Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7A Twin Isle Variance
ti U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 �INNESD�A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 25, 2016 AGENDA#: 7A PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AF- FIRMING OR REVERSING A DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT VARIANCES ON LOT 51, TWIN ISLAND DISCUSSION: Introduction John Meyer has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, to approve two variances from the Shoreland District. Troy Martin and Dean Scholl,the property owners, are requesting variances from the minimum lake and side yard setbacks on property located on Twin Island. The property is located along the northwestern shore of Twin Isle on Upper Prior Lake. The property is currently vacant. The following variances are requested: • A 66.3 foot variance from the required minimum 100 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water(OHM elevation of Prior Lake (Section 1104.309). • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 10 foot side yard set- back(Section 1104.309) Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance Lake Setback 100' 33.7' 66.3' Side Yard Setback 10' 5' 5' History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD(Urban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is currently vacant. Lot 51, Twin Isles was platted as a cabin lot along with the other Twin Isles lots in 1924. It is a single parcel designated as a lot of record under MN State Statute 462.357. On May 16, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the requested variances. Public comments were taken which questioned the build- able nature of the property for a seasonal cabin. The Planning Commission ta- bled the decision to the June 20th meeting, allowed all interested parties to pro- vide written evidence supporting their positions by June 13th, directed City Staff to provided clarification of the legal status and more information related to the buildable nature of the property, and requested the City Attorney be present on June 20th In response to this direction, the City Attorney prepared the attached memoran- dum and explained its information at the June 201h meeting. Members of the public also provided written evidence relating to past projects on the island. After further discussion on June 20th the Planning Commission approved the re- quested variances (minutes and resolution attached) finding that the property was buildable based on State Statute and the variances allowed the property owner to utilize the property in a reasonable manner. Current Circumstances The applicant proposes to construct a 2-story cabin onsite with a 560 square foot footprint and a 200 square foot deck. The area of the property is 5,966 square feet in total area above a 904 elevation. Lake Setback The applicant proposes a new cabin that would be 33.7 feet from the 904 eleva- tion of the lake. This 33.7 foot setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. On the mainland areas within the City of Prior Lake, the lake setback requirement may be averaged to as short as 50 feet without a variance request using the setbacks of nearby homes/cab- ins; however, that ordinance provision is not included in the Island Development section of the Ordinance. Instead, a 100 foot setback requirement is listed in the Ordinance. Side Yard Setback The applicant is proposing a 5 foot side yard structure setback along the northern property line. The Ordinance requirement for a side yard setback is 10 feet. The applicant could possibly locate the structure closer to the center of the property; however, this would decrease the lake setback proposed and possibly impact a tree identified on the survey. The applicants have expressed the interest to place the cabin at the proposed location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Island Development Ordinance (Section 1104.309). The attached site photo on file at City Hall (dated 1999) indicates the approximate cabin location. Conclusion City Staff believes the variances requested and approved are warranted due to the lot constraints unique to the property and practical difficulties as stated be- low in the findings. Therefore, City Staff recommended approval of the re- quested variance subject to the following conditions of approval: ® The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowl- edged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community& Eco- nomic Development Department prior to the issuance of a building per- mit. The grey water system shall be located 75 feet from the OHWM (Ordi- nary High Water Mark) of Prior Lake. ISSUES: This project includes a request for two variances. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: • There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Response: It appears practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. The size of the island and the size of the lots platted in 1925 create practical difficulties in complying with the setbacks. The applicant has chosen a building location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Island Development Ordinance (Section 1104.309). • The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Response: Two purposes of- the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City." The approval of the variance as requested would allow the applicant to construct a reasonable residential cabin plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the upland area of the property. • The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. Response: The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The 33.7 foot setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. • The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. Response: A seasonal cabin is an allowed use on Twin Island within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve a Resolution affirming a decision by the Board of Adjustment to grant variances on Lot 51, Twin Island. 2. Motion and a second to approve a Resolution reversing a decision by the Board of Adjustment to grant variances on Lot 51, Twin Island. 3. Motion and a second to send the variances back to the Board of Adjust- ment for further deliberation based on direction by the City Council. RECOMMENDED Alternative#1 MOTIONS: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Survey dated 4/1/2016 3. June 20' Planning Commission report (including attachments) 4. June 20th Planning Commission Minutes o� PRz°�P ti 4646 Dakota Street SE �fNNC500 Prior Lake,MN 55372 RESOLUTION 16-XXX RESOLUTION AFFIRMING A DECISION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT VARIANCES ON LOT 51, TWIN ISLAND Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, Troy Martin and Dean Scholl, the property owners, have requested variances from the minimum lake setback and minimum side yard to allow construction of a seasonal cabin on a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District at the following property: Lot 51, Twin Isles, Scott County Minnesota. (PID 25-100-040-1) WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #DEV16-001012, held a public hearing thereon May 16, 2016, and continued their discussion of the item on June 20, 2016; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variances were consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and approved the variances subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, On June 21, 2016, John Meyer, a property owner within 350 feet of the affected property, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case# DEV16-001012, and held a hearing thereon on July 25, 2016. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The above recitals are fully incorporated herein as set forth above. 2. The City Council finds that the requested variances are consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions. 3. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variances subject to conditions. 4. The City Council makes the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a 1 reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. The size of the island and the size of the lots platted in 1925 create practical difficulties in complying with the setbacks. The applicant has chosen a building location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Island Development Ordinance (Section 1104.309). b. The granting of the Variances is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City." The approval of the variance as requested would allow the applicant to construct a reasonable residential cabin plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the upland area of the property. c. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The 33.7-foot lake setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. d. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow construction of a residential seasonal cabin which is an allowed use on Twin Isles within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. 5. The contents of Case #DEV16-001012 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. 6. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby affirms the following variances granted by the Planning Commission to allow construction of a seasonal cabin in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Shoreland Zoning District: a. A 33.7-foot variance from the required minimum 100-foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water(OHM elevation of Prior Lake (Section 1104.309) b. A 5-foot variance from the required minimum 10-foot side yard setback (Section 1104.309) PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Frank Boyles, City Manager 2 oo �ooooo L000d000 Map 0 0 BE jF=c a� Upper Prior Lake t .f• . y� r 7 s as SUBJECT `f 4 6®TIS ST s ¢ PROPERTY ` ^,.F ' - 1'�'9,� ,�. .m .a ` .�'�}r Re`�_C-;• gyp,_- 'L ..�; °e P._AF c,_ c - - Upper Prior Lake . � ' Spring Lake ��' p45 et �� 40TE: kICq Wk- kc) Roar Pi.��e.T To �vts,�w1�►vt�Or- ' Rr✓Coeo eF �uK .. W � t�S .�.�r✓�JDS FoyNo oIZ�F tin EL WT-(04 PAPE ry�o�v,rY,�n�1 S. - . a�� _. .� l - 902 •. o/ �OW -.y�9�_- d� �N ,S 0 1 o T � °PES-gl3,o 9A - ��'G� 9 � 6G0 /. ti13 tib 59O'T $p 9 AL L TIL �n � / y X m PEF-Uv0 U,S Su - ��SEij �L.cx�tL.��f✓JRT'+ON ���.a ,.. � j �Jc1 ':• . I'hexoby certify that this -is a true and correct representAtion of a survey of.the boundaries of �� .]�I V�{�N �l�S SCp-i County, Minnesota as on.Ii le and of record' in the Office of the County Recorder in-'and for said. County'. ?hat. I am a duly Registered band Surveyor under the-Laws of.the:State.of•Minnesota. Dated: ����T 27 V YJ 1 1 Allan R. Hastings. Minnesota Regti ration No, .17008 �1 i1' ¢35:Barnes~bake.'T3riv$, 1�'�i IWd �Gll-( �p11��D1� �U•R,IVbSE�t•.dD�� b(�1T` 'xoxwaoa ya�rg%•Ame'r,,i.c�t • .. .., Minnesota 553 Phone 452 94.5. 402.7 June 20th Planning Commission Report ©f PRI�� Aw le U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 INNESOSA = PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 2016 AGENDA#: 5A PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE MINI- MUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK AND MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY ON TWIN ISLAND DISCUSSION: Introduction Troy Martin and Dean Scholl,the property owners, are requesting variances from the minimum lake and side yard setbacks on property located on Twin Island. The property is located along the northwestern shore of Twin Isle on Upper Prior Lake. The property is currently vacant. The following variances are requested: • A 66.3 foot variance from the required minimum 100 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water(OHM elevation of Prior Lake (Section 1104.309). • A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 10 foot side yard set- back(Section 1104.309) Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance Lake Setback 100' 33.7' 66.3' Side Yard Setback 10' S' S' History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD(Urban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is currently vacant. Lot 51, Twin Isles was platted as a cabin lot along with the other Twin Isles lots in 1924. It is a single parcel designated as a lot of record under MN State Statute 462.357. On May 16, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the requested variances. Public comments were taken which questioned the build- able nature of the property for a seasonal cabin. The Planning Commission ta- bled the decision to the June 20th meeting, allowed all interested parties to pro- vide written evidence supporting their positions by June 13th, directed City Staff to provided clarification of the legal status and more information related to the buildable nature of the property, and requested the City Attorney be present on June 20th In response to this direction the City Attorney has prepared the attached memo- randum and will explain its information at the meeting. Members of the public June 20th Planning Commission Report have also provided written evidence relating to past projects on the island. This information is also attached. Current Circumstances The applicant proposes to construct a 2-story cabin onsite with a 560 square foot footprint and a 200 square foot deck. The area of the property is 5,966 square feet in total area above a 904 elevation. Lake Setback The applicant proposes a new cabin that would be 33.7 feet from the 904 eleva- tion of the lake. This 33.7 foot setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. On the mainland areas within the City of Prior Lake,the lake setback requirement may be averaged to as short as 50 feet without a variance request using the setbacks of nearby homes/cab- ins; however, that ordinance provision is not included in the Island Development section of the Ordinance. Instead, a 100 foot setback requirement is listed in the Ordinance. Side Yard Setback The applicant is proposing a 5 foot side yard structure setback along the northern property line. The Ordinance requirement for a side yard setback is 10 feet. The applicant could possibly locate the structure closer to the center of the property; however, this would decrease the lake setback proposed and possibly impact a tree identified on the survey. The applicants have expressed the interest to place the cabin at the proposed location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Island Development Ordinance (Section 1104.309). The attached site photo on file at City Hall (dated 1999) indicates the approximate cabin location. Conclusion City Staff believes the variances requested are warranted due to the lot con- straints unique to the property and practical difficulties as stated below in the findings. Therefore, City Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions of approval: • The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowl- edged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community & Eco- nomic Development Department prior to the issuance of a building per- mit. • The grey water system shall be located 75 feet from the OHWM (Ordi- nary High Water Mark) of Prior Lake. ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: • There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. June 20th Planning Commission Report It appears practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. The size of the island and the size of the lots platted in 1925 create practical difficulties in complying with the setbacks. The applicant has chosen a building location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Is- land Development Ordinance (Section 1104.309). • The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appro- priate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, pub- lic land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and ap- pearance of the City." The approval of the variance as requested would allow the applicant to construct a reasonable residential cabin plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the upland area of the property. • The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The 33.7 foot setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. • The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. A seasonal cabin is an allowed use on Twin Island within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving the requested vari- ances for Lot 51, Twin Isle, or any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances. 2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for a spe- cific purpose. 3. Motion and a second to deny the variances because the Planning Commis- sion finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria. RECOMMENDED Alternative#1 MOTIONS: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 15-XXPC 2. Location Map 3. Survey dated 4/1/2016 June 20th Planning Commission Report 4. Building Plans 5. Site photo (dated 1999—City file) & City Attorney Memorandum dated June 9, 2016 7. Information submitted by nearby residents in response to Planning Com- mission request at the May 16th meeting June 20th Planning Commission Report op4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 RESOLUTION 16-XXPC APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK AND MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY ON TWIN ISLAND Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission,acting as the Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing on May 16, 2016, to consider a request from Troy Martin and Dean Scholl to approve variances from the minimum lake setback and minimum side yard setback to allow construction of a seasonal cabin on a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zoning District at the following property: Lot 51,Twin Isles, Scott County Minnesota. (PID 25-100-040-1) WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances;and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request,and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance request;and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case#DEV16- 001012 and held a public hearing thereon on May 16, 2016;and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on May 16,2016,allowed all interested parties to provide written evidence supporting their positions to City Staff by June 13,2016, and requested clarification of the legal status and buildable nature of the property from City Staff,and tabled discussion of the variance requests to June 20,2016. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission 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 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 1 June 20th Planning Commission Report Practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. The size of the island and the size of the lots platted in 1925 create practical difficulties in complying with the setbacks. The applicant has chosen a building location which minimizes clearing of natural vegetation and grading impacts to the site, both of which are encouraged under the Island Development Ordinance(Section 1104.309). b. The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to"promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential,business,industrial,public land and public areas"and"enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the City." The approval of the variance as requested would allow the applicant to construct a reasonable residential cabin plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the upland area of the property. c. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The 33.7 foot lake setback distance is similar to the lake setback of other cabins immediately south of the property. d. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow construction of a residential seasonal cabin which is an allowed use on Twin Isles within the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zoning District. 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein,the Planning Commission hereby approves the following variances to allow a construction of a seasonal cabin in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zoning District: a. A 33.7 foot variance from the required minimum 100 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW)elevation of Prior Lake(Section 1104.309) b. A 5 foot variance from the required minimum 10 foot side yard setback(Section 1104.309) 4. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowledged City Assent Form,shall be submitted to the Community&Economic Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. The grey water system shall be located 75 feet from the OHWM(Ordinary High Water Mark)of Prior Lake. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OFJUNE,2016. VOTE Fleming Kallberg Larson Petersen Tiernan Fleming,Commission Chair Aye El El El F-1 F-1 Nay ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ATTEST: Absent ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Dan Rogness,Community&Economic Development Director Abstain ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 June 20th Planning Commission Report UPUVEY 0R * jY +D-GPw .S , qOT E,'N'D I M R I�(C,�H �uR gE l �G �2�E �SSU,rv1 t✓� ' g K 1'�oiY��l (S R coed Or- kr, NOLA . tCS roU"100P_ te-b� \ 41 D_n1DTES SET WooO4t&P,4TW.K a la 902 '� •� god- /�qr / �o.• \ .�0 a Sia PU 0. 0 9rz.a SaT `S"''.;, I -,, �ELd.=913,0 9t4 9E gib ?R, 913 3 TV � 59�0�: z, "�` Ott 1� kQm::.- 5(9D PLO dim UU � I he1'reby certify that this -is a true and correct repreeentdtion of a survey of.the boundaries of 1.-�T :]�I �� �(;�s �CO�'� County, Minnesota as on:file and of record'. in tho Office of the County Recorderin-and for said,County; ..That. I• am a duly Registered hand Surveyor under the-haws o3 the:State.of•Minnesota. Dated: ��5YYb7 ! J - 0' RE iSED Allan R, Haptin8. Minnesota Regietirafi'on 110, .17008 •' ..l`1 n. '(��S �35:R�rnes hal�e.'17r�.vq,••'.•.. : ��� ,4'b I��H�...vt"�NVV� ��QN�SE�•��� IJI7�� INoxwooci Yciirig%�Amer3.cA�''• '{.., �# Minnesota 553,14, w. . ..- ._ phone 952..945. 4027 i i Report u� BATH UTILI. i GAtRA&E n 4'-11" T-10" I 21'-q"x 1q' I n y I � L 3 k :��'Ef'.flh.::�i$,t:.Na:.lrte'6f' "5H`:t�£E ..+."$35Y^:Y.L3:.:A,s.- •�y.�....:e!::t.. - e., '?•: LIVING AReA: 122 ft June 20th Plannin 2 ommission Repo - ------------------------------ ------ . ..I � .I ri6n'ni1 iY w.ZL Y`o'a'6 1'un-i • . .. I •• j JU'324iA '. - ..... - I ' I -,�. :I ansa _:•r:-. m. f i GLO ETA(F' '�' = 5 10° z KITGHE--1�5 — ry PECK . N N - a i . B H 11'6"x1q' 10'.x.18 I� 5'x8' El j ,a CLOSET 5'x,3._211 ——— —OH Sa61ou •a�1ou 28' LIVING AREA 515 sq R June 20th Planning Commission Report F lam_ S i 3 g� 9 i i 7i pl 1 's 1 S E reE R 3 S d 3 G d F F M� C 3 p �g 7 °a 6 All � 3�� � � ^� �;� r`,-� r ; C.. .rte � •,i R e ApOximate Cabin Location s June 20th Planning Commission Report MEMORANDUM To: Prior Lake Planning Commission From: Sarah Schwarzhoff, City Attorney Date: June 9, 2016 Re: Buildable Lots Nonconforming Lot of Record A nonconforming lot of record is a lot that predates the current zoning and subdivision regulations and was a buildable lot under the regulations that existed when the lot was created. Regulations can be imposed on a nonconforming lot of record such as increased setbacks, but if the new regulations make a lot of record non-buildable the owner may have a claim for a regulatory taking. The owner would need to prove that the regulations "went too far" and prevent the owner from making any use of the property. The court cases considering regulatory takings provide factors to consider, but do not establish a bright-line rules as to what constitutes a regulatory taking. If a court finds that a regulatory taking has occurred the City would be responsible for paying the owner the value of the property taken. The nonconforming lot of record concept is similar to the legal nonconformity concept. The law seeks to balance the owner's preexisting rights to use the lot with the current regulations. Legal nonconformities can generally be continued but not expanded. In the same way, a nonconforming lot of record should generally remain buildable, but possibly not to the same extent. Shoreland Lot of Record In 2009 the Minnesota legislature adopted requirements relating to nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas. Minn. Stat.462.357, Subd. le(d)through 0). First, a nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variance provided that (1) structure and septic setbacks can be met; (2) a compliant type 1 septic system can be installed or the property is connected to public sewer; and (3) impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25%. Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. le (e). This provision permits but does not require the City to allow building on nonconforming lots of record without variances. Second, if any of these three requirements cannot be met, the City may consider variances. As with all other variances, the City must consider the practical difficulties standard and determine if it is appropriate to grant the requested variances. In addition, for nonconforming lots of record in a shoreland area, if applicable the City must require the property owner to address: "storm water runoff management, reducing impervious surfaces, increasing setback, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities, and other conservation-designed actions." Minn. Stat.462.357, Subd. le(i). June 20th Planning Commission Report Finally, the remaining shoreland lot of record statutory provisions focus on nonconforming lots of record that share common ownership. The statute provides that if abutting lots of record are under common ownership, the lots must be developed together. Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. le (f), (g) and (h). Again, the law seeks to balance an owner's right to develop an existing lot with the State's desire to decrease the number of small nonconforming lots. Conclusion A lot of record in a shoreland area should generally be considered a buildable lot. However, the City is permitted to impose additional regulations limiting the use of the lot. The City must follow its standard procedure for variances. The City is not required to grant the requested variances. If the City denies the requested variances the City should provide direction to the applicant as to what types of uses and/or variances might be permitted to illustrate that not all use of the lot is being denied. Twin Isles In this case, the lots in question were platted in 1925 as Twin Isles. The lots were all buildable when platted in 1925 and as such all qualify as nonconforming lots of record in a shoreland area. Most of the existing structures were constructed before the legislature adopted the shoreland lot of record regulations in 2009. Therefore if property owners were given different information in the past it was likely a result of different governing statutes. Under the current law, the lots on Twin Isles under separate ownership should be considered buildable lots that require variances from the current City regulations. Abutting lots under common ownership should be developed together. June 20th Planning Commission Report June 1, 2016 Mayor: Ken Hedberg, City Council Members: Richard Keeney, Mike McGuire, Monique Morton and Annette Thompson City Manager: Frank Boyles 4646 Dakota St.SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager, My name is Justin Revak. I was a resident of Prior Lake from 1972-2004 and I have been a seasonal resident on Twin Island since 1987. I am writing to you because I am very concerned about a recent change in stance by city staff regarding development on Twin Island.After 30 plus years of abiding by the rules of Island Development Ordinance 1104.309, and specifically section (4) regarding minimum lot size, city staff recently made a decision to ignore this ordinance and support a proposal that was sent to the Planning Commission on May 16, 2016,to build a cabin on Lot 51. Many island residents, including myself,attended the meeting to challenge the proposal. Citing the need for more information,the commission voted to table the topic until the June 20th meeting. I am requesting that city staff review the May 161h meeting minutes and reconsider your stance on this topic. Over the years,the City of Prior Lake has held firm on abiding by the Island Development Ordinance, especially regarding minimum lot size.The two previous owners of lot 51 had both been told the lot is not buildable,given that it is only 5966 square feet,which is less than half of the 12,000 square foot minimum lot size required. Many others, including myself have inquired about building on other lots on the island and were told it would not be possible because of minimum lot size requirements and other setback requirements. The city staff was so adamant about abiding by the minimum lot size requirements that current cabin owners went to great expense to acquire additional lots in order to build. Others,again including myself, didn't go any further with their plans after speaking with city staff. For this reason,there are very few documented cases of proposals making it to the Planning Commission. However,there is one documented case that I found on the City of Prior Lake's website. See attached link. In this case,the property owner was attempting to build a cabin on a lot that was only slightly smaller than lot 51.You will see three different letters in the attached documents,where city staff made it clear to the applicant that it was very unlikely that he would receive a favorable recommendation if he applied for variances: -Page 10-11- Michael Leek,Associate Planner stated: "I would also reiterate, as Mr. Rye did in his letter on May 8, 1995,that because your request involves a single lot that is far below minimum standards for lots in the shoreland district(including those related to the septic systems),it is unlikely to receive a favorable staff recommendation." -Page 19 - Donald Rye, Planning Director stated: "Even with the parking lease, I believe your odds of receiving favorable staff recommendations are slim.The two variances which were granted in recent years both involved properties which combined two or more lots, June 20th Planning Commission Report thereby satisfying lot area standard.Your request involves a single lot which is far below minimum standards for lots in the shoreland district." -Page 21-22 - Blair Tremere,Acting Planning Director stated: "I draw your attention to the third paragraph on page one of the guide sheet which discusses the minimum lot size. One reason you have had some difficulty in designing a structure for this lot is you are dealing with an extremely small piece of land even in relation to other sites on the island, and particularly in relation to those that have had some variance considerations in the last 5-6 years." "It is not clear whether you've attempted to obtain another lot that could be combined with yours,thereby addressing the area standard listed in the guide." -Page 33-34 were sent to the applicant along with the previous letter.These pages are titled"Twin Island Development Guide" This guide lays out the history of the island and how it was annexed to the City of Prior Lake in 1973. It states that the majority of the cabins on the island were built prior to annexation to the city. It also clearly states that"In no case will a variance or building permit be considered if the lot size is less than 15,000 square feet or two contiguous lots,whichever is lesser." From my research,if the proposed cabin on lot 51 is approved,this would be the first departure from the minimum lot size requirement on Twin Island,since it was annexed to the City of Prior Lake. This decision should not be taken lightly as it will have a dramatic negative impact on Twin Island. It would set the precedent for 20-30 more cabins to be built on other tiny lots like lot 51. Your attention to this matter in advance of the June 20th Planning Commission meeting is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Justin Revak June 20th Planning Commission Reportge10 0ick PRI�� r� �?INNES0 P Mr. Timothy Becker 6919 North Shore Drive Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703 July 14, 1995 RE: Your lot,Lot 19,Twin Isles, Scott County,Minnesota Dear Mr. Becker: I am writing on behalf of Mr. Don Rye in response to your letter of July 5, 1995,and the attached Amended Judgment and Decree. Mr.Rye asked me to review this file and decree in detail to determine whether the decree creates an entitlement to parking spaces that would meet the requirements of the Twin Island Development Guide. I have concluded that the decree does not create an entitlement to 2 parking spaces which would meet the requirements of Twin Islands Development Guideline 3,which states; "A lease for two on land parking spaces shall accompany all building permits." The decree does not meet"the letter"of Resolution 78-22/Guideline 3 in that it is not a lease for parking. The next question to be answered then is whether the decree creates the legal equivalent of a lease for two parking spaces. It does not grant such a right to parking which meets the development standard. In the decree the Court required that the strip be conveyed to Property Owners of Inguadona, Inc.,with the reservations contained in Title No. 1128. Specifically,that Certificate reserves "(a)...the right of peaceful passage over and across the subject lakeshore tract...". Reservation(b) excludes "...motor vehicular traffic over and across said lakeshore except on the approach on the North end of the driveway...and at the West approach of the driveway...". That reservation goes on to talk about enjoyment of the abutting lots of the lakeshore. The language of these reservations indicates only a right of passage by the property owners of Twin Isles. Right of passage is indicative of rights of access,which are not generally understood to include parking/vehicle storage rights. Moreover, since both the Certificate containing the reservations and the Amended Judgment pre-date the Council's actions in Resolution 78-22,Mr. Becker's argument suggests that the Council adopted the Resolution in contravention of both. This seems BECK711.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447 4230 / Fax(612)44 -4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER June 20th Planning Commission Repo4age11 very unlikely. The more likely explanation is that neither the reservations or lawsuit were about the right to park vehicles,but rather about the right to access across the lakeshore. Thus, you would still need to submit evidence of a valid lease or agreement for 2 parking spaces before the application can be deemed complete. I would also reiterate,as Mr. Rye did in his letter of May 8, 1995,that because your request involves a single lot that is far below minimum standards for lots in the shoreland district(including those related to septic systems), it is unlikely to receive a favorable staff recommendation. That notwithstanding,you do of course have the right to pursue the request. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, R. Michael Leek Associate Planner CC. File SJ9509 Don Rye,Planning Director i BECK711.DOC 2 June 20th Planning Commission Repo rtge19 O� P - �JJNNEsp`t P Donald Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN. 55372-1714 May 8, 1995 Mr. Tim Becker 6919 North Shore Drive Eau Claire, WI. 54703 Dear Mr. Becker: Following our conversation last week, I have further reviewed the situation concerning your property on Lot 19, Twin Isles. It appears that one item is still lacking which must be provided before we can process the variance application and that is a signed lease which provides you with the right to park 2 vehicles off-street on mainland property. I did not see such a document in your file. If I missed it, please send another copy. Even with the parking lease, I believe that your odds of receiving a favorable staff recommendation are slim. The two variances which were granted in recent years both involved properties which combined two or more lots , thereby satisfying the lot area standard. Your request involves a single lot which is far below the minimum standards for lots in the shoreland district. You do, of course, have the right to pursue an application for the variances which have been identified. If this is your wish, please let me know. In addition, we will require a copy of the parking lease referred to above. Pleaser let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Donald Rye Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ., 'he 20th Planning Commiss. onReporlage21 0 � x C «fi3-3� - a�� � MtNNEs�'C P September 7, 1994 Timothy Becker1dn- 20 18th Ave. North Hopkins, MN 55343 C (", _.e 3 Dear Mr. Becker, I have your August 28, 1994, letter and I've had an opportunity to review file materials consisting of the information you have shared with the City regarding your desire to build a seasonal home on Lot 19, Twin Isles. I am returning to you the application information you submitted to the City in June for two reasons. First, the application did not include all the required information (see front page of the form). For example, the j names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property were not submitted. I am also returning it to you because since June, you have submitted a survey/plot plan that shows a building design and configuration that is different than the one on the survey/plot plan submitted in June. Also enclosed is an information sheet entitled "Twin Island Development Guide", which is dated June, 1994. This is to help you provide us with a current submittal based upon what you actually hope to accomplish. You should carefully evaluate the standards that apply and use the check list that is on the second page (it appears that you may have used an earlier version of that check list last spring). I draw your attention to the third paragraph on page one of the guide sheet which discusses the minimum lot size. One reason you have had some difficulty in designing a structure for this lot is you are dealing with an extremely small piece of land even in relation to the other sites on the island, and particularly in .relation to .those that have had some variance considerations in the last 5 - 6 years. Your parcel is 39,127 feet less than the 1 acre standard required by the shoreland district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (which are based upon State Standards); and your parcel is 11 ,567 square feet less than the 15,000 square foot minimum the City established in 1978 as part of the recognition that there were substandard lots on this island. It is not clear whether you've attempted to obtain another lot that could be combined with yours, thereby addressing the area standard listed in the guide. Our research indicates that two recent variances on the island have involved properties that did include two or more adjacent parcels that were combined, thereby addressing this area standard. You also should have the percolation test completed for your on-site waste water system. This is important because that data will help you determine where the drainfield can be located; it is subject to certain setback requirements and until you have the percolation data, you do not know precisely where the drainfield can go. It is not 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6620th Planning Commission Reportage 22 appropriate to speculate where you may or may not need setback variances from the drainfield. Finally, City records show that there have been no special assessments on this property for City related infrastructure improvements such as sewer, water, or streets. You indicated in your letter that your taxes have included special assessments. I recommend that you thoroughly consider your proposal and situation including the significant number of variances generated bythe desire to put a certain structure on this single substandard parcel. As a rule, you should strive to minimize the degree and number of variances; clearly the City recognizes that there are situations such as this where some variance action probably will be needed to allow reasonable use of property. In your case, so far, one of the basic criteria has not been met, namely the area guideline the City has considered when the normal shoreline district minimum of 1 acre is not feasible. Once you have specifically identified the variances you need, it is also important that the application materials be complete. It appears to me that you understand that, but it is also important that the materials be accurate and current. Thank you for your letter. Please call me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Blair Tremere Acting Planning Director CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BT:rm s cc: Gary Staber enc: Variance application materials Twin Island Development Guide Variance application form June 20th Planning Commission ' ReportPage33 PRI��M � tA. ' S0SI" TWIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE June, 1994 This guide is assembled to assist those individuals considering building on Twin Island in Prior Lake. There are several unique limitations and regulations that apply to development of Twin Island. The island was subdivided into small lots in 1925, than annexed to the City of Prior Lake in 1973. A majority of the cabins on the island were built prior to annexation to the City, therefore many structures do not meet current City of Prior Lake Zoning standards. The City does not have survey information for most of the lots therefore, any application for variance or building permit must be accompanied by a lot survey certified by a registered land surveyor. New development,additions or other alterations to the lots such as grading and vegetation removal, must be done in compliance with Prior Lake City Code regulations. Twin Island is zoned R-1, urban Residential however, there are no municipal sewer and water utilities available to the island. The City does not have watercraft to provide police patrol and fire and emergency services are limited. The Scott County Sheriffs Patrol currently has jurisdiction for law enforcement on Prior Lake. Due to these factors, the City Council of Prior Lake determined that seasonal structures would be permitted on the island but not year round residences. An application for building permit or variance must include a signed lease arrangement that indicates that the owner has two, on land, parking spaces for vehicles. Parking vehicles onpublicstreets, while occupying a seasonal structure on the island. is not permitted. In addition, the owner is required to provide proof of residency, at some location other than Twin Island, at the time of building permit application. The minimum lot size for Twin Island is I acre or 43,560 square leet. In no case will a variance or building permit be considered if the lot size is less than 15,000 square feet ur two conduuuus luts. whichever is lesser. (Resolution 78-22). The lowest floor elevation of the structure, including basement and crawl space must be at elevation 909.3 or above. The grade elevation 15' beyond the outer limits of the structure must be 909.3 or above. The required lot width, measured at the 904 contour (ordinary high-water-mark for Prior Lake) is 125 feet. The required lot width at the front setback line (measured 25 feet back from the front property line) is 150 feet. The required structure setback from the 904 contour is 100 feet. The required side yard setbacks are 10 feet measured From each side lot line. The required gray water system setback from the 904 contour is 75 feet. Total impervious surface of buildings, porches. driveways etc..., is limited to 301% of the lot area. In addition, a self enclosed, incinerator type toilet system is required. The structure shall have a water supply which meets Minnesota Department of Health standards for water quality. In addition, the clear cutting of natural vegetation is prohibited. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible immediately after any construction project is completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion. The City Planner shall approve a restoration plan prior to any removal 'of natural vegetation for any construction project. The objective is to retain natural vegetation in tact. to screen seasonal structures and other buildings on site. An applicant who proposes to build a structure on Twin Island, must demonstrate that the proposed structure can meet the aforementioned criteria. In the event that setbacks, lot arca or lot width cannot be met, an application For variance must he submitted to the Prior Lake Planning Commission for 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax(612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER _.... - - n-e-20th Planning Commission Reportage 34 consideration. The lots on Twin Island are of record and are eligible for a building permit.However,due to the small lot sizes, most individuals interested in constructing a seasonal cabin will need to follow the variance process prior to application for a building permit. The application process for variance is reviewed by the City of Prior Lake and Department of Natural Resources. Application forms are available form the Prior Lake Planning Department. The process takes approximately three to six weeks from the time that a complete application is received by the Planning Department to the time that the actual building permit is issued. Variance approval is valid for only one year and the standards outlined in this guide are subject to change and amendment by the City of Prior Lake. Anyone who desires to build on Twin Island should verify the current zoning standards prior to initiating the variance or building permit process. In addition, if the structure is not built within the one year time frame, the variance would expire and it would be necessary to reapply at some future date. As previously stated,the lots on Twin Island are of record and subject to a building permit. However, the type of building and its location are subject to review by the Prior Lake Planning Commission and Department of Natural Resources. TWIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHECKLIST: 1. Certified survey of the subject site and proposed building pad with elevations and all pertinent measurements indicated. 2. 1 Acre minimum lot size(43,560 square feet). 3. 125' minimum lot width measured at the 904 contour. 4. 150' minimum lot width at front setback line (measured 25 feet from the front property line). 5. 100' Lakeshore setback measured from the 904 contour. 6. 25' front yard setback measured from the front property line. 7. 75' gray water system setback from 904 contour. 8. 10' side yard setbacks measured from property lines. 9. '30%maximum-impervious-surface lot coverage. 10. 909.3 elevation, lowest floor elevation including basement and crawl spaces and I minimum;rade elevation 15' beyond the outer limits of the structure. 11. Signed lease agreement for 2,mainland,off street parking spaces. 12. Septic System shall be incinerator or self enclosed type of system. 13. Water supply must meet Minnesota Department of Health standards for water quality. 14. Vegetation removal and restoration plan must be approved by the Director of Planning prior to construction.No clear cutting of vegetation is permitted. 15. Applicant must provide proof of residency, other than Twin Island,at the time of building permit application. June 20th Planning Commission Report Subject: Martin-Scholl Twin Island - Variance- Planning Commissioners, This subject matter has been tabled till your June 20,2016 meeting. Per Commissioner Fleming's request,I am including the following information for your consideration. The City is permitted to impose additional regulations limiting the use of a lot. The City of Prior Lake has imposed additional regulations SPECIFIC to Twin Island. The current regulation states: "On Twin Island,the minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet." Below is a photo of this imposed additional regulation. It is circled for your reference. (Tf 5t 11 Stop"'TM �Rt4r 6Rk11 nYbwlO pnamin flit wcgr m impart; air 11116" rera valerey film Kt6c wourx ea'=i-00i A m dl.fes. :1•tllrtKAc of Trrapp itbafrrisrA 9y6`6In6,rca4s.nRiMYey3.efi.R:VfeS.U a1R+.r 4 pro rmrwnla W slim 00pa6. Wean AAear q.rtminikma Wast be JnJCt1AC pa 169-d pamka b pr*,"l era5r.1ane 4n pr Nv.-D.%t 6yelAnaf.fp_hj d S"Cfwe..ieynAae,a J rim_fdGw--v..W from We Wdr a(peft "ft *Wm, eur+rma,laaam wgt.Wtic:�. i rot.3d�J t�ilid tlavelerlmeal: Uevelnpnslnt w+IrFanUn will;a,t Wrnr,ciN%xewcr anC rra76r eFtd W subjct eRx M4 hsinw�i a wndtlms' 1f 1 Fit m§A:1 u Me or,id",we Ngyea to eeo ,W cau_.4 ak.nr—.A* shu44Ures.➢tmbc Perin eM1 Cpers educe. Yam-nrun0 rptli.�P.rce�.,.e tws - 06-died P ov"t6nal t' fat ,such a;A pave-m 4 Cnit fa,hD. torn ." rr+mwnmere!eesowUan,roAy At54!X.Vammad 4' V4W.W ow 0.1m.1 aS get kVM In SubW4"11092te) (2) Arty snupure Wit on an r6lard rrwrel Gru.!stn an arodcaeeg aepp4 syStAm r h+xterata baW beaff a (3J An epoo&eon fa,a LN�iielHp parol or rer-+3n(x*mvR ntlrdo a".w4 1N anAnpsmenl flue IndCAlA6 11W the oMner t txo 421,wA—i pmki g spacns for Wliclae. 61 admo.,It"dreier c reWWW to pwntda proof i A.;. makt6rlCy,84 some h-ftn olnef into the lx uW at v*uft*of owing Appkc2llwK I;! The ndnbrrm Int At,o Wr a1 iTk ft r,Rn,,jl m,4.i ml*W"r and waive is arxr.On Twin reta,q.IIv1 minimum tat syza reaulranelra 10 12.0(16 saunrY (51 The mrianwwol vMlh,r.OHSMM a seventy fRre teat(T9}. (9! Smoot kr zVl.nllsea evi Is6Tn95 shall Conply wgh the tdtoMng. Strwwl 6eiback fan Oimm 1010 feat > Skit yard 10 feet Gray wetea Syrrtem trap 0H4VA1 76 fast (T) (Sear:ur1119 of M1141ral vapa�.uW"k prohlhrkd.Nete*al tgpeiaAfon�ItieN re.lorrnd ins+#ar ae f nsiLra hyrado aly attar any Concliun protea.., ew 9leted to mWd fiWaW mnoff and&M crown. (e) My removal of Vegetation M t,Mju,,ilm vCh ally constructm{oleot "ife a restorelion plan to be sobirmad And revWx td by the C+ry to that natural i*Uolafcm %rtitanad IrWOOr as poUible to sneer:ae;95 sl=fures anti olne tuNfings on Bile. (9) The kxrnst floor efevaiian,of oro strucgiuro lnciLang baserxnt and e apace must meat the rmglrnlments of Secftt 11()5 w the premuns-.' ��4�)t�Y door e;iavakon ag dasr,T�ed in 8ubseetial 1104. .Ara:.'(aiv 1141rp} June 20th Planning Gorirwcdssion Report What is the purpose of this regulation, if not to be enforced? Good question. Why not follow proper procedures and have the City Council delete it,rather than looking the other way. The City Council are the only ones that can change this imposed regulation. Of all the islands within the City of Prior Lake,this regulation is specific to Twin Island. Why? The City Council imposes regulations to help make our City a wonderful place to live and play. The Twin Island community is very concerned with the outcome of your decision on June 20th, as it could change the total dynamics of this island. This request for variances should not have been forwarded to the Planning Commision because it does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet. The subject lot size of lot 51 on Twin Island is only 5,966 square feet. A suggestion to the property owners would be to buy additional lot(s) for their seasonal cabin - build a picnic facility or pavilion on their only lot-leave it as open space. Sincerely, John Meyer i lmeyerl&msn.com June 20th Planning Commission Minutes VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg and Tiernan. The Motion carried. 5. Old Business: A. DEV16-001012 — Martin-Scholl Twin Island — Variance — The property owner is requesting variances from the minimum lake setback and side yard setback to construct a seasonal dwelling in the Low Density Residential Shoreland (R1-SD)Zoning District located on Twin Island. Planner Matzke reviewed the introduction, history, commentary on the DNR, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion from the May 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. He explained the outcome of the meeting, stating it was Tabled to the June 20, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting due to additional information from Staff and the City Attorney be present. He presented a resolution, location map, survey dated April 1, 2016. City Attorney Sarah Schwarzhoff highlighted her memorandum attached in the staff report. She stated Planner Matzke and her have been working on this for months. She explained this is not the only area in the City that have these types of issues due to a lot of smaller Lots and the same question arises; Are they buildable or not? Generally, it is very similar to what you know of Nonconforming Lots; someone comes in and they have a structure and it is non-conforming, they get to retain that structure but cannot expand it. This is a very similar area, they have a buildable Lot; it was platted many, many years ago, it was buildable when they platted it and it is still buildable today. What is buildable on it is the question before you tonight. You are not required to grant any specific variances, or the variances before you tonight however, the Lot is buildable and should be used for something. One of the issues and the State Statue is really what is driving this and one of the concerns that we have heard a lot from residents is I asked this question twenty years ago and I got a different answer. And in this case they probably are right. The fact is the State Statue changed in 2009 and what happened was the City were saying the Lot doesn't meet our requirements, it is too small, you cannot build on it. The court stepped in and said no really that is a taking, you are taking their rights to use that property; the legislator stepped in and offered some clarification. So what we got now is a situation that is different than what it was twenty years ago. Just like if you built a house today you would have different building code requirements than you did twenty years ago as the law is different. What we are facing today under the Statue is that you have two options; (1) a City can establish a situation where if you can meet the septic setbacks, impervious and building setbacks; then you can allow that Lot to be built as is. The City has not elected to put that in the ordinance, as it has not come up and it is better to deal with them on a case by case basis through the variance process. (2) If you cannot meet that or the City hasn't set up Number one, then you are back to a variance situation; the property owner can come in and request whatever variances they like to request and they are assessed like any other situation. In addition, in these shoreland Lots;the new laws for 2009 does list some specific things we need to consider. She explained the items to be considered. She said we have a situation that the law is different than it was twenty years ago; we have a buildable Lot, we have an applicant requested variance, so now we are back to our standard variance criteria that Planner Matzke explained tonight. She stated if you refuse to grant these variances, it would be valuable to give some direction to the applicant to what might be acceptable, because if you get into a situation where you are refusing all use of the Lot, it may be a claim for a taking. The law in this area is incredibly grey, there is no clear situation what is a taking and what isn't; very much a case by case basis. But we do know that if there is no allowance of use of the Lot is will likely being a taking. She said feedback to Staff and applicant on what would be acceptable would be greatly appreciated if you're not comfortable approving this variance.She explained the common ownership issue stating the 2009 law tried to balance this idea of if you have a Lot you should be able to use it with we don't want fifty or sixty cabins in this small area and the balancing solutions was if you have a single Lot of Record, you can build on it, if you have multiple Lots of Common Ownership you have to develop those together unless you meet the Lot size requirement. The legislature thought this to be fair and we are bound to what the legislature put in place. We cannot over rule the legislature in this issue or any issue. She closed with the issue of 19 June 20th Planning Commission Minutes accumulative impact. We cannot look at the accumulative impact; they need to be reviewed on a one by one basis. Commissioner Comments: Fleming stated he echoes the comments of his fellow Commissioners tonight on other matters; all three of them spoke to meaningful importance of residents speaking up and what their thoughts are. He said one of the things he loves about Prior Lake is that we do have this open forum as lots of other municipalizes are very rigid with their public hearings and don't have dialog. So we may not always agree, but we are always respectful and civil and hopefully have a clear and open area of our various positions. He would like to commend our residence for letting us know what you think and how you are feeling. Tiernan stated he has a lot of reservations of this variance request due to did something change, and City Attorney Schwarzhoff has made this very clear, that it has changed. He said the actual requested variances are pretty typical that we would approve for other areas of the lake; they are common. He is in favor of approving this variance request. Kallberg said comments that he likes to hear and hear too often is what is the sense of talking if no one is listening, they will do what they want anyways. He stated he doesn't want to be in that position. We have further information from previous meetings about not allowing building on these undersize Lots. We are looking at a Lot half of the established minimum size and in fact it was fifteen thousand at one time and now it is twelve thousand. And now we are asking to allow building on a Lot that is another fifty percent less than the minimum. Now as stated by Legal Council the buildable Lot was platted in 1925, which then this would be minimal type cabins that would fit on these little Lots without issues of water quality and septic's; the Watershed District has spent a lot of money getting this taken care of on Spring Lake. The people that own property on Spring Lake spent a lot of money putting in proper sewers and supplies and now we are advised that we cannot deny the use of this Lot however, we can deny the variances. Either we allow it or we don't allow it. Find a way to build something on that Lot that doesn't require variances, then you don't need them. Larson stated he is in favor of the variances due to the fact that it was platted years ago and at that time it was an allowable use for a seasonal dwelling. It would be a totally different picture if it was an area that was going to be used every day; 365 days a year. He commented on he may feel a little different if it was not a seasonal dwelling. The concept that we have seen with DNR additional comments on the septic tanks and etc. this is an attainable Lot and we are not restricting the rights of the homeowner. Fleming he will be supporting the application. He said there has been a lot of deep due-diligence on this; multiple perspectives and he is comfortable with this decision. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY LARSON TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR LOT 51; TWIN ISLAND AT 9:42 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson and Tiernan. Opposed by Kallberg. The Motion carried. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements/City Council Updates: 8. Adjournment: 20