing Holiday Station Store. It is also
consistent with other commercial buildings in the area.
1:\98files\98¢up\98-085Los085p¢.do¢ 3
5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic
congestion within the neighborhood.
The variance to the parking provisions is discussed above. The 15 parking spaces on
the site, in addition to the 16 spaces at the gas pumps, should be adequate to meet the
demand. The plans, however, do not address stacking for vehicles waiting to use the
car wash. This stacking is critical, and must be addressed.
6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this Ordinance and shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as C-CC (Community Retail
Shopping). The proposed use is consistent with that designation.
The performance standards are set forth in Section 7.5(D) and relate to the following
factors;
· Fire protection · Electrical disturbance
· Noise · Vibrations
· Odors · Air pollution
· Glare · Erosion
· Water pollution.
The proposed project is not expected to result in any of the nuisance factors set forth in
the performance standards and is thus consistent with these standards.
CONCLUSION
Variance: The staff recommends the requested variance be granted. The use of the
spaces at the gas pumps allows adequate parking on the site, and meets the intent of the
ordinance.
Conditional Use Permit: The proposed use is generally consistent with the standards for
conditional uses. The use would be appropriate to the proposed location and blend into
the neighborhood. However, before the plans are approved, the following items must be
addressed:
o
A new survey showing existing conditions must be submitted. The survey submitted
with the application shows the former buildings which have since been removed.
A site plan showing the complete site and the stacking for the vehicles waiting to use
the car wash must be submitted. This site plan should also identify traffic movements
on the site.
Extend the curbing and landscape area to the east side of the existing building to
better delineate the stacking and driving lane for the car wash.
1:\98filcs\98cup\98-085\98085pe.do¢ 4
4. Redesign the 4" sanitary sewer service so that it is not connected into the manhole.
The clean out on this service line must not be located within the public right-of-way.
5. Provide specifications and pavement sections for the parking lot replacement.
6. Car wash runoff must be discharged according to State requirements. The plans must
identify how these requirements are met.
The Landscape Plan be modified to include landscaping of the entire site as approved
in Building Permit 96-471 (new station). Any dead/disturbed/missing trees are to be
replaced as part of the CLIP.
8. A Conditional Sign Permit will be required as part of this CUP.
The Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this item until revised
plans addressing the above items have been submitted. The Planning Commission can
either continue the item to a date certain, or until the applicant resubmits plans. In the
latter case, we must resend notices of the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Motion and second to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance for
the required number of parking spaces, and recommending the City Council approve
the CLIP with specific conditions as presented or with changes recommended by the
Commission.
2. Motion and second to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance for
the required number of parking spaces, and continue the public hearing on the
Conditional Use Permit to a date and time certain to allow the developer to provide
additional information specifically requested by the Planning Commission.
3. Based upon expressed findings of fact, deny the requasted variance and recommend
the City Council deny part or all of the application based upon consistency of the
proposal with specific regulations of the Zoning Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #2.
ACTION REI~UIRED:
Since this request includes two applications, two separate motions are required. These
are a motion and second directing staff to prepare a resolution approving the requested
variance to the required number of parking spaces, and a motion and second to continue
the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit to a date and time certa'm to allow the
developer to provide additional information specifically requested by the Planning
Commission.
l:~98files\98cup~98-085~98085pe.doc 5
SITE LOCATION
]oq-o
FIRST
=lC NUblSER IO$5'
EAGLE CREEK VILLAS A CONDOMINIUM
ENIViD
OZ~l-O
IST
sT.
TOWER
CC*ND. NO.
IOO?
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NARRATIVE
Conditional Use Permit For Holiday Stationstore//198
16800 Duluth Ave., S.E.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc. requests a conditional use permit for a 24'-0" x 45'-0"
attached ear wash.
The design of our proposed car wash will match the existing building with the exception
of the roofline. We will not have a hip roof design; instead we will maintain a flat roof.
The brick and block textures and color will align with the existing building. The building
fascia system will be a 48" ACM panel (aluminum composite material) with vinyl red
and blue stripes applied to it, which will also match the existing building. We also
propose to add 27" individual illuminated channelized letters to both the front and back
of the building for "Car Wash" directional signage.
Along the side of the building we will carry a landscaped area to replace similar sized
area which will be lost due to the car wash addition.
The proposed CUP will not be detrimental to public welfare or the environment but will
instead enhance offerings to the public by Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
F:\DATA~ENGiNE~PROJECTS\HSG\98PROORM~rerr~deI\198-PRIXFILES\CUP NARRATIVE.doc
PARKING NARRATIVE
Parking Variance For Holiday Stationstore #198
16800 Duluth Ave., S.E.
The total number of parking spaces currently at this location is 29, with the addition of
the proposed attached car wash we would be reducing the number to 19 (we are required
24). The specific arrangement of parking stalls would be 15 stalls around the fi'ont and
side of the building which provides a number of highly accessible and convenient
customer parking and 4 employee stalls out in front of the store by the pylon sign, all of
which are current parking locations.
The revised number of parking spaces proposed at this location (19) is consistent with the
total number of parking spaces available at similar volume Holiday stationstores in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area. We have experienced no shortage of parking at
comparable locations around the metropolitan area, and we expect this proposed parking
plan to meet our needs.
Additionally, although the City Ordinance does not "count" fueling positions, our site
design curmetly provides capacity for 16 vehicles at the petroleum dispensing islands.
Those customers purchasing petroleum and patronizing the stationstore will keep their
vehicle at the dispenser island leaving parking spaces available for those customers using
the stationstore without purchasing petroleum. In effect, this creates an added 16 "usable
parking spaces" at the petroleum dispenser islands. This would give us a revised total of
35 parking stalls of which 24 are required.
In summary, given our experience at comparable Holiday stationstores in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area, the revise parking provided at this location should completely serve
the needs of this location.
F:~DATA\ENGINE~PROJECTS\HSG\98PROGRMh-¢modeI\198-PRBFILES~PARKING NARRATIVE,doc
[ir
'i ~'illl'~
"~J~"STATIONSTORE#198jj~j~ j~J~i[!~ I,lj~/
^ ^PRIOR LAKE, MN
DATE: September 3, 1998
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
McDermott, Assistant City Engineer
Sue
Holiday Station Car Wash
The Engineering Department has completed a preliminary review of the subject plan and
has the following comments:
1. The 4" sanitary sewer service can't be connected into the manhole. The clean
out on the service line must be outside of the right of way. All utility
construction must comply with the Public Works Design manual.
2. The pavement section for the parking lot replacement is not shown on the
plans. Specifications are referred to but not supplied with the plans.
3. State rule Chapter 7050.0210 prohibits discharging car wash runoff into the
storm sewer. The design engineer should call Blue Lake Treatment plant 445-
40612 to find out what conditions apply (i.e., oil/water separator, grit
chamber, etc.). The way the elevations are shown, the two trench drains
outside of the car wash are lower that the car wash floor. Without more
details of the inside drain, it would appear that runoff from the car wash would
flow into the exterior trench drains requiring them to be connected to the
sanitary sewer, not the storm sewer.
4. A copy of the plans must be sent to the MCES for review at the following
address:
MCES
Attn: Mike Pliml
455 Etna, Suite 27
St. Paul, MN 55106
5. A new survey must be submitted.
6. All plans and survey must be signed by appropriate professional.
7. Provide complete site plan showing stacking.
It appears old topography was used. The plan shows a hydrant in the center of
the entrance opening.
Proposed construction should be clearly identified and distinguishable from
existing features.
g:~memos\sue9 8(holiday.doc
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5F
CONSIDER A GARAGE SIZE VARIANCE FOR MARK
SUDHEIMER, Case File #98-118
16211 BIRCH AVENUE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mark Sudheimer
who is proposing to construct a detached garage for a four unit apartment
building on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and SD
(Shoreland District). The proposed garage is 57 feet wide and 24 feet deep.
There are five parking stall in the garage. Section 5-5-2 of the City Code allows
for a maximum accessory structure size of 832 square feet on property located
within the R-1 zoning district.
DISCUSSION:
The property is a metes and bound description and the 4-plex was constructed in
1961. This was prior to the adoption of the city's zoning ordinance in 1963. The
property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) district. The lot is approximately 110 feet by 172 feet and is 19,897
square feet. The use of the lot as a 4-plex is a legal non-conforming use. The
applicant is not increasing the non-conformity by constructing a garage.
The proposed garage meets all of the setbacks and impervious surface
requirements. The garage will have five stalls to accommodate each of the four
units and one stall will be used to store the lawnmower, shovels, etc. Section 5-
5-5 required two off-street parking stalls for each unit. The existing gravel
parking area is located within the right-of-way and is non-conforming. The
applicant must construct 4 additional off-street parking spaces in lieu of
maintaining the existing gravel parking area on the right-of-way. This is included
as a condition on the attached resolution. The impervious surface is under by
2,041 square feet with the proposed garage, so this will not be a problem.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 is to provide for a
garage stall for each dwelling unit and a storage area. There is currently no
garage or underground parking or storage area on the site. Reasonable use
cannot be achieved through literal enforcement of the ordinance. However,
the variance request can be reduced to provide for a four car garage and still
provide reasonable use.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The unique circumstance is the non-conforming existing 4-plex. It was
constructed prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance. Considering that it is
an existing condition, there currently is no garage, and existing off-street
parking is located within the right-of-way, unique circumstances exist.
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 did not construct the 4-plex without a garage. However, the
variance request could be reduced if the garage was only a four stall garage
and did not have storage area for equipment. This is a unique circumstance
with a unique sized lot and structure resulting in hardship caused by the
ordinance and not the actions of the applicant. However, the variance
request can be reduced by one stall (10 feet by 24 feet deep) to 47 wide by
24 feet deep (1,128 square feet).
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 garage size is to prohibit garages from being larger
than houses and to reduce illegal home occupations or uses that tend to
occur in garages to remain private, not commercial activities within residential
neighborhoods. Considering the purpose of the proposed garage is to
provide off-street sheltered parking, and the lot is over 19,000 square feet,
and all other ordinance will be met, the public interest is not sacrificed in
granting of the ordinance. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to
the public interest.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-118\98-118PC.DOC Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance request for a four stall garage 47 feet wide and
24 feet deep is substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot and unique
circumstances of the site and structure. Should the Planning Commission find a
five stall garage, as requested, is reasonable and opposed to the recommended
four stall garage, then staff should be directed to prepare the necessary
resolution.
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 #98-26PC.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-118\98-118PC,DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-26PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 296 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A DETACHED GARAGE SIZE OF 1,128 (47 FEET BY 24 FEET) SQUARE FEET
INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 832 SQUARE FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Mark Sudheimer has applied for a variance fi:om the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a detached garage on property located in the R-1 (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
16211 Birch Avenue, legally described as:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 114, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at a point 50.00 feet East of the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 3,
plat of "Lakeside Garden"; thence East parallel with the north line of Main
Street of said plat, a distance of 110 feet; thence North parallel with the east
line of said Block 3, to the southerly line of the plat of "Lakeside Park";
thence westerly along said southerly line a distance of 110 feet more or less to
the intersection with a line drawn from the point of beginning, northerly and
parallel with the east line of said Block 3, of the plat of "Lakeside Gardens";
thence southerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #98-108 and held heatings thereon on September 14, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
· V 8 13 26 DOC
16200 El~"~eS~8~e~.,'~'nSor~ag~, ~f~fl]nesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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 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 large lot size, the
fact that the 4-plex on the lot was built in 1961, prior to the adoption of a zoning
ordinance, and there currently does not exist a garage on the property.
6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The
factors listed above do not allow for an alternative and reasonable solution to
construction a garage for four dwelling units on the lot without a variance.
7. The contents of Plarming Case 98-118 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 variance 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 variance has failed
to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for proposed detached
garage;
1. A 296 square foot variance permitting a 1,128 square foot detached garage instead of
the maximum 832 square feet allowed in the R-1 zoning district.
The following are conditions of this variance approval:
I. Four additional off-street hard surfaced parking spaces must be provided for on the
lot. The new parking area must meet all city codes including impervious surface of
the lot. The existing gravel parking area currently located within the right-of-way
must be removed and restored with sod as part of the building permit for the proposed
garage.
2. This variance does not serve as approval to continue the non-conforming use of the
property as a 4-plex. As per City Code Section 5-5~1, should the use be discontinued
or the become structure more than 50% destroyed, only permitted uses will be
allowed upon reconstruction.
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
3
EXHIBIT A
./
---110.09---
N 89'39'24" W
Property Address
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 3 0 Percent.
L0tArea /c~xOo~"/ Sq. Feet x 30% -- ..............%c~,fl
HOUSE q~_ ,,.,vd.~ ._.a
ATTACHED GARAGE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
X
~ X
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE .............. ........ I I~
DETACHED BLDGS 5'7 x Z(/ lB G~5
(G ~._~.~/S h e d) X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .......................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
~r not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Areas)
X ~
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks ¼" min. opening between
bom'ds, with a pervious surface below,
~'e not considered to be impervious)
TOTAL DECKS ...... , .................................................
OTHER
TOTAL OTHER .......................................................
TOTAL 'IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Prepared"'B~ ~)t~,o-e_.~'
,
Date
Phone
ommbsions. The ContraCa3r
sections and ~ plans and nol
Contraclxx and/~x owner must
plans and notify Chaska Buildtn!
to star toI' coastn~Uon. Nldim
· /
~Hog ~od /
i c./,,,,%oj,~., i~v,
· t/,. tz."Cow,,.
~o" x ~"~..
9 .~OZA~
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDAITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
SG
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN OFFICIAL MAP
FOR THE RING ROAD BETWEEN FRANKLIN TRAIL AND
TORONTO AVENUE
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NOLN/A
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Prior Lake has, for several years, anticipated the construction of a ring road
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. This road is shown on the Transportation
Map in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The recent construction of the Park Nicollet
Clinic and the changes to the access points on Highway 13 has facilitated the need for
this road. In order to better plan for this road, the City staff has proposed an official map
for the right-of-way.
An Official Map is an ordinance in map form adopted by the City that conclusively shows
the location and width of proposed streets or future public land and facilities. The
requirements for an Official Map are identified in the State Statutes (see attached). The
purpose of an Official Map is to prevent private development form encroaching on sites
for proposed public improvements. The adoption of an Official Map does not give the
City any right, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes, but it does authorize
the City to acquire such interests without paying compensation for buildings or
structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of an
approved permit. The Official Map also governs the issuance of building permits in that
it is not required to issue a permit for a structure within the public area defined by an
official map. The statute also provides a property owner with an appeal process.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the proposed ring road is to provide access to the commercial properties
on the southwest side of Highway 13, and to reroute that traffic from Highway 13 to a
local street. In the past year, the Planning Commission reviewed several proposed
alignments which would accomplish this by directing traffic from Franklin Trail to Toronto
Avenue, and provides access to the properties adjacent to Highway 13 and the
properties to the south. The alignment ultimately suggested by the Planning
Commission is shown on the attached survey. This alignment has the least impact on
existing development.
I6200 Fl~l~e~b~e~?~.i~.t,9~o9J~c~a~:, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6iP2~g,~z~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend the Council approve the Official Map as proposed, or with changes
specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend the Council deny the proposed Official Map.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REC~UIRED:
The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. The Official Map provides for the
alignment of the future road, and allows the City and the adjacent property owners to
plan development consistent with this road alignment. A motion and second
recommending approval of the Official Map is appropriate.
REPORT ATTACHMENTS:
1. State Statute
2. Centerline Survey
1:\98files\98subjec~8-019\98019pc3.doc Page 2
2RYSTAL
LAKE
THE POND
ATHLETIC COMPLEX
oo
ORDERLY ANI~
HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT. PLA~N~NG, ZONING
826
surface areas necessary for mined undergound space development pursuant to sections
469.135 to 469,14 I, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each improve-
ment. the impact that such improvements will have on the current operating expense of the
municipality, and such other information on capital improvements as may be pertinent.
Subd. 10. Official map. "Official map" means a map adopted in accordance with sec-
tion 462.3.59 which may show existing and proposed future street, roads, and highways of
the municipality and county, the ar~a needed for widening of existing s=eets, roads, and
highways of the municipality and county, existing and proposed air space and subsurface
areas necessary, for mined under~ound space development pursuant to sections 469.135 to
469. la l. and existing and future county state aid highways and state trunk highway rights-
ot-way. An official map may also show the location of existing and future public land and
facilities within the municipality. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in section
473.121, official maps may tot a period of up to five yeats designate the boundaries of areas
reserved for parposes of soft conservation, water supply conservation, flood control and sur-
face water drainage and removal including appropfiate regulations protecting such areas
against encroachment by buildings, other physical structures or facilities.
Subd. 1 [. Governing body. "Governing body" in the case of cities means the council by
whatever name known, and in the case of a town. means the town board.
Sub& 12. Subdivision. "Subdivision" means the separation of an area. parcel, or tract
of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots. or long-term leasehold
interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets.
roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination
thereof, except those separations:
la) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots. or interests will be 20 acres or larger in
size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commemial
and industrial uses:
lb) Creating cemetery lots:
lc) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a com-
mon boundary.
Subd. 13. Plat. "Plat" means the drawing or map ufa subdivision prepared for filing of
record pursuant to chapter 505 and containing alt elements and requirements set forth in ap-
plicable local regulations adopted pursuant to section 462.358 and chapter 50.5.
Sub& 14. Subdivision regulation. "Subdivision regulation" means an ordinance
adopted pursuant to section 462.3.58 regulating the subdivision of [and.
Subd. 1.5. Official controls. "Official controls" or "controls" means ordinances and
regulations which control the physical development of a city. county or town or any part
thereof including air space and subsurface areas necessary for mined under~ound space de-
velopment pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141, or any detail thereof and implement the
general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances es-
tab{ishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes
and official maps.
Sub& 16. Preliminary approval. "Preliminary approval" means official action taken
by a municipality on an application to create a subdivision which establishes the rights and
obligations set forth in section 462.358 and the applicable subdivision regulation. In accor-
dance with sec[ion 462.358, and unless otherwise specified in the applicable subdivision reg-
ulation, preliminary approval may be granted only following the review and approval of a
preliminary plat or other map or drawing establishing without [imitation the number, layout,
and location of' lots. tracts, blocks, and parcels to be created, location of streem, roads, utili-
ties and facilities, park and drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use.
Sub& 17. Property rights. The words "area," "interest in real property," "ground."
"land," "lot," "parcel." "property," "real estate," "real property," "site," "territory," and
"tract," and other terms describing real property shall include within their meaning, but not
827
be ]imite
opment
His~
1980 c
nrt2s I
462.353
Sub,
nicipal pi
nicipalit3
ment suc
sections -
Sub,
pality m~
displays.
tions, ant
public on
SuN
any fund:
pa/ky
tracts wid'
Subd
by it in re'
official cv
permit or
lions. Fee~
Subd
informatit
permit ur
t&xcs whic
poses of th
Histm
462.354 O
Subdi
planning
VOte of all;
the tbllo~ i:
officials an
may be a di
sion shall b
{2) It r'
and shall fu
istration. T}
staff as in t?
Subd. 2
adopting or
462.3585 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMF_N'r, PLANNING. ZONIlNG
836
4623585 JOINT PLANNING BOARD.
Upon request of a home rule thiner or statutory city council or county or town board by
resolution presented to the county auditor of the county of the affected territory a board shall
be established to exercise planning and land use control authority in the unincorporated area
within two miles of the corporate limits of a city. The board shall have members in a number
determined by the city. county, and town. Each governmental unit shall have an equal num-
ber of members. The members shall be appointed from the governing bodies of the city,
count)', and town. Upon request of more than one county or town board with respect to the
unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate limits of a single city. the parties may
create one board rather than a separate board for each county or town. with equal member-
ship from each affected governmental unit. The board shall serve as the governing body and
board of appeals and adjustments for purposes of sections 462:351 to 462.364 within the
two-mile area. The board shall have all of the powers contained in sections 462.351 to
462.364 and shall have authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated
pursuant m section 299F. 011. The city shall provide staff for the preparation and administra-
tion of land use controls unless otherwise agreed by the governmental units. If a municipality
exmnds the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory located
within two miles of its limits pursuant to section 462.358. subdivision la. before the creation
of a joint board, the subdivision regulations which the municipality has extended shall apply
until the joint board adopts subdivision regulations.
History: 1982 c 507 s 24
462.359 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION: OFFICIAL MAPS.
Subdivision 1. Statement of purpose. Land that is needed tbr future street purposes
and as sites for other necessary public facilities and service~ is frequently diverted to nonpub-
lic uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to
the owners. When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained later
only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants of the land.
Identification on an official map of land needed for future public uses permits both the public
and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before
investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish.
Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a major thoroughfare plan
and a community facilities plan. it may. for the purpose of carcying out the policies of the
major thornugh'~.re plan and community facilities plan. prepare and recommend to the gov-
erning body a proposed official map covering the entire municipality or any portion thereof.
The governing body ma>. after holding a public hearing, adopt and amend the official map by
ordinance. A notice of the time. place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the
official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. The
official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient detail to permit the establishment of the
future acquisition lines on the ground. In unp[atted areas a minimum of a eenterline survey
shall have been made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map. The accura-
cy of the future acquisition lines shown on the official map shall be attested to by a registered
land surveyor. After adoption, a copy of the official map. or sections thereof with a copy of
the adopting ordinance attached shall be filed with the county recorder as provided in sec-
tions 462.351 to 462.364.
Subd. 3. Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed, the issuance of build-
ing permits by the municipality shall be subject to the provisions of this section. Whenever
any street or highway is widened or improved or any new street is opened, or interests in
lands for other public purposes are acquired by the municipality, it is not required in such
proceedings to pay for any building or structure placed without a permit or in violation of
conditions of a permit within the limits of the mapped street or outside of any building line
that may have been established upon the existing street or within any area thus identified for
public purposes. The adoption of an official map does not give the municipality any right,
title, or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of the map
does authorize the municipality to acquire such interests without paying compensation for
buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions
of a permit.
837
Subd. 4. Appe:
tion is denied, the b
with it by the owner
any case in which t}
that the entire prop
forms a part cannot
granted, and (b) the
the official map and
property in the use ~
or approval is requi
hearing required b.~
newspaper once at
adjustments anthotn
board or commissio
of the board to insti
proceedings are star
proval{ shall issue t?
nantes. The board s:
the extent and char:.
History: 1965
462.3595 CONDI';
Subdivision 1.
types of developmer
activities as conditic
the governing body
dards and criteria st.
include both genera
quirements specific
Subd. 2. Publi~
shall be held in the r
Subd. 3. Dnrad
tions agreed upon a~
from enacting or am
Subd. 4. Filing
with the county recc,
polity is located for r
the proper~y include
History: 1982
462.3597 INTERI?
Subdivision 1. l
titular date, until the
permit it.
Subd. 2. Autho
itu uses. The regulati
permission for an in:
( l 2 the use eonr
(2) the date or e
(3) permission c
for the public to take
{4) the user ogre
mission of the use.
Any interim use
ard shall
corporated area
~ers in a number
: an equal nu~.
ties of the city,
h respect to the
the parties may
~qual member.
ming body and
364~within the
,ns 462.351 to
e promulgated
nd administra_
a. municipality
ntory located
re the creation
ed shall apply
.PS.
:d to nonpub-
,brained later
s of the land.
th the public
iemly bei'bre
~ghfare plan
i/c/es of the
t to the gov-
:ion thereof.
cial map bv
ished in th~
earing. The
ment of the
tine survev
~he accura'-
a registered
'~ a copy of
der in sec-
e of build-
Whenever
ed in such
olation of
lding line
ntified for
any right.
f the map
sation for
837
~. Subd. 4.. Appeals. If a land use or zoning permit or approval for a building in such Ioca-
lion is denied, the board of appeals and adjustments shall have the power, upon appeal filed
with it by the owner of the land. to grant a permit or approval for building in such location in
any case in which the board finds, upon the evidence and the arguments presented to it.
that the entire property of the appellant of which such area identified for public purposes
forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit or approval is
granted, and (b) that balancing the interest of the municipality in preserving the integrity of
the official map and of the comprehensive municipal plan and the interest of the owner of the
property in the use of the property and in the benefits of ownership, the gxant of such permit
or approval is required by considerations of justice and equity. In addition to the notice of
hearing required by section 4-62.354. subdivision 2~ a notice shall be published in the official
newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing. If the board of appeals and
adjustments authorizes the issuance of a permit or approval the governing body or other
board or commission having jurisdiction shall have six ;nonths from the date of the decision
of the board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest therein, and if no such
proceedings are started within that tirde, the officer responsible for issuing permits or ap-
provals shall issue the permit or approval if the application otherwise conforms to local ordi-
nances. The board shall specify the exact location, ground area. height and other details as to
the extent and character of the building for which the permit or approval is granted.
History: 1965 c 670 s 9:1976 c 181 s 2:1986 c 4442 1995 c 254 atz 3 s 8
462.3595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS,
Subdivision I. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate certain
types of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development
activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by
the governing body or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the stan-
dards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall
include both general requirements for all conditional uses. and insofar as practicable, re-
quiremems specific to each designated conditional use.
Sub& 2. Public hearings. Public heatings on the granting of conditional use permits
shall be held in the manner provided in section 4-62.357. subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Duration. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the condi-
tions agreed upon are observed, but nothing in this section shalI prevent the municipality
from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Subd, 4. Filing of permit. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed
with the county recorder or registrar of titles of the county or counties in which the munici-
pality is located for record. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of
the property included.
History: 1982 c 507 s 25
462.3597 INTERIM USES.
Subdivision 1. Definition. Aa "interim use" is a temporary use of property until a par-
ticular date. until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer
permit it.
Sub& 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow inter-
im uses, The regulations may set conditions on interim uses. The governing body may grant
permission for an interim use of property if:
(l) the use conforms to the zoning regulations:
(2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessax7
for the public to take the property in the future: and
(4) the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for per-
mission of the use.
Any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5H
CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
GARAGE ADDITIONS FOR SANDY SILFVERSTON,
Case File #98-109
16196 ARCADIA AVENUE .
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER .~ [.~
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Sandy Silfverston
who is proposing to construct an 8 foot residential addition to add closet space to
two existing bedrooms and to construct an additional stall to an existing one car
garage on property located at 16196 Arcadia Avenue. The lot is located
adjacent to Eagle Creek Avenue (C.R. 21) and the existing house encroaches on
the 85 foot setback from the centerline by 15 feet. The following variances are
being requested:
1. A 5.4 foot variance to permit a 19.6 foot front yard setback instead of
the required 25 foot front yard setback for residential addition.
2. A 22.7 foot variance to permit a 62.3 foot setback from the centerline
of a county road for residential addition.
3. A 0.2 foot variance to permit an 84.8 foot setback from the centerline
of a county road instead of the required 85 foot centerline setback for
garage addition.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 6, Block 6 is part of the Prior Lake original townsite plat. The property also
includes part of the vacated railroad right-of-way. This is a separate parcel and
must be combined as part of any variance approval as the current house is
constructed over the lot line. The zoning is R-2 Urban Residential. The lot is
not considered to be a substandard lot. 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 Lot Variance
Requirements Requested
Area 15,000 sq. feet 6,000 sq. feet N/A
(above 904 el)
Lot Width 100.00 feet 60 feet N/A
(measured at setback)
Lot Coverage 18% 22% N/A
(structures only)
The building envelope (Exhibit B), is approximately 50 feet by 115 feet (5,750
square feet). Exhibit C is the existing house plan with the proposed additions
shown. The footprint of the existing house (without attached garage) is 966
square feet structure. The proposed residential addition would add 192 square
feet to the footprint. The existing attached garage is 273 square feet and the
proposed 260 square foot additional stall would result in an attached garage of
533 square feet. The existing detached garage is 1022 square feet.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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 as
the house and garage are existing. There is currently 1295 square feet of
garage space. The legal building envelope is approximately 5,750 square
feet with more than half of it available for additions.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The lot is a large lot compared to other lots in the R-2 zoning district and to
lots which are part of the original townsite plat. The original townsite consists
primarily of lots 50 feet wide and 100 to 150 feet deep. This is a double lot
due to the vacation of the railroad right-of-way. There are no unique
circumstances with respect to the property as the legal building envelope
5,750 square feet.
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 house was constructed in 1953, prior to the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant pumhased the house in it's current location and
had no control in the house layout. The hardship to add closet space to the
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-109\98-109PC.DOC Page 2
bedrooms is caused by the ordinance. The proposed garage addition,
however, can be moved to meet the'required setback and maintain
reasonable use. These are conditions of which the applicant has control over
and can modify to meet the criteria of the ordinance.
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 the county road setback is to provide adequate yards for
screening and separation from the typically more traveled roads. The intent
of the front yard setback is to provide open space and visual conformity within
the city from the streets. The spirit and intent of the ordinance cannot be
compensated or adjusted for if the variahces are granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded the variance requests for the proposed residential and
garage additions are not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that
the applicant has no control over. However, the Planning Commission may feel
the four criteria are met with respect to the residential addition, in which case,
staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such a
decision including a condition that the lots be combined prior to issuance of a
building permit.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 98-23PC denying requested variances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Approve the variances for the residential addition (or the garage addition)
because the Planning Commission finds a demonstrated hardship under the
zoning code criteria. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct
staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance request.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second adopting Resolution's 98-23PC.
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-109\98-109PC.DOC Page 3
RESOLUTION 98-23PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 19.6 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK AND A 22.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 62.3 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD AND A 0.2 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 84.8 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE
OF A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FOOT CENTERLINE
SETBACK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Sandy Silfverston has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a residential addition and garage addition to an existing
structure on property located in the R-2 (Urban Residential) District at the following
location, to wit;
16196 Arcadia Avenue, legally described as Lot 6, Block 6, Prior Lake,
according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota; and a 150 foot strip of
lying between said Lot 6 and the Hastings and Dakota Railroad, and between
the southerly extension of the easterly line of said Lot 6, and the southerly
extension of the centerline of alley in said Block 6; together with that part of
the vacated alley which accrued thereto by reason of the vacation thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #98-109 and held hearings thereon on September 14, 1998.
The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variances will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
l:\98files\98var\98-109Xre9823pc.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The legal building envelope for the lot is approximately 5,750 square feet. The
applicant has control over the proposed residential and garage addition. Reasonable
use of the property exists within the legal building envelope and with the existing
1,295 square feet of garage and existing house.
6. The granting of the variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will serve merelY as a
convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The factors listed above allow for an alternative addition and garage to be permitted
without the variance.
7. The contents of Planning Case 98-109 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, as shown in attached Exhibit A (survey) for proposed residential and
garage additions;
1. A 5.4 foot variance to permit a 19.6 foot front yard setback instead of the required
25 foot front yard setback for proposed residential addition; and
2. A 22.7 foot variance to permit a 62.3 foot setback from the centerline ora county
road instead of the required 85 foot setback from the centerline for proposed
residential addition; and
3. A 0.2 foot variance to permit an 84.8 foot setback from the centedine of a county
road instead of the required 85 foot centerline setback for proposed garage
addition.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Chair
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\98files\98var'O8-109h'e9823 pc.doc 2
A
CER TIFICA TE OF S UR VE Y
SAND Y SIL VERSTON
Bohlen
Surveying & Engineering
31462 Foliage Avenue ~t 4815 123td Street W.
Northfield, M~ 55057 ]~i]~ Savage, ~ 55376
Phone: (507) 645-7768 Phone: 612) 895-g212
Fox: (507) 645--7799 Fax: 612) 895-9259
8
7
95tX4
CENTER LINE OF VACATED ALLEY
EXISTING
[, HOUSE
954x9 .. 954x8
CATCH
945x9
g~44x7
tc~944x6
g4~7 150.00 ~!
· -- CONCR-~'~ cu~ ¢0~E8i :
CO. RD. NO. 21 i: :
· C_ENTER Ll[qE_. .....
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.--955.2
LAND DESCRIPTION
LOT 6. BLOC~ 6, PR~tR LAKE, ACCO~D6~ TO T~E R~COR~ PLAT
REC(~ ~N AND FOR SCOTT CO~rTY, ~SOTA; AND A 150 FOOT
DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION
~DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
O00xO DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
· DENOTES IRON PiPE MONUMENT FOUND
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER
MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
'~EROY J~,~I~OHLEN, LAND SURVEYOR
REVISED: 8-17-98 MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 10795
filenome:$4- I--98S
7
EXHIBIT B
CER TIFI CA TE O? S UR VE Y
SAND Y SIL VERSTON
Bohlen
Surveying & Engineering
51462 Fol[e§e Avenue ~ 4815 125rd Street W.
Northfield, MN 55057i Savage. MN 55378
Phone: (507) 6¢5--7768 B E Phone: (612) 898-9212
Fox: (507) 645-7799 Fox: (612) 895--9269
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
CATCH
BASH
CO RD. NO. 21
CENTER
LAND DESCRIPTION
LOT 6, BLOCK 6. I~ LAJ(~, ACCORD~G TO T~ R~CO~ ~.AT
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.--955.2
DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION
I-O~'~DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
O00xO DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
· DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER
MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
DATE' 8-6-98
REVISED: 8-17-98
'[EROY J;i;,~OHLEN, LAND SURVEYOR
MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 10795
EXHIBIT C
r
PROPERTY LOCATION
'/2
SEC.. 2 l~. 114 FL 22
R.L.S. 56
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
CONSIDER REQUEST TO TABLE A CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE
AND BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ROBERT
JADER, Case File #98-070
14962 PIXIE POINT CIRCLE
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 14, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
On August 10, 1998 the Planning Commission heard this request for a lot width
and bluff setback variance. Upon reviewing the hardship criteria and taking
public input, the Planning Commission approved the variance to lot width.
Because the applicant was willing to modify the house layout and site plan
accordingly, the bluff setback request was continued to the September 14, 1998
meeting.
On September 2, 1998, the Planning Department received a letter from the
applicant stating he could not meet the deadline for the September 14, 1998 and
is not sure when the revised plans will be ready. We have sent the applicant a
letter extending the required 60 days decision period from September 18, 1998
to November 17, 1998. Another extension cannot be granted and the item could
be heard by the Planning Commission on September 28, October 12, October
26, or November 9, 1998. Once the revised plans are received, notices will be
mailed to all properties within 100 feet as originally notified, if revised plans are
not received, the item will be heard as originally requested on November 9,
1998. Attached is the applicant's request for tabling the item.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends tabling the item indefinitely allowing the applicant time to
revise plans. The request will be heard before the statutory 60 day deadline with
a 60 day extension.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
1, Table the item indefinitely. Item will be heard on or before November 9,
1998.
2, Continue the item to a specific date.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second to table the item. The item will be heard on or before
November 9, 1998 and new hearing notices will be sent,
L:\98FILES\98VAR\98-070\98070PC2.DOC Page 2
J2-1998 10:B&AM FROM JADERENTERPRISES 844B288 P. 2
September 2, 1998
To: Ms. Jenn/. Tovar
From: Bob Jader
Re: Continuance Of Variance Request
FAX 447-4245
Please be advised that I will not be prepared to make a presentation to the
Planning Commission as was previously scheduled. ,, at this time I am not
certain when I will be prepared, however I will notify the Planrdrtg
Depa, tment when I will be prepared. I realize that th .~ requested continuance
expires with the November 17th meeting. If you nee(. additional information,
please feel flee to contact me.
Sincerely~
RD J/wp