HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Property at 15408 Red Oaks Road
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
7A
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX
APPROVING AN APPEAL BY PINNACLE
PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL
(OHW), THE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A
BLUFF, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT
ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED
OAKS ROAD, Case File #97-028
JUNE 16, 1997
AGENDA #:
PREP ARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by
Pinnacle Partners of the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny several variances for the construction
of a dwelling on the property located at 15408 Red Oaks
Road.
BACKGROUND:
Pinnacle Partners submitted an application for several
variances to allow the construction of a single family
dwelling with an attached garage and deck on an existing
substandard lot. The application included a variance to
allow a lot width of 49.53' instead of the required 50', and
to allow a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the
required 7,500 square feet. The applicant also requested
the following setback variances:
L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.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
Proposed Setback
Setback
Requirement
(substandard lot)
25 feet
5 feet (one side)
10 feet (other side)
75 feet
30 feet
20 feet from top of
bluff
Variance
Requested
Front Yard
Side Yards
DHW Setback
op of Bluff
Bluff Impact
70ne (20 feet
rom top of bluff)
25 feet
5 feet (on south side)
10 feet (on north side)
52 feet
4 feet
4 feet from top of bluff
None
None
23 feet
26 feet
16 feet
A more detailed explanation of these variances is included
in the attached Planning Report, dated April 28, 1997.
On April 28, 1997 the Planning Commission heard
variance requests from Pinnacle Partners. The Planning
Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and
approved the variances to lot width at the front yard
setback and lot area. The Planning Commission cited as a
hardship the fact that this is an existing lot and the width
and lot area are not under control of the developer as
rationale for approving these two variances.
Upon review of the hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission denied the setback variances on the basis of
lack of hardship. The Planning Commission felt that the
design of the house is within the total control of the
applicant and the variances can be eliminated upon
redesign of the structure. A smaller structure, maximizing
the legal building envelope, and utilizing a more
appropriate design is a viable alternative to the variance
requests.
The attached minutes of the April 28, 1997, Planning
Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this
variance request.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission based the denial of this variance
request on the following factors:
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. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the
L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-028\97-028CC.DOC
Page 2
applicant, and that is to build the proposed structure
smaller to meet the setbacks as not to encroach upon
the required setbacks. The building envelope can
accommodate alternative layouts.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of
circumstances unique to the property.
The unique circumstances are the lot area and width
and topography of the lot. However, the applicant can
reduce the size and design of the proposed dwelling to
meet the required setbacks. Thus, the hardship is not a
result of unique circumstances to the property, but
rather the result of the chosen design of the structure.
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 setback variance requests due to the size and shape
of the proposed structure are controlled by the
applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of the
proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal
building envelope, the setbacks can be met and
variances will not be necessary. The applicant has
control over the proposed structure of which their size
and location are not hardships.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this
Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not
contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the proposed structure on the
lot are not greatly inconsistent with the location of
other structures in this area. The property to the north
is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54
feet from the OHW and is located within the Bluff
Impact Zone. However, the property to the south (and
several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older
cabins and small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the
future development of these lots into year round single
family dwellings requesting similar variances.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by
Pinnacle Partners and upholding the decision of the
L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -028\97 -028CC.DOC
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION REQUIRED:
Planning Commission.
2. Approve Pinnacle Partners' appeal by overturning the
decision of the Planning Commission and approving
the requested variance. In this case, the Council should
direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of
fact supporting the variance.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Council.
Alternative #1.
Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution
#97-XX, denying the appeal and upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission.
L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -028\97 -028CC.OOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION 97-XX
DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER
THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT
VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AND (3) A 16
FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITIDN THE
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS DRAWN IN EXHffiIT A, CASE NO. 97-
028, FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15408 RED OAKS
ROAD
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 28th day of
April, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Pinnalce Partners for
property legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance requests based on
lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth
in City Code; and
WHEREAS,
the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City
Council; and
the City Council heard the appeal on June 16, 1997; and
the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by
the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests.
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. The Planning Commission held a hearing on April 28, 1997 to review (1) a 23 foot variance
request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904 el.)
rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit
a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and
(3) a 16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather
16200 E1~~f~~~ln~{~J.-~~~,c15~~WLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612filf47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
than the required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, for
Pinnacle Partners in order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on property
located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at
the following location, to wit;
15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks Road
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-028,
and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon
review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code.
3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on June 16, 1997.
4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning
Commission 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.
5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance
requests for the proposed structure as shown in Exhibit A.
6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions
regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants.
7.
8. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in
undue hardship, as the applicant's can build a structure on the property within the legal
building envelope.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance
requests and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny (1) a 23 foot
variance request to permit a 52 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of prior lake (904
el.) rather than the minimum requirement of 75 feet, and (2) a 26 foot variance request to permit
a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 30 feet, and (3) a
16 foot variance request to permit a 4 foot setback within the bluff impact zone rather than the
required 20 feet for a proposed single family dwelling as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-028,
for Pinnacle Partners on property located at 15408 Red Oaks Road
Passed and adopted this 16th day of June, 1997.
1:\97files\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc
Page 2
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{ Seal}
I: \97fi1es\97var\97 -028\ccres.doc
YES
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
NO
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
Page 3
f-JINf\lACLE PARTNERSHIP
14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
vUlley ~urveying CO., P.A.
SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONOOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
EXHIBIT A
IfDJrn@rnDWl&i!m
'wE~
..
o
,-, -1.
'- -'
prior
EL. 901.5
4 I \ I 91
tV
tV
LaKe]
!
~j
~~
~:
DE:SCRI M'ION:
\
Lot 22. REO OAKS,
proposed house
\
NOTES' Benctvnat'k
Scott County, Minnesota. Also
location of the
Blevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23.
935.6
~
Denotes existing grade elevation
(939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations
- Denotes pt'oposed direction of finished Slit' face drainage
Set the pt'oposed garagf! slab at elevation 941.07
Set the top block at elevation 94Z.8Z
~
The lowest floot' elevation will be 931.79
Net Lot Area above al. 904.0 = 7,374 sq. ft.
Net proposed impervious coverage " Z9.9 \
o
I
SCALE
30
60
1
REVIS EO 4/4.f98 DECK TO BLUFF DIST.
REVISED 4/Z/97 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED
a GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED.
REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<,
TOE OF SLOPE a CABIN ON LOT ZO
/ ".,.11, e.,'If, ,"", ,tII. _, wo. "roporftl
"" m. 0' undlr my dIrft:t "",rvi.;on onll ""',
, "'" duly I;c......J Lond S.....,o, vttdr 'h.
. tIl. S'o'~?nn..o'
/y~
IN
FEET
o O.no",' /2 Inch . '4 '"eh "0"
ItICIfIUl'IIItl' .., 0Ild morIrld 111
Lielntl No. 101S3
. Oeno,.. "0" lIIonU....,,' found
~ OI"o'''P.IC~N~'_~___
'------,r
May-01-97 02:S8P
Paramourlt Homes
'lS' HO 7102
Inc. 612-431-2016
IIC KNICD'I HOMES
P.Ol
POI
PINNACLE PARTNERS~ LTD.
P.O. Box 24038
AppleValley MN 55124
May 1, 1997
DOll Rye
City Planning
Prior Lake. MN 55372
Reference: 15408 Red Oaks Road SE
Don Rye:
We elect to appeal L'1e denial of variances and request the e.arliest possible
City Council meeting date.
Sincerely,
c----
J R/jp
PLA.l~G COMlVIISSION MINUTES
APRIL 28, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The Apri128, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting
Chairman Wu net at 7:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Wuellner,
Kuykendall, St on and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, anning Coordinator
Jane Kansier, and anner Jenni Tovar.
2. Roll Call:
Stamson
Kuykendall
Criego
V onhof
Wuellner
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTrON BY KUYKENDAL , SECO
14, 1997, Nll}nJllES.
Prese~
Pr~sent
Absent
Aresent
/ Present
/
BY ST.AMSON, TO APPROVE THE APRIL
V ote taken signified a s by Kuykendall, V 000 and Stamson. MINUllES
APPROVED.
~ None
~ None
6. New Business:
x
A. Case #97-028 Variance request from Pinnacle Partners: Lot width at the front
yard set back; square foot variance to permit a minimum lot area; setback from the
Ordinary High Water Level; and setback from bluff for the property at 15408 Red Oaks
Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The applicant proposes to construct a
new single-family residence on the existing lot and is requesting the following variances:
(1) lot area: the existing lot is 126' short of the 7500 square foot minimum requirement
and 0.47' short of the 50' minimum width at front yard setback; (2) setback from
Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark: 23' variance (52' setback requested; ordinance
requires 75'); (3) setback from top of bluff: 26' variance (4' setback requested; ordinance
requires 30') and (4) bluff impact zone: 16' variance (ordinance allows no structures
within 20' of top of bluff).
1:\97 files\97plcomm \pcmin \mn042897 . doc
]OO&~u
Page 1
- - ,~~~-
,. -
t:t'
Staff suggested the variance for lot area and lot width would qualify as a hardship out of
applicant's control. Staff recommends the other requested variances be eliminated or
reduced, as they do not ql!alify as hardships out of applicant's control. The DNR
recommends no top-of-bluff or bluff impact zone variances be granted.
Comments from the Public:
Bud Waund, representing applicant Pinnacle Partners, explained the proposed house. Nlr.
Waund pointed out Lots I through 26 are also 50 foot lots and compared the site to other
lake lots with bluff impacts. He felt if the applicants built a smaller house, it would lower
the value of the lot.
Rose Heinicke, 15398 Red Oaks Road, stated she was concerned with the side yard and
bluff setbacks but felt anything that goes on the lot will increase the value of her home.
Marv Mirsch, the owner of adjoining Lot 21, objected to the 5 foot setback as stated in
the Notice. Mr. Mirsch also said he did not want to see the mature oak trees removed.
Mr. Waund said they would make every attempt to preserve the trees and shrubs by using
a high density building envelope.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Agreed with staff s recommendations.
. Tree ordinance does not apply. Trees are on lot line.
. Favors tabling the matter to see City Attorney's opinion.
Kuykendall:
. Agreed with staff report.
. No foundation to deal with trees.
. Questioned involvement with Pinnacle Partners.
Stamson:
. Agreed with some conflict in ordinance but did not apply in this case.
. Lot area and width is a hardship.,
. Setbacks are a result of design decisions of owners.
. Could use other building techniques.
. Bluff setback variances are contrary to intent.
. Drainage problems would be avoided by cutting down size of house.
1:\97 fi les\97 p lcomm \pcmin \mn042 897 . doc
~ ~ i \: i,. If
~ .J < J\ If
--.J L~j l;U
Page 2
Wuellner:
. Fairlawn Avenue structure is out of bluff impact zone.
. No variance - appealed setback averaging.
. Agreed with Commis.sioner Stamson
. Cannot legally grant variance for design because it is not a hardship.
MOTION BY STAJ.\1S0N, SECOND BY VONHOF TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-
12PC GRAJ."J"TING A .47 FOOT V ARIAl"J"CE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH AT
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AL"J"D A 126
SQUARE FOOT V ARIAl"J"CE TO PER.\AIT A LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET
RATHER THAN THE 7,500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A
SUBSTAJ."'IDARD LOT. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING
(1) A 23 FOOT V ARIAl"J"CE REQUEST TO PERIvUT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER w1ARK OF PRlOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER
THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET, Al"J"D (2) A 26 FOOT
V ARIAl"J"CE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF RATHER THA1"J" THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, AJ."J"D (3) A
16 FOOT V ARIAl"J"CE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THA1"J" THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A
PROPOSED SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. & C. Case 7-031 and 97-032 Annexation petition from I esenbrink Construction
and Deerfield De lopment for acreage in Spring Lake To ship.
Planning Coordinator J e Kansier presented the sta rep()rts. This parcel is part of 270
acres owned by the develo . The developer has etitioned to annex the entire area;
there are two petitions because wnership of th parcels is under two separate names.
This property is currently located 'thin the rderly Annexation area in Spring Lake
Township. The petitioner has request t annexation of this property in order to
develop the land with municipal servic .
The developer is proposing a mi a use develo ent on the entire 270 acres. The
development includes about 6 acres of industrial! ercialland in the eastern half of
the parcel. It also includes mixture of residential Ian uses, starting with R-l
development on the no side, then R - 2 and R - 3 develop ent to the south and west.
There is also a potential high school site consisting of 80 to 0 acres on this parcel. The
total number of d elling units on the site at buildout may vary m 400 units to 800
units, dependi on whether or not the school district locates a hig chool on this site.
The density fthe site can range from 1.5 units per acre to 3 units per- cre.
The City originally proposed to include this site in the expanded Metropolitan Urban
Service Area when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1996; however, the acreage
1:\97files\97plcomm \pcmin\mn042897 .doc
~i m ~i ~ C?lll
-; ", I - \ U _;
'--'" :- l_ '..J
Page 3
.~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, LOT AREA
VARIANCE, ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW)
SETBACK VARIANCE, TOP OF BLUFF SETBACK
VARIANCE, AND A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR PINNACLE PARTNERS, Case File
#97 -028
15408 RED OAKS ROAD
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ,~\~
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES l NO
APRIL 28,1997
The Planning Department received a variance application from Pinnacle Partners
who is proposing to construct a new single family residence with attached garage
and deck. An existing cabin was removed this past winter in anticipation of the
proposed construction. The lot is located in the Red Oaks subdivision on Prior
Lake.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 22, Red Oaks was platted in 1930. The property is located within the R-1
(Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. The applicant
does not own either of the adjacent parcels. Lot attributes are as follows:
Size Requirement to Variance
be Buildable Requested
(as a substandard lot)
Area 7,374 sq. feet 7,500 sq. feet 126 sq. feet
(above 904 el)
Lot Width 49.53 feet 50.00 feet .4 7 feet
(measured at setback)
OHW Width 53.13 feet N/A N/A
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed structure has a footprint of 1,638 square feet, and a total floor
area (on three levels) of approximately 3,400 square feet plus the deck. The
lowest level will be a walk-out to the yard. The proposed impervious surface is
29.9%. The structure will have the following setbacks:
Proposed Setback Setback Variance
Requirement Requested
(as a substandard lot)
Front Yard 25 feet 25 feet None
Side Yards 5 feet (on south side) 5 feet (one side) None
10 feet (on north side) 10 feet (other sides)
OHW Setback 52 feet 75 feet 23 feet
Top of Bluff 4 feet 30 feet 26 feet
Bluff Impact 4 feet from top of 20 feet from top of 16 feet
Zone (20 feet bluff bluff
from top of bluff)
The legal building envelope is approximately 34.5 feet wide and 36-40 feet deep,
resulting in an area footprint of approximately 1300 sq. feet. Considering that a
two car garage is approximately 480 sq. feet (20 by 24 feet), the footprint
remaining for the habitable part of the structure would be approximately 820
square feet.
The proposed garage is setback 25 feet, and the dwelling part of the structure is
setback approximately 17 feet from the front of the garage (43 feet from the front
property line). The deck is setback 4 feet from the top of the bluff (within the
bluff impact zone), and the habitable part of the structure is setback about 11
feet from the top of the bluff. The applicant is proposing to excavate
approximately 10 feet of the existing bluff. The current elevation at the top of the
bluff is 941. The applicant is proposing to construct a walk-out structure with a
floor elevation of 931 .
Generally, the ordinance prohibits the placement of fill and excavation materials
in the bluff impact areas. A variance to the bluff impact zone and top of bluff
setback would allow the applicant to excavate and fill as indicated on the survey.
If a variance to the bluff impact zone or setback to the top of the bluff are
granted, then the resolution should specify that storm water be diverted from the
roof away from the bluff towards the front of the house. This could be achieved
with gutters and/or grading.
Pat Lynch, of the DNR, has recommended that no variance to top of bluff or bluff
impact zone be granted. Furthermore, the excavating of the bluff does not meet
the intent of the Shoreland District in the preservation of the natural features of
Prior Lake. He is of the opinion that the proposed house is not conducive to this
lot due to the size and topography of the lot.
97-012pc.doc
Page 2
The property to the north is constructed in the bluff impact area. However, when
this house was constructed (1992) there was no bluff impact setback required.
Amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance that went into effect in September of
1995 included the bluff impact setback. The property to the north received a 21
foot variance to the OHW and an 8% impervious surface coverage variance.
This resulted in a structure that is setback 52 feet from the OHW and a lot that
has impervious surface coverage of 38%.
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. In this case, there is a legal alternative for
the applicant, and that is to build the proposed structure smaller to meet the
setbacks as not to encroach upon the required setbacks. The building
envelope can accommodate alternative layouts. However, the variance
requests to lot area and width are existing conditions. There is a hardship
with respect to the property because those dimensions cannot be changed to
meet the criteria of the ordinance.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The unique circumstances are the lot area and width. Considering that those
are existing conditions created in 1930 and they cannot be altered to meet
the ordinance requirements, hardships do exists for lot area and width. With
respect to the setback variances, the applicant could reduce the size of the
proposed addition to meet the required setbacks.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is considered to be substandard. The lot area is 7,374 sq. feet and
the lot width is 49.53 at the reguired front setback. These are conditions
which have been existing since the property was platted in 1930. The lot
area and width are hardships that are not the result of the applicant's actions.
The setback variance requests due to the size and shape of the proposed
structure are controlled by the applicant. If the applicant reduces the size of
the proposed structure and maximizes the area of the legal building
envelope, the setbacks can be met and variances will not be necessary. The
97-012pc.doc
Page 3
applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and
location are not hardships.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the proposed structure on the lot are not greatly
inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to
the north is setback 25 feet from the front property line and 54 feet from the
OHWand is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. However, the property to
the south (and several others in the Red Oaks addition) are older cabins and
small vacant lots. Staff anticipates the future development of these lots into
year round single family dwellings requesting similar variances.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff has concluded that the variance requests for lot area and width are
substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no
control over. However, there do exist legal alternatives for which the applicant
could build the proposed structure. A reduction of the proposed dwelling and the
full utilization of the legal building envelope are viable alternatives to the granting
of setback variances.
If variances to the Bluff Setback are granted, the Resolution should include
specifications that storm water be diverted from the roof of the structure away
from the bluff as to reduce erosion of the bluff.
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:
Staff recommends approval of the variances to lot width and lot area for the
reasons discussed above. The attached Resolution 97 -12PC is consistent with
this recommendation. If the Commission agrees with this recommendation, a
97-012pc.doc
Page 4
motion and second to adopt Resolution 97-12PC is needed. If the Commission
feels additional variances are appropriate, you should direct the staff to prepare
a resolution approving those variances with findings for Commission approval at
the next meeting.
97 -012pc.doc
Page 5
RESOLUTION 97-12PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A.47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53
LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 25 FEET AND A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
LOT AREA OF 7,374 SQUARE FEET RATHER THA.t~ THE 7,500 SQUARE
FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Pinnacle Partners has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of a single family dwelling 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;
15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997.
3. 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.
4. 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,
1,JIlfeasonably 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 substandard lot size,
the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQliAL OPPORTliNITY EMPLOYER
-.
6. The granting of the variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed
structure without variances.
7. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 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.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variances for future development on the lot meeting required
setbacks;
I. A.47 foot variance permitting a 49.53 foot lot width at the required front yard setback
instead of the required 25 foot lot width.
2. A 126 square foot variance permitting a lot area of 7,374 square feet instead of the
required area of 7,500 square feet to be buildable as a substandard lot.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 28, 1997.
/) ~' 11
!(j~< < ~tifJjr
&ue lner, Acting Chair
1:\97var\97 -028va\97 -12PC.doc
2
--
RESOLUTION 97-13PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING (1) A 23 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT
A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF
75 FEET, AND (2) A 26 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET, A..~D (3) A 16 FOOT VA....1UA..~CE REQUEST TO
PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE FA1\1IL Y DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Pinnacle Partners, LTD. has applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to construct a single family dwelling with attached garage and
deck (Exhibit A) on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22, Red Oaks, Scott County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-028 and held hearings thereon on April 28, 1997.
2. 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 meets the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. A legal building
envelope of approximately 1300 sq. feet exists allowing for structural alternatives
without variances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as legal alternatives. exist.
5. The contents of Planning Case 97-028 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for the proposed single family dwelling with garage and deck as
shown in the attached Exh;bit A;
1. A 23 foot variance permitting a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
2. A 26 foot variance permitting a 4 foot setback from the top of bluff.
3. A 16 foot variance to permit a 4 foot setback in the bluff impact zone.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 12, 1997.
7!:/~~r-
William Criego, Ch~ir
I:\97var\97 -028va\re9713 pc. doc
2
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP
14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E.
PRIOR. LAKE, MN. 55372
'"
'"
LO\(e J
prior
EL. 901 .5
4 I 'I 91
'.
'.
~
...
o
DESC.RIPTION:
Lot \21 RFD OAKS,
proposed house
\
NOTES' Benchmark
935.6
~
EXHIBIT A
Valley Surveying Co., F?A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
IIW ~ @ ~ 0 \',i1 ~ ,II/)
WI 11'1/ - d WI ~I
r, -1.
c... -'
'j "
,_\1
f-
Scott County, Minnesota. Also
location of the
Elevation 935.85 top of the existing garage slab on lot 23.
Denotes existing grade elevatiOn
~Denotes proposed finished grade elevations
-----'t- Denotes proposed direction of finished sllrface drainage
Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 941.07
Set the top block at elevation 942.82
The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79
Net Lot Area above el. 904.0 '" 7,374 sq. ft.
Net proposed impervious covecage '" 29.9, 'I;
RF:VI<: CD 4.'-1/96 DECK TO BLUFF OIST.
RE.. ".c./97 TO SHOW HSE. RJPPEO
8 GARAGE Ii CABINll~MOYEl2.
TTIl11- . -~ =-'''''\ ~ - - J-=~--l-=-~
ll.J ' '..-- I - -- -=- - - - - -
f ~~-
r~-cc 1-----"
I
i
!
c
i -
I
i
, ,-:J;: ::~-:::_, - 0j~
~C~h
'~~-O -)~ ~
i l'kYWARDLm r~ 1---, 1:1
I' 1'1.1 ill \
I."
~v~,_.
CITY Of PRIOR lAKE
BASE MAP
~-~
LOCATION MAP
WI\ 1TA"""'''
V""', :."" Q.C'S
"1<1-.'
L
II
4
wtL
(
see
SURVEY PREPARED FOR'
PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP
14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E.
PRIOR. LAK E, MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P. A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
l{B)ffi @ ~ Q\Y1~/fm
WI AI" - ",,.,, ~I
pr\or
(I.. gOI.5
4 I \ I 91
'V
'V
LaKe ~
r, -l.
L- ~I
,
a
J
''''
DESCRIPTION:
\
Lot 22. REO OAKS,
proposed house
\
NlJI'ES' I3enchmal:"k
Scott County, Minnesota. IIlso
location of the
Elevation 935.85 top of the existing gal:"age slab on lot 23.
935.6
.
Denotes existing grade elevation
(939.0 ) Denotes pl:"oposed finished gl:"ade elevations
----+ Denotes pl:"oposed dil:"ectlon of finished Audace dl:"ainaqe
Set the pl:"oposed gal:"agp. slab lit elevation 941.07
Set the top block at elevation 942.82
~
The lowest floor elevation will be 931.79
Net Lot lIl:"ell above el. 904.0 ~ 7,374 sq. ft.
Net pl:"oposed impel:"vious covel:"age = 29.9. \
o
I
SCALE
30
60
I
REVISED 4/4196 DECK TO BLUFF DI5T.
REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUPPED
a GARAGE a CABIN REMOVED.
REVISED 1/30/97 TO SHOW TOP OF BAN<,
TOE OF SLOPE Ilo CA81N ON LOT 20
IN
FEET
o Oonot.. 1/2 Inoh .14 Inoh Iron
monurMnt .., and morhd by
Lie.N. No. '0'8.3
. O.no'.. Iron monum..' rovnd
~ O.not... Pl(. Nail tet
FILE rlo. 9429
/lOOK ~PAGr: 2!.-_
._-...-.. -- .... -..-... .-..t-..
PRIOR. LAKE. MN. 55372
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
pr\or Lo\(e
EL. 90\ .~
4\ I '. \ I 97
LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE
r, -1..
l- ....'
t-t/$
% 0:'''' a
$f
~
Shtd-f<:::>-J
~n/'
'-"
,
. .-...
I
.,.
k,'
. I
~,/ ... /
, ,::~ ~~J
r C~8'N . ...............
. /
Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the
')"
L. '- J
DESCR.IPTION:
Lot \22 RED OAKS I
pt"oposed house
i
.r;f.,
.~
~\
\.
.'
)
-
~
""0
r-
)>
Z
C/'l
~
-
r-
l"
co
m
~
m
<
m
~
C/'l
m
U
)>
C/'l
-
Z
~
-.
n
~
m
u
o
z
C/'l
C
~
m
-<
~
o
"tJ
o
C/)
~
5
~
rn
='a-z..
,I
'N ':L Q.o..\.\-\\...\.c... .o..\o",Jo'O
~'-'~....~-.~
~_....x ~.....\.....C.
... ~~~~~=-~~--':-'~~.-~~'.~-
-----------.--.--. .... ,""~ao \::7.....___
-- ~'~_-~-r "- - - ~_~_________.__n__
~-
1,.20<bCl I I.
i I. 2040 I \
I
<<001 1.20'-0
~'"' I \ 2040
~, ~~~ ..)<::)'~''::::'
~.. \~-s.'-I'- 'IIIl;::.~'C:I.. -....1/
~.~O -e..c..~ '2....."'~'-
6'0-...; ".~ ~'>;J..t:i!....~,?!
"'/~"::"''''~~<:,;::).~ Q ~\(
':0-'. c......'&'-'C- ~-....J~V"-"~
~
"
.\
GREAT ROOt\/!
7 4"
r
w
j
Ii'
,
I
i
: I
! 3Q' \_... l,:z.. ..........,,:-...J'-.o:- ,/'"
i~~- I.
r -:"c..~:~~ '2.\.,.;\'0 I ~u&.~Gl
~O'-::''''-=::' ....'1 / 1.\
\ i i \
-- -- - -- - -'-j '1'1) - ----- -- -- .1)
'0' ------
i!.
'2c_
I
I
I
I
4'.3' 'WA'-'- /'"
:\"(J,\...::ii,,.J .
J:i
~- .!
'-' '-;.
~~ ~~-c::~..<
.. .. -.:<;z,. "$u <;>"=""'-.:-
?O~-.::.,;,; ""~'?-/
\ "-. =.....;:0.. ~o;::. 5~ "'"^""
0..... e,-'<C..'-J
12." Q..c..
'0..==
i
II
I I
.: I
~ I I
~
I
I
i
...\. ._...;1.....-:;..
MAIN LE~L
I
I
/ 2. w. A '+-J~ ~_'-'..;.:.."'-' .a.oO~ '-r~~
{J t ~'~.o..c:;...~_-~ ~ -2..-:..'.... '- .
~
\
- - - - r- - - _.- - - - - -- - -
I' \~O.."~o,J"St....,..'- Q~,- Q~ Q'Q,.
I \CARACE
I
I
I
"I
~
, '2::T
\ ::.
4--. \4' ~',-
",
,'::""-.::.~
.~- .~...~,
, I
-,--,"---.-."-... -......---.-.---.-.----- .....
--.--------..-. - -......--.------....-.--- ..- --
----~... -------
~
~'..
4
'.
N
'.fl
\09
".~9 * ':Jl
.~ I
~
o
~"
t','
.14'. :5'"",___;,;;
:'.""c,~, Q.
'f ;..
-
\.504(,..
~
11"
\, '304 '-
5"......'..Q~' C.U'-"""f,"
,.....o._e-..'L .
~~~~,'S~.~.......; I
'II~:~
, , I (l : I
,'fl' I rilJ '1
t I. '~~_~
I, ",'1 I~~ A f
,u- W_~
'I
,
, ,
~ ~ BEDROOM
~ ~'
N, ~~
,~ J ..<>....
. ~a~":-' .
" ~ '"
Q ~ '--..
? if!
1" \ \.2-
~
o
r-
Q.
1)
2.....0
~\",J~ <;:~'Q,. ~,~-r-s
4'" ' \"'~U,-, '=I....OO<::t.. --I
.;;;;. ='0 ~,,~
q-
'/l I ~
'fi /
;) I )
rJ . i
I- ,
I). ,01 C:'Q.,'<:..~<;..""
(l' ~: 'a~~^-I
2 ul .,
"
" 0\ , 0 Ii
i'
'J III ~ rJ \~:
iJJl \' J, V
o ~ \ IJ. 0
j (I \ fJ '
'I \ ~
{
N /' 2 IJ \
~
~~ i
II
l
1:
o 4 !
~ ,~
1"
~
N Ii
,1) e .
,"
F. EDR 01\1
\ 't I
'~',@,~
:I$-
, " ~-
/'
......-
- ~;
rJ J
I" ,
~ "f
~ N
'1 ')
38
oJ ~
,0 ().
10 ~ ,/1
"
~
, N
Q 5~~'.';:',-c
':;"\.~'O~Q.. ~o;::J...o...,)-=-~
_' . IgJ
I I .' " ", z."...'N?a.....c.\......."'<;::'~Q.,vss
I , ~, ;: _~o e'" , . i . .. sIoc:.e.o .. t Z4 '" '-
~IGJi -,it " .
L - _,J.:::I. --- -';:"::'
, " .t-::}
~_~"-L__~=-=_
,;....'- ,,<2... ~'-'Q<;:OOJ.,
~~~ ,2.:~<LQ, ').
:-
I
I
I
,
i
f
.1.
"
,,;:roo
UP ER LEVE
..,.....,...-"""............~ ~.
~'Q.r::.~~_ vv '-'-5
~ 'ii, '-<:l"'-'
. '2."'" ~~ '=-.... w \OZ...: ~?ou~~
, '~"'.::o..<:.<a.O... ZA""'... -;
h
;~ _-:_~ ~
, I
, I
, ;zo....d
~~\~
2...... "'I::
1;;0.......
I
I
I
I
I
UJi!
'Q Of
~..~
9 ~
'A /)
\. 'j
-,
I
I
I
I
'- ...'- ~-'r~-..J<::>~~ ~~
LA40
i
-'\ \ 9::,0'=>05 !
i
--'-r-
!
20 ~ 0 =....~. 'I""=-",,\'--lC "j
'~:AO~~~~~~:-~'--I
2,.,""" ?""'t:a.\~~:e.'-"', ~&a,O
" .
'" /
-.:.:. It", '-iIo,,_'~c......'- E:'..
'-~O~
,/ I'
/ .
z.. \ 2. " ""'. ~ ,-e.~ Q~:!:_ : ;:'
rr - =r"':'-' -11- I '
Ji.... / I~JI
! .../ I~? ;.
! i ~,~o;e.~ Co\..<:, ~q r -:9. I
! ~'- ...~, ;; I g "
L- L~==--=--=-=~-t @ If
.;::>~o<:> c..'-c.., J ~ ~ I,
, '. 0~ '--- 1./10,. Ik
'--- _ \ " N (I I
<:I ~:S '.- .-iff-----s-- __-......1+!.Vl I"
$ -:.,...... ~ I.
"'i<=......
'<...J,c.. '-
..J~'-
, ::=.::if
H---.--:-~:.- - j
U-- ----iJ .
'NO ,;,-.-..:.....::.
zo" ~ a CO'-'<:...",,=,'.......c:..
'0 c::. . o~ \'2. "c.o'-"c- ___"'-
c;. Cl'=. ~.. ~,->c;... ~'-"'l;
1;'z.....'J( \5 "A.~ -. <0.0. <. .
2'.. '<;. -':'Q,. '5''-,-' '""'-
/j
I 4' c,o,-><:;.;; <$o,-~ie. -;j ~,,~ '..,'0...... )
'N ""....... 0-. '.~=V~,-- .~'-OC>>~ -
CS""2"""''-' ""'C!'N":"_O~ o.~ ~Q.,
I c=~ '.
.ZO.....O.~.~,'-.l.<;..
.:4 c;. .0<;:' \2.... c:;.d'-><;. . --",.. .. I
~c. oc'e'c.o'-'C... ~ .
/2....." \S..jS.',~" ....:.""'. ~.~.,",...., '~."'..'. .
'2......""~.'S'"~ .'-.;....
1/1.t~"J~''''' ..a.-.1Ib. '':' .. ..........
fl. I
tL___~__J
t
I
~~- -----:.-_---J
, I
"2.0 ..,:)- c:..o~ ""~\~<:..
I A c:.. Q<;: \4.-' ~c._ e..-..... . I
I \'c:,., Q<;:. ;"" c.~ ~ I
'-'_ ,.- _, .. _ .. ~ _ . -4__
I _ _ _
Ie oa.::.,--.
oO~"",,,Ol!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
l I
I I
I .1
I
I
I
~ 0
J r ~ ~
J d 0
<1 3 !!i
~ ~ ,j S .1
~ ,~ Q ~
~ 1 Q a
d l! ~ II
o 0 ~ D :J
~ ',~ !
i ~ ~ d ~ 0
4 o ~ 0 ~ :j.
j d ' 0 ~
0 D I ,I) ,
IJl il1 ~ t~ ' '1"
.:1 :: ;: ~ ~, ~ ;:;-:
4
I)
o
II---fl :
II ~
I i \J
1
I ; S
[i \'\\ Z
1\ 0
I: ~
:: L\ /
- 'JL --- --- -tj ::i
-~- --- --j I W
_:~---~ ~
_--1.~__ _ I I (j)
il: rT[ f-
ill I I
. I:: II ~
~rcTli I
II j
II, N
I ~
II !>
II~
I ~
1 f
I ( :..
'h\
II \
. .11f,~
~ I I t
~ I II
~!1 1 r
i I
I W
-U
I
J~ I , I
I
I
.j I
I
I
I
I
I D
- I~
r. 1
. t \.
D--
1
o
U
r:J
d
I
I
I
I
,
II. I
~ 1
I
I r
i
'1
I
, I
~ I
~
1 1
, .
I
J
1 j
~ ~
I) =-=T
'f "
("I 1: i
1. tI
"'<"C:..
~=-Q~
\x~ Q<;
\ ... e '='-,
;.Q.~~
'"'"'
....... ,......~c..c
........\~~'-
I_.._'--.J.........,
_.,;.~--.:. ....
., -
\::~: .' ;::~ ~ ""-.~
.. -~.
.(
._- ~!''''.,~
.........,
". '':';:'>i
;.,~~ .,:::
-" ~-
.,... '.....
'..-":
\\~ <:.-.
I
~
r
i
I
-J."
,
./) '" -~.:., '
G)
LAKESI[+~
::.! t 'V;\T 1/\ '. j
_," r- J ~'-.)! '.,
//""<
/" '
I
- --:;---
~
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address
/5L/oe
Reo 0,4-1(-5 7<0 A-O
Lot Area 1l:!> 7L.J. Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. f.) eo/ L. ".u-
*********** ************************************************************
A TT ACHED GARAGE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
1 z.... x 3q i.. =" 10 '1 .0
lJ x " = --10 I. 0
Z~ x '%.0 = ~z.o "+).. .
TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... _I) 7 Z 5 , 0 0-1-;-
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
x
TOT AL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... 0
=
'/03111-1-
~~ afr
DRIVEW A YIP A VED AREAS
(Driveway-paved or not)
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
~fJ~ SNr
I'
=
TOTAL PAVED A~AS.........................................
41~ A.fr-.
P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS x =
(Open Decks Yo" min. opening between X =
boards, with a pervious surface below.
are not considered to be impervious)
X =
TOT AL DE CKS........................ .... .......... ..................
o
OTHER
x
x
=
=
TOT AL OTHER.... ........... ... ... ........... ................. ......
UNDER/OVER
Prepared By ;;Nt:\IJ A to 5tA:JCl."v~"1( ./
CompanY-')C,tJ/~1 JS(ALJ'11~\ ~. ~A.
Z, 1'1'1 01'fj
I (,(",(,1(.. 1& ~f.1
Date .-JQAJ I., J 11 7
Phone # '1'17- Z~ 70
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCES:
A .47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.53 LOT WIDTH A T THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO BE
BUILDABLE; AND
A 126 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A MINIMUM LOT AREA,
ABOVE THE 904 ELEVATION OF PRIOR LAKE, TO BE 7,374 SQUARE FEET
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; AND
A 23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 52 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WA TER LEVEL (HOWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; AND
A 26 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE TOP
OF THE BLUFF INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 30 FEET.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMilY DWELLING WITH
ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK ON PROPERTY lOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 15408 RED OAKS ROAD.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, April 28, 1997, at 7:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Pinnacle Partners
P.O. Box 24038
Apple Valley, MN 55124
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
Pinnacle Partners
P,O. Box 24038
Apple Valley, MN 55124
SUBJECT SITE:
15408 Red Oaks Road, legally described as Lot 22 Red Oaks,
Scott County, MN.
97var\97-028va\97028pn.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
REQUEST:
The applicants have removed an existing cabin and are proposing
to construct a new single family dwelling with attached garage and
deck on an existing lot that is 49.53 feet wide at the front yard
setback rather than the required 50 feet and 7,374 square feet in
area rather than the required 7,500 square feet. The proposed
structure will have a 52 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
instead of the required 75 feet and a 4 foot setback from the top
of a bluff instead of the required 30 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to
this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-
4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written
comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are
or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: April 16, 1997
97var\97 -028va\97028pn.doc
2
Planning Case File No. q 1- ()(i ~
Property Identification No.
rior Lake
APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) Canst rllct a new home on
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance the pro pert y.
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
i1I Variance Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
o Other:
Applicant(s): Pinnaclp- Partners. Ltd.
Address: P.o. Box 24038 Apple Valley, MN 55124
Home Phone: N/A Work Phone: 432-7900
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership:
Work Phone:
F ee ~ Contract for Deed Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet):
L., + .J,;2. I It If rJ t1 a At $." 5' c- ~ C. ~ ~ ~ h';;. H. t! $ d .~q
PID: 25042-0130
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
appli at" ns w. I no be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
INNA E P N S, LTD.
~ 4-2-97
Applican hn Ryan, Pres. Date
I E P
res.
4-2-97
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
Vertyn Raaen
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Verlyn Raaen
Jennifer Tovar
Lot 22, Red Oaks Proposed House Survey Review
Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11 :27 AM
My comments re: the 4/4/96 [917] revised survey are as follows:
All the storm water runoff originating on Lot 22 which can reasonably be conveyed to Red Oaks Rd. ttfough
the use of roof gutters and grading of the site must be so conveyed. The grading of Lot 22 from the
proposed house out to the side property lines and out to Red Oaks Rd.adjacent to the side property lines
must provide for drainage swales to convey surface stormwater to Red Oaks Rd. Any alterations proposed
to be made to the "Bluff Impact Zone" will be required to comply with the City's Shoreland Management
Ordinance. Erosion control is required to be maintained in good condition on this site whenever bare soil
areas are present. Proposed improvements below elevation 904 are regulated by the DNR and may involve
permit application prior to making improvements. Load limits on roadways may dictate that vehicles
servicing this site lighten their loads.
Page 1
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
4-23-97 15:29; 6127727573 =>
6124474245;
#1 /1
Minne.sota Dcpartnlent of Natural Resources
Post-It" Fax Nole 7671 I.lalc (
To .Jc. FrOm .~
Co./O..pl. Co.
Phon.. H Pho"" /I
Fax /I Fax II
L (Ll{-f.
&j\ 6-.~;t.J
'1-' . L \
...._. \..-u \
+'2:;'( VIA. J_.
C' -
_.. e
DNr
I
lJ&.
L l u f{
/
c:
.)
\ 7
...\tu.:';'.1i:'
Va.\',; ~_IA. r.c.L..
<: __.4
...~;u. (~~J"" ~ I
~ru.l
"P I (IJ /' JA (" t /E:
Vf"~ tAf" L~~. r:-...,
'\ 'f-'k'\ N c...:l~..:::~ (,J
c.. e;l-L C&<'..." ~.....s.
yl.L~ a..t d r '^ .5
_b( ut-t
~':.i.-,-f' ~. o_..t...(<-
,:>~~IJ
-+-
Si6~.~ ..
~~. b~c:-~~- .
\1I1~-f
,...., ~-
, .',1 c. ...
.. M C. .
+
o ou. ~-_
I>) <: .~"
V .' .
-.:: 'y tA.. \ ("-l._.
'.)
f V'<'-' ( 6 $ r.....'-.
r I
.:~;o I.A..~ '. '^-
.'
0'/
'j
-..: \;. b
-~-:) ~\ . f: . Cl,1(}...'" \. ~.
..' .;Xl.) f....
L o~
\J W\r; ~ <:-'2...
.~n
(('(....~
a V'~
0.(( .
LAJld.tl-.. I 1,,1
:;,h\lIA
~jlLJ
C G\Au "k '4J
'I
. I'}. fj"V\
}'Ori,.J
..sdi..zcK
..
I
w\ () ~..
I
-1- ()
~ .i!...L;{. -
b.x_
VI (). j,-:J ~.. \
I "'- :J..oc ''''I.~t\e d
/1 "'51 ki ~ ~
(~~ to\J lcJ
'S .e.. J b q c...k-,
-t-t:J
bL
.\ f'.
b{L~i-i-
reo S-tD~,-;.
--1- IN JO' k-
().. t--e.cL_
\ v'\.
),cvk-
\ \t S i 2.J;.:.-c:::k:. - . &.~ ~ -' 2 8 - 77
l-{._ ~ ~-'rl-.-----t' ~l-- ~~. L.~t ~ c L.
DNR Inforlllalion: til2-'~I)h-nl"'I. I.Xllll.']f)() (,(l(lll . r("y: 612-~9(i-54~~. I-SOO-fl:i", N:1.l,I
.\n 1:\.1"1011 (Jp~II.~ltLHIII)" IllJlph~~1.:1
""oh,. v..Ju.:s Lli\.ltr:iil~
"' "rilll,""l ,)11 R".t,;y,:h-d P."",:, ('11I'II;ljllll'l~;1
'-.I ~tinin'l1nll)f \(\1.;' F'1I,)..f'llll'IIJIU.o. \0\1';1"'"
SENT BY: DNR METRO;
5- 6-97
9:26;
6127727573 =>
61244~~~______ #1/1
~. -~.. ~.:: ~. -. .._~
:. -::, .---:- --::: U - !;~:i
'rM:Y-6 ~ ~I~i
Minflc~c.;ota n...eoartrncnt Of Natu[:..1 Re.s.o
Metro Waters -1200 Warner ROillQ, Sf "Yau , ~"'5:5 10 _
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
May 6, 1997
1" '. Je:I.M._ ~.fCq
Fv' .' t' '-..=' 1 y J0'~
{-'A'7'
Ms. Jane Kansicr
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle:: Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: ADMINlSTRA TIVE LAND DMSION AND OHW LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, PARTS OF LOTS 41, 42, &43,
LAKESIDE PARK MUL TIFLE VARIANCES, LOT 22, RED OAKS, PINNACLE PARTNERS
Dear Ms. Kansier:
J have reviewed the malcrials which accompanied the notices for the subject zoning matters and offer the tollowing
comments on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
ADMINlSTIL\.TIVE LAND DIVISION AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE- LOTS 41-43 LAKESIDE PARI<
Minnesota Rules, Part 6120.3300, subpart 20, requires the combination of comiguous substandard lots of record held
in common ownership. This prcposaJ is g)nsistent with the: intent of the shorcland rules, and the DNR encourages the
city to approve the lot combination as ~quested by the applicant. The ONR is not opposed to Lhc 3.48-foot lot width
variance atlhc ordinary high watcr elevation.
MULTIPLE V ARJANCES. LOT 22. RED OAKS
1 had faxed the city preliminary comments on April 23. Since that time, I have inspected Lhe subject property. The
applicant has proc:ccded lO excavate in the bluff arca, apparently without the required grading permil. Shorcland
regulations arc in place to protect bluff areas from the very destruction that has occum:d at this site. The DNR is
opposed to the granting of the lake setback variance and the bluff setback vlSrium.;e. No attempt has been made 10
design a structure which is sensitive to the provisions of tile shoreland Atoning requirements. The DNR recommends
denial of the variance as requested. We are not opposed to the lot area or lot width variance. The applicant should
immcdialely restore nnd stabilize the bluff area, apply fOf an after-the-fact grading permit, and re-design a SU'Uclure
which meets the bluJI' setback TeqUirmx:nt. The DNR would prefer the cily consider il vnrinncc from lhe strcct setback
in order to maximize the structure setback from the lake and bluff.
Thank you for the opportunity to rcview and comment on these land use matters. Please call me al 772-7910 if you
have any questions regarding DNR review. I
Sincerely,
--~ L/" I t'r
t~~.u: ,. '~\A{.~~:L..,)
Patrick 1. Ly.n.chJII .
Area Hydrologisl
n'lll IlIfllrlll'llioll: l'l1~-21J(,_("."7. I SOO 71,11.(.0111.1 . TTY: hi': :!llli .;;aX.:/.. 1.,s/JIl-h.'i7..,9:N
.\" 1:'_Il.t,11 Orp\'fhlttll~ bnpluY"'f
'r\,'h~1 V.lhit:,'; I )I\'\'rsilv
ft Pl'irHI.ot.l ~\" Ih:l.~....'lnl P:lp,." ('fuu"i"illi: :1
c..a 'v111111r11~m nl" l{Jc~ P'u"'I-CI.l'I',UIIlI.."I \\.-"...k
~e\9o~g~~ - 9foB,*We~1l~~lli :pta\1f,~~
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7
..> rs @ @ 0\':7 [g ij
':'\1L.=1 .
I LJ)1 .
I 0 MAY 8 i997
~
... .'" .7~
9''''
May 6, 1997
Ms. Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DMSION AND OHW LOT WIDTH VARIANCE, PARTS OF LOTS 41, 42, &43,
LAKESIDE PARK MUL TIPLE VARIANCES, LOT 22, RED OAKS, PINNACLE PARTNERS
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I have reviewed the materials which accompanied the notices for the subject zoning matters and offer the following
comments on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAND DIVISION AND LOT WIDTH V ARIANCE- LOTS 41-43 LAKESIDE PARK
Minnesota Rules, Part 6120.3300, subpart 2D, requires the combination of contiguous substandard lots of record held
in common ownership. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the shoreland rules, and the DNR encourages the
city to approve the lot combination as requested by the applicant. The DNR is not opposed to the 3.48- foot lot width
variance at the ordinary high water elevation.
MULTIPLE VARIANCES. LOT 22. RED OAKS
I had faxed the city preliminary comments on April 23. Since that time, I have inspected the subject property. The
applicant has proceeded to excavate in the bluff area, apparently without the required grading permit. Shoreland
regulations are in place to protect bluff areas from the very destruction that has occurred at this site. The DNR is
opposed to the granting of the lake setback variance and the bluff setback variance. No attempt has been made to
design a structure which is sensitive to the provisions of the shoreland zoning requirements. Tne DNR recommends
denial of the variance as requested. We are not opposed to the lot area or lot width variance. The applicant should
immediately restore and stabilize the bluff area, apply for an after-the-fact grading permit, and re-design a structure
which meets the bluff setback requirement The DNR would prefer the city consider a variance from the street setback
in order to maximize the structure setback from the lake and bluff.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these land use matters. Please call me at 772-7910 if you
have any questions regarding DNR review.
Sin~CerelY' ~. .-
"'J:> ., __
'A .-
Patrick 1. ch
Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing'
~~ 'v1inlmum of IO"f Post-Consumer W,\le