HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-11 PC Agenda Packet o PRIOR
p w
ITi
U 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior I,ake, MN 55372
4 'JNNEsO 1 P
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, October 10, 2011
City Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Approval of Agenda:
3. Consider Approval of September 12, 2011 Meeting Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. #EP 11 -124 Consider an application for a variance request to allow a remodel and an addition to a
detached garage. The property is located on the Northeast side of Upper Prior Lake along Lakeside Ave
North of Colorado St. and South of County Road 21.
5. Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
None
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
The annual Planning Commission report will be presented to City Council November 7
8. Adjournment:
\I I FIL[5 \1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION \11 AGINDAS1050911 Agenda.doc
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 8, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Perez called the September 26, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Howley, and Billington, Planner Jeff Matzke, City
Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Peter Aldritt.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPRO.' E THE SEPTMEBER 26, 2011
MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. ?SS
VOTE: Ayes, Billington, Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The mo Jbn carried. : : ?,
3. Consider Approval of September 12, 2011 Mee Minutes: F ,
MOTION BY HOWLEY, SECONDED BY ROSZAK T O A P RAVE :: ( E ; SEPTEMBER 1;2011
MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. ' / `'
VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried.
4::., Vic';'` :;.
4. Public Hearings: `
A . (continued) #EP 11 -121 Conside jan p he tion for a CUP 1 aII w The Cove Restaurant
to continue serving liquor in the C -2 zon1ng district =The property located at 15750 Hwy 13 S,
at the intersection of Franklin Trail and w } y 13. : , : ; : iii ,;;,
ti �r ti n:.:
B. (continued) #EROliatilonsider an aj ti lation for ?variance to allow The Cove
Restaurant to serye'liquor 2 AM. The property is located at 15750 Hwy 13 S, at the
intersection of :Franklin Trail `4 10 Hwy 13. ::,
C. #EP 11 -122 Consider.-^an {ap l cation alto ira building addition to an Animal Handling Land
Use in. the 0; -2 Zoning D stflpt• The 5i'oj J y Is"Iocated at 15900 Jordan Avenue South of
Highway '13 North of 160 <Stt et.
;) #EP 11 -123 Corisdgr an appJtoi$n for a PUD and Preliminary Plat for The Hickory Shores
•` 7e elopment to amen i te appr clad townhome design and lot layout. The property is located
alorfg south side ofSt:ate Highway 13 on Kennett Curve and Turner Drive.
E. #EP`f --701 Consider'a Preliminary Plat to be known as Eagle Creek Estates consisting of
67 resident ) ,9ts and;i4.18 acres of commercial designated property. The property is located
northeast of tieltterection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road.
<'
Planner Matzke presented the C.U.P. Application for the Cove Restaurant. If you recall at you last
planning commission meeting you heard this Conditional Use Permit and Variance report so I will go
through it fairly quickly to just go over again what was being requested. The Cove Restaurant which is
located at the intersection of Franklin Trail and Highway 13 is seeking a renewal of their conditional use
permit that was a condition of their latest liquor license approval that they had in the middle of the
summer. As part of acquiring the conditional use permit, one of the things that is indicated is that the
Cove Restaurant is in closer proximity than the typical restaurant with liquor license. As you recall with
L :111 FILES111 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN09262011.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11,2011
your discussion it was highlighted that the restaurant building was within 60 feet of residential property
however the building is located of 250 feet from the nearest residential maintained property and
because you are making determinations to whether the C.U.P is granted as well as a variance for the
Cove to go from a 1 a.m. closing time to a 2 a.m. closing time. One thing that was brought up by the
applicant was looking into the outdoor seating area as a condition to this C.U.P. Since then the
applicant has not gotten in any type of plan for that. The applicant felt that they would just pursue it at a
different time. Basically why this application is in front of you again is because you did not give final
approval at your last meeting you continued it on.
Perez asked we closed the public hearing and we just tabled this, correct? :;::: .:;.
Planner Matzke responded yes you left off at commissioner comment's hqt is where you should start.
Questions and Comments from Commissioners:
Billington stated yes as I said last time I supported thi .; arid since there has been rl"Q ne. changes 1
r,.
don't see any reason to change my mind. These pe , pIe,'are trying f9 enhance their busjne s in any
way they can and I think they are in reason, the appiicatio fa :jle. I will be supporting it again.
Howley stated no further comments, I will be supporting this.`;_.
Roszak stated no further comments 1 will be t:Upp'orti g it as well
f�
Perez stated I will too be supporting this It doestneet tf'crif ia.for the C.U.P. The ordinance
change is really what precipitatec,this. I will also be9.upporting the'variance.
A MOTION WAS MADE.BY BILL(NTO_N SECOND BY HOWLEY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE ,p ft IT TO ALLtW THE COV ; RESTAURANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE
LIQUOR IN THE C- 2ZONIt DISTRICT. {'=' •.'
' .r aC. The motion carried.
VOTE: Ayes t�y_HQNy }gy, Peres;iilingtof7;�ot1�
A MOTION'WAS MAD B BILLINGTQ. : SECOND BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE
REQU.E T BY THE COVE • C STAURAN r Tb SERVE LIQUOR UNTIL 2 A.M. IN THE C -2 ZONING
DIST = %T,he motion ca rriett
VOTE: Ayes .b ;:Howley, Perez Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried.
Planner Matzke pres htee j : 9:irequest to an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the River Valley
Veterinary Clinic which • i' :;heated along Highway 13 and Jordan Ave. Animal handling is a Land Use
Requirement that all doggie daycares and veterinary clinics are used and classified under our Zoning
Code. The animal handling has two main conditions for approval for conditional use permits; the first is
that no animals may be kept outside where offensive order or noise can be discerned about the
property line. The other is where animals are boarded; the facility must be located a 100 feet from the
adjacent property in an "R" Use district. The Veterinary clinic is proposing all indoor spaces and the
building is over a 100 feet from the nearest residential unit. The total site for the clinic is 1.1 acres it is
in our C -2 district. The site plan currently shows the existing 3500 square foot building which has 29
parking stalls. The building and parking spaces were constructed in 1990. They are proposing both a
3500 square foot building addition both upper and lower and additional 13 parking stalls with additional
L: \l I FILES \1 I PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN09262011.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2011
access off of Jordan Avenue. The clinic will be moving both their outdoor dog run and training facility to
inside so they can offer this year round. The Veterinary clinic application for a C.U.P meets all the
requirements and is consistent with the comprehensive. There are a few comments that need to be
addressed in an engineering stand point but those can be solved when they apply for a building permit.
At this time staff is recommending approval of the C.U.P. application.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Howley asked it says that no pervious conditional use permit has been issud for the clinic, is this
because it predated our code to enforce that? ,�� `-- ..,��
Planner Matzke responded yes that's a good question previously i1 1 .0t; ,+hen the Vet Clinic was
constructed animal handling or veterinary hospitals was the land yve speclftpglly for that It was a use
that was permitted with specific conditions but did not require a coil »tlonal i permit at the time
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND,BYHOVVLEY TO OPE'NsTHE PUBLIC
HEARING. '% ak`T J?,.,
VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszhe motiongarried. ' ''ry . ::�; i`
; .,:
The Public Hearing began at 6 :15 p.m.
--.;:::::::<.:..
y y
Comments from the Public
Kevin Busse (5101 160 St. SE) asked just 'a 1.ailfi on the Land J e;Ordinance regulations for
an Animal Handling Use, part a. in regards to noise; my Uestion has m�fe to do with the boarding and
housing. You said that it will all be moved insid t;.is thee adyti ng liicp• #hat outside or any animal
exercising done outside? ,.,-,,: ▪ s . , ;
.
Planner Matzke responded the app {rant made it car to staff that the intention of his is to relocate
activities inside the bp.i141, g,. They still Io some activities outside during their business hours. That is
allowed, however the intei f[on, is to ove activities ins de?(o provide for year -round operations. Also,
the majority of their existing' ouf±locr.ar i.;g be ng to eliminated by the parking area and the building
addition. The site >plan ; does not: ttO anyrf •i i' i j areas.
.di : .•: �::• 1tt'��: 1 „ ••:• :, :i � :ti . :.•.•` ., : :.
Kevin Buse respondedn!:only coi with it was that there wouldn't be more barking noise with
the expsaded boarding ands addling a•PAs but since they are going to be inside there shouldn't be an
:.:
issu ti �• >>
1 :ti :. ‘,.:::::::3 A MOTION VVA0 :MADE BY HO AND SECOND BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. : k
VOTE: Ayes by Perezgtltirton, Howley and Roszak
ii ='
The Public Hearing was•closed at 6:18
Commissioner questions and comments
Howley stated I do not see too much wrong with this and that it's a use approved under a conditional
use permit. I think that we are now having the opportunity to put a conditional use permit on this and
that they are moving the boarding and training inside. I will be supporting it. One side question in our
required conditions for animal handling land use A it says which causes offensive order or noise
L :\t 1 FILES \l 1 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN09262011.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11,2011
discernable at the property line. Discernable doesn't have a definition that you can quantitatively and
maybe this is for the future but shouldn't we tie this to a MPCA noise level or something like that?
Planner Matzke responded we would look to the noise ordinance for a standard and hold any noise
generated to that ordinance requirement.
Roszak stated given that the use is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan and no adverse
effects on employment or properties, I will be supporting this as well.
Billington asked Larry one question the treatment hydrological speaking i:�f0`r%ome concern to
engineering. Has that been discussed as far a design or do you anticipaie'ny problems with the
hydrology of the site?
Engineer Poppler responded no They have addressed a lot of fl , se cont conb We would have to
get a maintenance agreement on the drainage system but wA of cbmfortable'f Q\ ing forward with this
and can work that out in time to come.
Billington stated it is a splendid use for the site and it j ompliant , ith the compreheVpplan. I will
be supporting this.
Perez stated I agree with staff, it does meet C.U.P. criteria and: will be supporting this
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECOND:( Y BILLINTON tO<APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE RIVER VALLEY VETERIIL RY;CLINIC TO ALLO fAN. MAL HANDLING IN A C -2
GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT.:,
VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak..06; of pn c9t`ried.
Planner Matzke presented Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit amendment to an existing site that is
called Hickory Shores on`tl;e;8outh sjde of Hwy 13 no Of Crystal and Rice Lake. The development
was originally developed in'200b otlefson ent. The City Council approved the final plat
and P.U.D for,that sok iivision irj -A gust•m06 Si o tl en the development has gone through a series of
bank forec o$ures ''Jim be novic:is the owner of % yatt the Puddle Pointer is the developer that has
applied c this amend nt The sectton•. of our zoning ordinance lists the standards and allowed
uses qr ;o >.elanned unit devetgp,nent..'P U D /'offer maximum flexibility in many areas which can include
setbacKs;luliding heights, der��, ,
ities in tVike. The specific P.U.D. amendment and re -plat of this area
in this appli60:4 ot1 request applt`to the -fown home portion of the site which is located on the farthest
north in HickoryS;hores. No mfdifications are being made at this time to the larger single family
homes. The appljaation originai proposed 38 townhomes of an attached design of 4 and 6 unit
buildings. The proiipsd is froi'the 38 units to 37 platted units. Currently one 4 -unit attached
townhome is construe' g Kennett Curve while the remaining 34 lots are vacant. The developer is
proposing to replace the} proved attached townhome design with a modified attached townhome
model design on the remaining vacant lots with reduction of 1 less townhome lot than previously
approved. The modified lot layout of the townhomes requires re- platting of the individual property lines
since the Tots would be smaller in size than the original platted lots. The landscape plan that is being
used is the same as the originally submitted plan that was approved when the plat was originally
submitted. Impervious surface calculations do actually decrease due to the loss of one town home the
other is due to the decrease foot print plan, The fees and assessment for this area were paid in 2006
when it was platted. This is basically a re -plat and the P.U.D. amendment stages because the styles
are going to be slightly different than what was originally approved but much of it revolves around the
aspect that the lot lines are going to be shifted around.
L :1I I FILES \l1 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN092620I 1.doc 4
1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July11,2011
Questions and Comments from Commissioners
None
Applicant Matthew Weiland, Development Consultant stated the owner has been working hard over
the last 10 months to get this project moving. He has had numerous meetings with city staff and the
bank to get the project meeting and make sure all that is needed to get done..so the project can move
forward. What is being proposed here tonight is very similar to what as pr S•b a when it was originally
platted. Jim Deanovic owns all the land that the project is located on sop in his best interest to
develop a nice and professional looking product. The comments thAti (ere,,made on the project our
engineer is addressing and they will be solved so the project can co;iitinue ta':move forward. I would
like to thank you for your time and formally ask for approval.
Billington asked what is your perception of the residents a.ound the development
Connie Roesler (17059 Kennett Curve SW) stated yA et,,with Jin ';gnd his attorney too. O through all
the documents and show us the building that was going to be.,propo$: i 1 We were very l4ased with it
and with Jim. We understand that sooner or later someone goirig'to come in here aria when we were
here a year ago with K Hovnanian we were not very pleased with (hose people. They tried to shove
stuff down our throats, they said your home , not worth an thi''since you bought them in
Y Y �••• Y 1 29x„ Y g
foreclosure. They were just not very nice to is ;'1 Qornmend Jim on • h) personal and professional
manner he has explained everything each st60,1:iffiftway, he has met:Witty:6 four different times. Jim
has taken his time to ensure us that the new btkildin will rti tch ours ar d'that the builders will work
with us also
Billington stated it is good gooc11.6;:hkoatIpt he has been proactive m s attempts to contact you and
communicate with you a4 he has t hen very professlonal with his demeanor with you
Perez stated Commi§siorier owley binted out that we:f,pr'got to open the public hearing so 1 will take a
motion to open the public ng I .efore 'e•:take any j t ore public comment.
"• ti �: is s:::;� :
..
A MOTION :WAS•MADE BY BILI?INGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
VOTES A fes by Howley, Perez,,Billingtbn and Roszak. The motion carried.
The Publieitaring was opentril at 6:37`pm, retroactively including the previous public comments of
Matthew Weilari`d :and Connie Roesler.
efd
A MOTION WAS MAO BY;p1LLINGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Howley; %Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried.
The Public Hearing was closed at 6:38pm.
Commissioner Questions and Comments:
Roszak stated given the previous approvals and the community support I will be supporting this.
L: \I 1 FILES\I I PLANNING CoMMISSION\I1 MINIITIS\MN0926201 I.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2011
Billington stated this project like many other has fallen to fiscal problems that has hindered it from
moving forward. I commend the developers who take on these involving projects especially those who
take the time to commend with local residents making it a pleasant project or as pleasant as can be. I
will be supporting this.
Howley stated it's not very often that we have a win for all parties involved but based on Connie's
testimony tonight it sounds like they are happy I know the developer probably is happy the bank is
happy and the city is happy and 1 know we are happy up here to see something moving through. I will
fully support this.
r .:
Perez stated 1 agree this is similar to what was brought forward before yv tftsomesmall changes. The
changes give us more open spaces and decreases the impervious / surface ;• ,I will be supporting this
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON SECOND BY ROSZAK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE HICKORY SHORES PRELIMINARY PLAT AND P. U D% AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO THE
LISTED CONDITIONS. ? �'
VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Rosz 'ff 0 motion rried.
Planner Matzke presented the application' for, a Preliminary Plat•fqr Creek Estates. The project is
located along County Road 21 at the interseetjOn :of. wh;Q
Fish Point Road h is also known as Eagle
Creek Avenue. The total site area is 45 acres£th 4.9lopment is prop $Jng%64 residential lots and
14.18 acres of commercially zoned land. The current•otirg the devel¢pment is R -1 (Low density
residential) and C -2 (General Business). Access�,will be t} ro h future{rish Point Road connection and
Credit River Road connection ,The applicant is proposing to devel•the land in 2, 3, 4 different phases.
A park area of 1.6 acres is:plani ei to be dedicated.<Ito the citie .ark system. It will add onto the
existing Brooksville Hills rjeighborl ood park. Connection of utility services are southwest of the site
Engineer Poppler presented the en ,sneering comma f s,. on the grading portion of the plan. Before I
get into the comments I woifii I iEe ti ornment,about the general layout of the project. The layout looks
good. This is a.¢tlallenging site Wlt ;the"ti pogiAjn'and since it is within the Shoreland District. It has
some land Ici ked water basins and the area is in'otrr wellhead protection area Fish Point Road will
connect County Road . 21 ttC.,ount • 44 this will be a very important collector street for the city. I
will highlight some of the more::eritical '6on0erns we are seeing, additional spot elevations needed to be
comOIetecj br .the site mainly t c ur road}'wny connections. The developer is beginning to address this
The next ofi§: 1 want to cover iS die gradifig plan and the wetland delineation. It is not quite finished yet
and could have dramatic effecton the final grading and dividing up the Tots on the site We need to
look at the house. styes and ba drainage we see a lot of long storm water runs in the back yards
and those need to ' :e w orked,,o it. The commercial lot is currently shown drained onto the surrounding
lots but it doesn't quite $ .ow1 ow this is done. We need a comprehensive plan to see how this will be
done. The last aspect t1 t�l' want to touch on is the hydrology and storm sewer. We have a lot of
comments there and holm the storm sewer is going to be achieved.
Planner Matzke presented the tree and landscape plan for the development. There is a total 16,000
inches of tree removed. The applicant is still revising its tree plan. About 750 to 800 trees will be going
back in for tree replacement. For a 45 acre site of this size it is not uncommon to see this many trees
being removed. The developer is proposing to leave a significant number of trees on the north side of
the site along Cardinal Ridge. This is part due to the topography there and to create natural buffer
between the existing homes and the new homes in the subdivision. For the landscape plan the
developer has not shown what the plan is for the commercial lots part of that is due to that they will be
1: \11 PILES1t I PLANNING COMMISSTON\11 MINUTES1MN0926201I.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2011
developed individually and the landscape plan for those lots can be worked out at a later time. The
developer is showing the tree replacement for the residential lots. He is showing two significant trees
for each lot and that is part of our landscape requirement. He is also showing tree replacement along
Credit River Road, Fish Point Road, and along the commercial properties this is part of our buffer
requirement when Tots front either along a collector street or between residential areas and commercial
areas.
Questions of Comments from Commissioners:
Billington asked Larry this is one of the more daunting projects from the stirtcf`point of wetland
conservation that I have seen. I note that we are operating within the r•isions of the state wetland
conservation act. This could complicate this further from a state statute sect.
{tip P...
Engineer Poppler responded yes, that why it is so important to get;the final gr ging plans and the
report finalized so we can see what we have and what we nea.to Work
Billington asked do you have a timeline for this? ''
Engineer Poppler responded I don't have an answor forrt41 Ikjbw their wetlandsjS'pecialist is
revising the plan. You could ask the applicant that,
Howley asked did they give any indication'as.to how the Fish Poitjf %Road was to be phased in?
Engineer Poppler responded no we have n it; }e"v loQkked at that at` t1 igtit)4e. We were too busy
getting the plan finalized before we could workc'on the'- { :/
Roszak stated no questions
Perez asked Jeff can yo j clarify ti lfference bets even a P.U.D. Preliminary Plat and just a Preliminary
plat.
Planner Matzke responded yes,.thezp {Anned,Unit Development of Hickory Shores was originally
platted in 20(} : et
p � Uriit�:Q:�,velopm�tii;fhAroIs more additional benefit that is given to the city in
the lines of ; $dditional park lands;'ii" frastructure cosfs or other amenities. The city then works with the
develope to modify setbacks:,or buildjt ..,standards to better meet the developer's needs. This allows
for a better, development ftir (h comet nity a whole with the park land dedicated and other
amenitiesstQt can be set aslde.Eagle Qreek Estates is not a P.U.D. it is a regular development and is
evaluated ei lot a es, Each of the lots has to meet our standard zoning requirements.
The park dediotjon funds are typcal of regular subdivision, they are not above the requirements but
fully meet the arriountof funds and land set aside.
Howley stated I wouldjtgQis to not open the public hearing, being that I think there are way too many
y '•.v
comments that need to 13 �Yesolved. This is my opinion; I don't want to take comments from the public
on a plan that won't look'exactly the same when everything gets resolved I think the impacts of the
wetlands not being figured out the buffers, the lots layouts the streets and utilities could look different.
So I think we are premature to take public comment.
Perez asked Larry you are the one that has dealt with it the most you know what the issues are. Any
sense on whether it will look close or not.
Engineer Poppler responded well it could look the same it could look completely different. With the
storm water aspects of the project not full addressed.
L:\i I FILES111 PLANNING COMMISSION111 MINUTES\MN09262011.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2011
Perez stated we do have people here that did come to speak. I would suggest we open the public
hearing as long as the public knows the plan could possibly change somewhat as the applicant
addresses the Engineering Staff comments.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, and Roszak. Nays Howley, the motion carried.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:10
Applicant Ray Brandt stated as Commissioner Howley asked Fish,Ppinf;Road will go in with the first
phase. We will meet the Wetland Conservation Act. The wetland ,w# preliminarily located roughly 3
months ago we located that brought it in and we put it on the draWlg. Paul': andt met with a temp
panel out there and a couple of the wetlands went away. T ef one on the'elsferly southeast side of
the property. There is a long slender one that is a result of.; ounty 2lthat one can be dealt with •
There is another wetland a small one that came about. ( engineering concerns are b ?tween Mr.
Poppler and me. I feel that we can resolve them fair <e,asily and it will not alter the final ):gro of the
project too drastically. Maybe I would lose a lot here or tft ;_taut it W4ri:,,t change signific t1tly. I was
hoping you would approve it. I cannot get a grading permit' hill( i.rttieet all the requirements by staff. We
did hold a neighborhood meeting and had representatives from 9of the 87 homes within 500 feet of the
property. �
Billington asked what was the outcome of tficri ie:eting?
Applicant Ray Brant responded there were three guys_'atwere, hopg that Fish Point Road didn't
have to go through. They were,glad that we were` avir g a 35 foot sf rip of trees as a buffer. I didn't
really get anything very neg a meeting. -:
' � • i'ti :? ?tiff.
Joan Freak (5379 Brooks:Circle SE) }stated Mr. Brandt did hold a meeting on the 12 of September.
The neighborhood meeting w poorly attended probabjy due to the fact that the address of the
meeting was not posted on`the;Jettet ifi:W9 id. be nicejf maybe another meeting could be held. I know •
there are coneefns in,the neigtibprf oodWitt th 1n et(ands. Another concern was the trails system; I love
how he had cadded that; the. trails co' ect the park'to the neighborhood. One other thing that was
requestedas that with th existing p arkBrooksville Hill, that trail system that it be included and go to
Markley`ake and through th wooded neural areas.
Leroy Schohner (7505 169 Sfreet) stated my main concern is Markley Lake and the drainage. You
keep talking about water flowing to the east to Markley Lake. When Cardinal Ridge went in the
water flowed intoVarkley Lake and in '99 Scott County and Prior Lake and Credit River had a lawsuit
vWn
from three homeo?rs, Withtjhat I want you guys to take a good look at where the water is going.
A MOTION WAS MADE t Y BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY ROSZAK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley and Roszak.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:18
Commissioner questions and Comments
L:\11 FILES \l l PLANNING COMMISS10N\11 MINUTES\MN09262011.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2011
Billington stated this site presents many challenges especially in the aspect of wetland conservation.
It is an evolving site from what I can gather here I definitely think there needs to be more time spent on
the hydrology of the site. It becomes a question on how much time do we spend. I don't know if we
continue this to a feature date whether it would be enough time to solve these issues. In the principal
like the project, but like in so many of the projects the devil is in the details and he has some details in
the project and we are going to have to deal with them responsibly. I am willing to meet again on this
when we have gotten some additional information. It is critical to the community on how we treat our
land. I will be interested to hear my fellow commissioner comments.
Howley stated I think if this gets continued tonight and the plan comes baqpnrftti any substantial
changes we open the public hearing again. And if the plan comes bac .••�.r,,�ith no substantial changes
then we don't have a public hearing. I am going to support tabling th.e application until the details are
worked out; I think there is too much there to come to a reasonab a decision that this is the project and
this is what it will look like. That is where I will stand. ' 'r
Roszak stated I too can only support tabling this project. There are too many issues'::that need to be
addressed.
Perez I agree with staff that there are quite a few issues,:. i rte are. 1139r but there are bme that are
major and need to be addressed before this can move forviitih,l Wlth commissioner Billington
that in principal this is a good development, I am pleased withl**, : :t has progressed, but until we know
of everything on the site is being handled as: as hydrology. 1 Meelthat it is probably premature to
approve this As far as tabling this I guess 'v oI.os d this but I woukijpr9,babiy want to reopen it, well
actually everyone was noticed on this I am ngt'`tal tf..1g obout the neigihb¢tho'od meeting held by Mr.
Brandt and I know his number is out there and ` be;:f appy to take Ofic comment. I guess unless
this really changes I wouldn't open it back up,
A MOTION BY HOWLEY SEC:ONQ _a ROSZAK kgCOMMENDiNG TABLING THIS ITEM TO A
FEATURE PLANNING COMMISSIRN MEETING DVE UNCERTAIN
VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Bilf%,rton, Ho,Wjey and Roszak 5themotioned carried.
5. Old
yle-
6. N w Business:
A. NOW.,
7. Announcel7ents and Correspondence:
Planner Matzke atit:t¢Unced th:Of the Planning Commission will be having a meeting on October 10
Howley asked is thereprog'ress being made on the Candy Cove project?
Engineer Poppler responded I am meeting with the developer tomorrow morning.
MOTION TO ADJORN BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried.
8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant
L:111 FILES\I I PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTESVMN09262011.doc 9
4,at 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
44 NNBSo 'l
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: 4A
SUBJECT: CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND
ADDITION TO A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE R -1 (LOW
DENSITY) ZONING DISTRICT
SITE ADDRESS: 16204 LAKESIDE AVENUE SE
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PUBLIC HEARING: _ YES NO -N /A
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Matt Williams is requesting variances in order to allow for the remodeling of an existing garage and a
garage addition on a property located at 16204 Lakeside Avenue SE. The property is located along the
southern shores of Upper Prior Lake, west of Birch Avenue, and north of Colorado Street. The property
currently contains a single family home with a detached garage. The following variances are requested
with the proposed survey and building plan:
• A 14.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot minimum front yard setback. (Section
1102.505 (1))
• A 24 foot variance from the required maximum 24 foot driveway width at the front property
line. (Section 1107.205 (7))
• A 285 square foot variance from the required minimum 1,000 square foot maximum square
footage allowed for detached structures within Residential Use Districts (1102.700 (8b)).
BACKGROUND
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 currently contains a single family home with a
detached garage.
DISCUSSION
The site currently contains a 26' x 26' side- loading detached garage the lies 10.5 feet from the front
property line. The garage was constructed in 1976 following approval of a variance to allow a 10 foot
front yard setback. The applicant has provided exhibits from the 1976 garage variance file including the
City Staff report and Planning Commission minutes which are attached the this report.
The applicant proposes to relocate the existing garage door from the northeastern face to the
southeastern face of the garage thereby changing the current side - loading garage configuration to a
front loading configuration. In addition, the applicant proposes to add an upper and lower level addition
of a 609 square foot footprint to the existing garage for an additional 3 stall indoor parking area and
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cit}ofpriorlake.com
other storage areas. Also a parking area is proposed along the east side of the proposed 3 garage
stall.
The current driveway would be reconfigured allowing for a similar driveway width at the front property
line (48 feet) as the existing driveway (45 feet) only in a location further to the southwest along the front
property line. Many of the other driveways in the neighborhood have similar driveway widths which are
in excess of the 24 foot width maximum required by City Ordinance.
The applicant proposes to maintain the existing 10.5 foot front yard setback for the garage and add a
3` s tall addition that is proposed at 15.3 feet from the front property line. The required minimum front
yard setback in the R -1 Zoning District is 25 feet. The existing front yard setbacks of the 4 adjacent
Lakeshore properties along Lakeside Avenue are 23', 25.6', 26.9', and 26' feet respectively.
The proposed garage addition and driveway reconfiguration indicates a side yard structure setback of
12.1 feet and an impervious surface area of 29.9% which will both meet the current City Ordinance
requirements.
The applicant explains his reasoning for the project in his narrative which is attached to this report. The
applicant also includes photographs of his current garage and the neighboring garages in the area.
ANALYSIS
Variance Hardship Findings
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:
(1) 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.
The applicant could possibly relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to a 25 foot front yard
setback distance and place the lower level woodshop /storage area underneath the newly
proposed driveway. Therefore the applicant does have a reasonable alternative that is permitted
by the Zoning Ordinance that would allow for parking area in the garage and on a longer
driveway in front of the garage without the need for the requested variances.
(2) 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 "limit congestion in the public right -of -way" and
"Provide adequate off - street parking and loading areas." The approval of the variances as
requested would not allow for an adequate space in the driveway in front of the front - loading
garage door for a vehicle to be parked without extending into the right -of -way or actual street (in
the case of some longer truck or SUV vehicles). In addition, the 1976 variance request which
approved the original placement of the existing garage stated that the existing garage would
have a side - loading garage entrance.
(3) The granting of the Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property
involved.
The variances are not necessary to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant
could possibly relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to a 25 foot front yard setback
distance and place the lower level woodshop /storage area underneath the newly proposed
driveway.
(4) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from
actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner
and applicant.
A practical difficulty in this case could exist due to the natural topography of the lot because a
considerable slope exists from the rear of the existing garage to the house. However, although it
is possibly an inconvenience, the applicant could relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to
a 25 foot front yard setback distance.
(5) 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 greatly alter the existing character of the neighborhood.
The applicant proposes to maintain the existing front yard setback but does request and
expansion of the structure and a change in the orientation of the vehicular garage entrance from
the side of the garage to the front of the garage.
(6) 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 detached garage is allowed as an accessory use within the R -1 (Low Density Residential)
Zoning District.
(7) The granting of the Variance is necessary to alleviate an inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
The current proposal does not involve any proposed solar energy systems.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the applicant proposes to remodel an existing driveway and garage and construct a
garage addition to an existing detached garage. While the applicant does not propose to alter the
existing front yard setback of the existing garage, the request does involve changing the orientation of
the vehicular garage entrance from side - loading to front - loading. Although the applicant states in his
narrative that they do not plan to park vehicles in the short 10.5 foot front yard setback (15.5 foot
setback to street curb) the City cannot restrict the current property owner, nor any future property
owner, from parking vehicles in the driveway once it is constructed. From a public works perspective
this short driveway many also be difficult for street maintenance (such as snow plowing and street
sweeping) and emergency vehicles to navigate the roadway area without risking the possibility of
damaging a vehicle that may be parked in the driveway. In addition, the 1976 variance which permitted
the existing garage at the reduced setback states the intention to side -load the garage as it exists
today. Furthermore, City Staff believes the property owner could possibly relocate the existing garage
further into the property at a front yard setback of 25 feet without to need for any of the requested
variances. Therefore, the City Staff recommends denial of the requested variances.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant with the listed conditions, or approve any
variance 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 practical
difficulties under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED
This request requires the following motions:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 11 -08PC denying the following variances:
• A 14.5 foot variance from the required 25 foot minimum front yard setback. (Section
1102.505 (1))
• A 24 foot variance from the required maximum 24 foot driveway width at the front property
line. (Section 1107.205 (7))
• A 285 square foot variance from the required minimum 1,000 square foot maximum square
footage allowed for detached structures within Residential Use Districts (1102.700 (8b)).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. Property Survey dated Sept. 14, 2011
3.Building Plans
4. Applicant Narrative, Photographs, and Neighbor Petition
5. 1976 Variance Information
6. Resolution 11 -08PC
WILLIAMS GARAGE VARIANCE
LOCATION MAP
t t "rJ4
,{i 1
, -- - 4 . \• ` - .,
\\
,. t. . -
, ;;, �'\
r
.
ti
Il k * -__ -''' „ r
SUBJECT Ti
PROPERTY 1 , O
Q
4 f) „ 4' • L f . j ,
+
� fib '��
ty � .� r�-
n .
■
+ v -% : ! \, 9 , - - - � �
M
t L RADA _
( z �' ! '
4. �� I t
' 1
A
„3.,..,„:„ „,,,,,, ..: ‘,... tv .: ‘ ,.. 4 4 ,., - . ,: . , M.
,
, t
N LIP' a;.. +
t
0 135 270 '
540 ee
Ft �� � ... �__. _,
ff
t •;',, •. n k� E r , x T� + t ••- ? I , , '�
r d s
�r." ' [ • ' '' '. :,
' ' Ir ' 1 —.. ." : ;e. 1 '',' ("\
., tqf,)- \.%
ti' .....: ( r- 1 11 ' - i '
tea t \ 3; ;- l i: 7.
+ ti ,,...,
4
1 i .„ „.. ; ,. , ,,.
\ '
� 7 .
v
4
' . . ; '‘ ' ,, ''.'.\-, +'` . t
\\N
4
w 3
. , , , iki ,
\
� � i r
Y � : ° > ,§i i d
r
• ti + fi
C .
� FfT'� t. -5
In-
•
VARIANCE REQUEST BXNIBIT PREPARED FOR:
MA WILLIAMS . S urveyng Co., P.A. LAKES /DE AVENUE SE
PR /OR LAKE, 41N 55372 G' -Q ahwle (952) 447 -2570 • Suite 730
\ Land Surveyors roe (952) 447 -7571 16670 Fronk& ;roil S.C.
■ Moaners Prior Lake, Minnesota - 55372
LA SE , :s / C � — LA SE
n R Sot
p ; 0%9/ - \ pr. O 011",. \
, -;:. r" - l e , .
'';e % \ a ,5 5 'y e PROPOSED SITE DATA j if / ' ' } 0 4 �`
ix�clrur .rirr Ad r.4 t\ \ z : 'A e P••) II I \ . ' 607 fa ft
eH, n \ ;d r s W 4S:' C gy
....wan 'a :£3. n Izo t 3 ' ° °a'. LEGEN ` ti .. 1 \ ' 4 ' .. t o.. 3� - a" �" • ;.
Z/6.0.67/1122 j KEV -STOK WALL y < •
}�: 'P ``'(• 1 • • •I COIICRETE SURFACE 'w r y
.®m KCY- STOtIC WALL �' ,+» . t.'* S -" ` MOB 9A+FAEE (DECK) 1-..- .»" `•` S � ' ' `\ � / ' 1 � *" -
CFICREIE SURFACE ° .' — "
.. MVO -SURFACE rtV:, a t O \ _i PAVER SURFACE ° Ol ' - 7 '. .4' 1,
ry. " : � _ -_- ' 4 N \ _ _- ' -' I I u IOix SURFACE _ \ �. o � - -yP p . "� A _ ..
r�,:1: RAVER - A,PFAr.F . � .r' . f r / " RTU - ,;x o..» ..:: 'v ` - - 1„y -. � .
1� �� e P nrvinprs ,Opnrt \' ,/ .' ' • CEDAR - ` \ \ . of `S • \v 1 i $ rV ' et, -.• ' •
f f., OEOPP o ';., .o � PA / PINE ` " t �'t� •v • •
L \ �r'r `_" A.' ' r on¢ .;} , \ }ry Y s�r / I os r' hatu < A.np r � 6 ° t
7 ;PRIME . O."' /� 3 s', r' ASFt .1.
1, \ n -, �.
/ 7•4 ' Ker ,. , .'� 14 V %' .5 0 MAI Pat _ ••• 0 • r 1 � j i •
a .IGIIl POLE ./ -- `�% • POH£P POLE '�
A. SPOT ELE VPIIaI ,'� s '/ •
• POW, ROLE y .
» SRO` ELEVATIaY CIY t WEE TORE PEU05[0 �(L�1
• I #• y} , MPCPYWS SURFACE TO BE PE / •. ,L
f/ { S Y /
EXISTINC SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
LEGAL OESCRIPRON: - (Os provided)
Lot 29, Plot at LAKESIDE PARK. Scott County, Minnesota Ond that part of Lot 28 of
LAKESIDE PARK. lying Easterly of the Westerly 12.00 feel (as measured of right angles to
sold westerly line), together with that port of Lot 30. plot of LAKESIDE PARK, Scott
County. Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning of the most 5 t 1. O
So thence garner said Lot 30. Ib Northwesterly through 0 point to the shoreline [6 1!) [ 11 r�J [ .
of Prior Lot.; said point described as follows: Commencing at the most Southwesterly
corner 01 aoid Lot 30: thence Northerly along the Westerly line of sold Lot 30 0 distance 18... I� o1 150.50 (col: thence deflecting fo the right of on on91e of 70 degrees 26 minutes 30 5`EI 1 ) 1 (1 20 seconds (as measured North to East) o distance o1 15.00 t0 Me efOremenlioned point. L F„ I4 Owe cnn•!1M 05/05/„ 20 0 20
Ethlee w weeY Cerliry la e . eaeet
y Oe M One We me a et a n Ou` y rn
WALE a rA:1 NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 941.27 eYislinq upper garage slob as m dbecl own Hereon. �` _ -- to aaoyre e I O In y or
Om Stale Of Ninnnol
• 00005ES M00 WOMAItat 00280
0 011501 11 ImM 1 MEN S MIO
- -
P <^ S O° ^051 ^° °O• •,^ • ET ^ ' ^ O • Oobd 1Na -($_ 201101 -- 2055
f .
III mil
,
1 _ 11111_11_
.. .
S / A
• • - .
. , 1 • !
, i i i •• -- " -• --- --
( .. . .
,,, • . . , _ . .
.. ..
------ ------- ------
. . . .
\... , . . . .._.............
----, . .
. . . ._. . .
, -
• : 1
..._.
. .1 , , 1 ; : - 1 ; Lem
I. ; .,. ' I I I i i - , 11111111
, i ! i 1 • • •
I t • - t .-_ _____,.._. F=4 ' 7
1 . .
1 _
! ' 1 '
l 1
i .. . ■ IN
I
..„. . ! I , • • t ; ■ 1. I A'
,, 1 '--1 1
' ! .F. •-. ',. 1 t .
-;---
----1 .,
I j !
‘,.1
\ . :
„; : 1 n 1 i 1 ! i I
, ..,
/ /1
t • i 1 1 11 1
1 • • 6 --.
4 1 zt--: i 1 i I , 1 r 1
, ,
' 1 i 1
t
I .1' 1 - 111 . I
it' I --.—
( ' ' 1 I 7 1 1 :.
—/ I
I
\ $ ,
. ,
. ,
$,---- .111 it
, . . •
. t >
/ rf
1 ,f
i i''4
..'
' %■ .-
e ; 1 1 1 1 _., ___ -=.21
: I 1 1 t
/.' , 111 1
1 l ' al . . . . . ..
A 1 i i _._.....)
. ,
,
1 i ,„.; i '• ,1 1 V.----
( .7 --
., , , , , 1 i, .... •
---.. ................ .
1 1 CA- I ,. III • ...
‘,...- 1 • i - : 1 -
1"...., 1
. , 1
• , •
______...........____......
,........, • , : . " ,
, .
, , , : • , _
.... :„„ .
n i
i • .
1 1 : 1 : y
1.•
i______ _----••
.........._.._
_. ......
I , • 1 , 0 „.•
4.., • , . ..._ ...__....
\ i li.!1 imi,
,.___..„
--..
i iir
; o ___ ..__••__--- -
__...., , .,,, I . , • ,
H
,••
< \ k, i, . i • ________ ___
I • ____...
\....; , •,,,, ,. o • .
\ A, . . • _.
i •
___ ....._
.
i . it
'
11 Il
,...._. i
t ---
. i
i
.
---•••. [
,. rill
ir, q : ,. .. , : , :.7 . C) 1: dri 1,u I 9
.... . - - ,...
,...
. ,:.
. fi.
7; ',,‘,
g 1 i 1 3
, s7
1 1 I
' ■
•
1 1. - ......
'..17
!--- ,
r , • b
. i
1 1 4 I
a_ 1
c i.......
, 1 i ----v? i
I - , _....., .
-.,..
r
. • D.....- 1 t)\.
1 1
--_
......" -- 7c.7 i 1 ... . . ,
(41 V c
A ... I L p
••: - I , --T.::-. .. • •
1 • ;
i (....). ...... I 0 :: 1 • ,
..; • - i t .
..."" ; s•
tt') • i cp t ; • i
.;-..-. .
I
" L
11,11111111111 • •
,
. ■
• I ;
I F T-1
!
I. . .
I I I
I IL- I 4
. .
. .
. '..k
. .
lIcp -a 1 co -o , 1
N.,---
_
.t
,1
1 I 1t
l I
1 I i I V I
91 c
I 1 I
1 I 6 i Nr &be, it '
0
1
I 1 1 be
11 -st-plo.W,3IL
i-0 1 1
I
. . i . 1 --) , • Glos. . 7 .
. .
s: -----4 C../y..:(S (...lraf v !!
1 -
_..t.). 1
A 1 7to
0 . l in r I I ` 6
T o it ,,,, z4 - 1
,
1 o
-1- 4-1 1
• __',L
e,vrtc,\\Lat(V60e ,-: 1))'stzo
I 7
‘ \
0 _ .
Ot 1
i . I -t - -••• .,.: It--
• -0 / - 0
1 1 tO -o 1
A -
1 _
1 - 0 .
_.-)
vi , i i I I
1 ' N f ia : 1 AvA' ec .. ) a I. I
1 I
tin f j 1 I li .
i tI) f V- ,
r ■'11 (;1:1) t ;; AIII olil L_IV'ef Lbve.;,-
,11
C --- - -4
e...)1.-.A . : (:):,, :7'...s-r-I
I
i
\ _I —
It t J
i —1 LI
} 'A
1 1 1 i
x •
1
-4- —
i CP
qt,_ I
1 ■
•
9 —
i 9
„ :
1 ti , 1 1
i -.--- L- - -
1 .
1 I t-
l
* N -- C 1 i
i bDic.i t
0 .. u nc,rcc,avoto cc
cii 0
... — • c.
1
'.■ )
)
? airi(..4 , A,,Th Oc_,,A N A 't - 0 \ Lem
. .
.,.._.. .--”'
6 ,
f t, 1 4 c t / * - " r HI ' Avv ''6' \\46.0
.. ,i__ w Fvo\-t ox- 1 .1.1a,,
. 5tel:rei wa R. ....___
\IVLAW •• .-- ;
— — —
V:4"0 , ZYst'Srvske '‘ A ft. 'f..." .F.-11..k.V14 SYak
---
M
----- -....
N-..,
f'/.4‘oo Lf•Jhil- --...,_
e ''---• i7
..„.
-,,
EL
Mil
i I I
-.. 1 i•
• _
1 1 I
, : 1 1 ■ f
z. 2
4ci I n r),013+
' .....-
q
ki.
\
\
\
,
,,,
\ \I\
,.. -------
Request for Variance
it is our desire to remodel our detached garage at 16204 Lakeside Avenue SE, Prior Lake. We currently
have a two car side entry garage that has provided less than desirable access and parking for most of the
years of its existence. We have had two cars that were parked in the driveway next to the street
totaled, by vehicles coming too fast down Lakeside and losing control of their vehicle. We have
ourselves, taken off many side mirrors, dented many rear fenders on fence, and even backed into
parked cars along street when backing out of our current garage. The maneuvering necessary to get in
and out of the garage has proven too difficult, especially when other cars are parked in the driveway and
we usually have two cars parked there. These parked vehicles create a blind spot from vehicles coming
from the West and thus a safety hazard that we would like to remove.
Our desire is to convert the existing garage to a direct entry from the street and add a third car stall with
parking along side it for the fourth car. As part of this project we intend to also do the following
enhancements to our property:
1. Add a Craft Room (16' x 38') to the lakeside of the garage with storage underneath,
2. Redo driveway and retaining wall. The deadmen supporting the wall have become rotten thus
creating cavities for the driveway to sink into and allowing the wall to fall away from the garage
structure. It is our desire to replace the wall with a type of concrete landscape block that should
have a longer life expectancy.
3. Re -route stairs that take us down to the house to have them originate from new driveway.
This project does not require changing the set back from the street from the current position which was
approved in a variance dated 9/2/1976. Please see attached copy of that original Variance,
corresponding minutes and resulting building permit.
We have looked at a variety of configurations and this one being presented best fits our needs and is the
most practical. Considerations taken into account and reasons for this variance application are:
1. Change to a direct entry onto the street where we won't have parked cars in driveway to have
to negotiate around, where we won't have more property damage (vehicle and garage) due to
negotiating a side entry approach. Beyond property damage, our biggest concern is our safety
and the safety of those coming down Lakeside Avenue when we are pulling out of our driveway.
2. Existing insulated and heated 26' x 26' Wood Shop located underneath existing garage would
remain intact. The shop has extensive wall and ceiling electrical, lighting and dust collection
systems already in place. Moving of the wall closest to the street any distance, will require
demolition of current structure and starting over.
3. Desire to have a third car tucked away in a garage for protection and appearance reasons. I
believe we are the only folks on our side of Lakeside Avenue that have cars parked outside of
their garages.
4. Needed onsite storage. We are trying to avoid renting offsite storage.
5. Need to replace both driveway and retaining wall due to age of both.
6. Desire to make a more obvious access point to our house which is down the hill towards the
lake.
7. Retaining the existing structure is not only a practical approach but sayes us considerable
expense. Moving of the wall closest to the street any distant 1 �vfll � g i�ire'ddliiolttro.�� l 'pf
current structure and starting over.
1 141,
E _..
8. Moving the garage to meet the required setback rules would require us to remove
more trees and we really don't want to do that many reasons. And it would put the new
structure into the steeper part of the hill thus increasing the cost.
Amongst the enclosed documents you will find photographs that illustrate our current driveway - garage
arrangement, our proposed driveway arrangement, a view of current wall falling away from driveway
and garage, the driveways /garages of the four neighbors immediately to the East of us and the
driveways /garages of the four neighbors immediately to the West of us (on the lake side of the street).
As you can see all but one are direct entry and a few of them are near the same distance from the street
as our current garage structure. Two are at 20' from street and we are 16' from the street.
A survey from Valley Survey with the proposed structure has also been provided as well as a blue print
of the proposed project with elevation views. The last document enclosed is the approval signatures of
our immediate neighbors.
We welcome you to stop by the property anytime to get a firsthand look. Thank you for considering our
request for variance.
Matt & Susie Williams
1
f� Q
t
���c
- . �"� off'. -r .
c! �
1
Z
a : ?
.
d� 1,
a
= + ..
4 - w�.•
Current situatio viewed fm ro the West showing the parked
-..
n
vehicles that block the view of vehicles approaching from West. Proposed view of direct entry approach with one of our cars. j -__
Wi t-
"
l
y,
y
1
x- - ,ftf ste' .'ui:a: ^s ..
s
�hp
•
4 A
a
,. 4
Otis• it 1.....1 :tot -1 •'
• x '
14. or., .. ' ...mim, .11i*** E
M.
5 Littitio
46., A ilk . . ,,,,..,_
at.
_ .,. a "^'" -- � • �� --� '"-K;
~ • , . �'. , as �j � ` "'=
• Timber retaining wall falling away from garage. Current situation viewed from the East showing required
maneuvering to get into garage.
A' .� tZ -,
`� � x a .s''' � , ..i _ 't 1Y l .A ,�,
'' . 1 41
cu
1 u 1 +'
i Milli (I I( �S" i" ' Ti l l , t j 14l t„ �N 1.
/
e 1 p r i J ii '0 r �
iI
�`
D
Ae i }' t4' elf, lei,'/
�`i
' a :` i , i�
• 4 i A �- Vii, ,T ?f'
i '
if , .' r , �
r . Yx
•
CO
i c
1
i +. r, o 1
' a + I� pn�n 1_
v f m / ., vi
'''''s:4\,„,„., ii " _ , , i 1
co
,.. .:,:i... ii ., - , rt i i , ' , '-, , . -', ' ' . / "Cs [ + ;II
5 � N i
Y
. I it il,i : r „,,,,,,,,,,,,,, a ,, .
� �Islr
,_i
,..
iii,„,,
i
; ” I��► { i� I�1 p e
t II �. , , , . t w. "- * � ( d( I ii 1, • 1 ‘. ,,, ,„,,,
\ 141 tis 1 ' 1 1 l',A1 ., ,:`'11 1 ,..
[1 1 1111111 .- ., ' A. ,,' 1 � { I v.: 4.1'fiii ritk,-,7"t) tit ° ; ,, '4 g ii,.. - -,:,`,
t
,(
" L. 41 I' : 1 , j , � ti X : ti1 1 " 4
' v L j
i y } } t-1 : } ? ` s : s .t µ v �` b44 ,f , r r 7u-. ,it x`b y�'''' - ✓' s'` ' 4 }
µ7 : fir
-1 4
1
T
y
. — . f� u
s w
„ter, .
a ,
i . P te , ; : ',; ' - M5
l s
16244 No Garage 16220 (immediately to the West) 31' from street
S �
1,4'.."',:x•-•!:4 ." ,. r P
te r.:.
"-..
''4'!
f t d .- _
4
w
•
„ - •, ..,w : -
.._:_,. --1--- --
ems.... wi
a,,
� :- a 16236 33' from street 16252 27' from street
•
..... , t ,.",,...,., Ar .. ,,,-.7 -.4.,!.. ;Ii '3 71 : ' ' ' ... . ,, ,• I% 'ti -' - ••• 4 . ,' \' • '. '''
• ,` ''. . ;•.,- Y''''''','..-. l'', ` : l ' s/ .--; 1,17 te4 , , • 4 -.‘; f ,„,- ..... . • . .
i;,: .*:-, - s ' ■,.' ` . t . s'" ,„...,..V.I '' ' ' ', .. ' ' • " ... • ' . ! ii , ., ' ' • i's .. `a '.
ei., 4■4 ;'441i"i''.'.! , '':' ,'
4
.--,... ,4.. •,.N
0. I •I . .'44, . - i'_ . ‘•• i'- ' ' r -4 -'• . ,-:' '' .'....s. • '... ... . '',# ' '1,4•41,. c., •
N.:,....i.,•...s ,, -...:, 4-.....,,.. -'1' .., ..ti .-- .... • . . .•., .'-: .. ..:.. , ,. , - •
• ,
•
—..6.-. -..... ,.. • ::. • • -.
, .
. _, ......„, —
-......40 . . t ,.
,...,_
- ,1,..'
- - -
Ve. ' .iL„ ' . • ' ! .
.., ,
• oil • ... .
%
,--, — - • _ i .. , ,
. : . . ,.......
- 17,•,. - •
, w ir s• ' - 3. . •
___ )... 1 i ,„,_._ ix i ii2 . a ....._. .
;,,..- i .. ., , _,,-.;7". ;Z.' • '
le ' • A
, Ali • Tv • •,• . . • •
. I / k `,..— . ' , litt: ' ' ' m. I th , I • .,,,It 4, '
• .. _
. ' ,,,,,, qk , ...m ',.. t 7",.r $ . 10s '•• • .. i':"
• _ 1 --; 4 -: - -- - ---- *--„.„' * -
t „
N. •
16158 20' from street
City of Prior Lake
Planning Committee
Dear Planning Committee,
In regards to the Variance that Matt & Susie Williams are applying for so they can remodel their garage
and change it to a direct entry from Lakeside Avenue, I have looked at their plans and I approve of them
and I support their reasoning for the project.
Name Address
Paw 4-kg rvui,N I(PZ 2 O LA keSIVe Av St 1,17) DL' tab .
OL( ce,v4 ?/2' Co10e thLr
164-e)? )? J /G 8 I/ J l4 V / ae /9" 4 Ia__
) 14o-F61,6,---1 /( / r. �lo -Crde f= '�v �c /k 1
j , .
i 1 A.c. -c G L 1 / 3 L i CO 1 ( a do . V Pe) u �) k l')')N
,� J ' W I 6 y y iJ- e s i�I � e � fd ' (- • 44Aj tii)
c,!
t .
ott .l r 2[111 1 1 1 0
( i
r '
vw 9t. ff-di'M I
u „.... . } ,fi V.,
, •-- ....' --L'I Wk'It'Z'iNe.;. A -.4...-P-I "Pa,11.-=.4-z-ii.,t0.-71n.-.
_
: j
t4 iv:f
t4P ..- fig
Agy
• • 's 1 CITY OF
(tire ‘.
•
.(:.:i 11W
.,.,
PRIOR LAKE MINNESOTA 55372
N.71-
1 4 /
9 Ay 9
il9 9'
9, Ts?
illf ' .-;;;Asv-tw.,,te,' VARIANCE - Ilarney.Dolb_y
ff4M
September 2, 1976
•icst,,
;'`
lgl
ft;
k
SUBJECT:
To consider a variance request for Lots 28 and 30 Lakeside Park.
..Dil
The parcel and adjacent ncighbornood is zoned R-1. The applicant
,-T is proposing to construct a garage 5 feet from the front property line _
glii
at 6�4 Lakeside Avenue S.E.
If
. ,
STAPP ANALYSIS:
1
•,.N. ,:-:, : -:,.,....,-,..,.... ,.,.
- , ....; . .... . •
• ‘. - The subject parcel is a Inkeshore lot with an existing year round
PM Np home. The two adjacent iot:i have cabins on them_with no garages.
The smbjec* parcel drops off st%eply approximately S0 foot frod the
4 .
road, with this topography being common to most of the lots in Lake-
side Park Subdivision. There has only been one garage built in the
Fa
subdivision which sits approximately 10 feet from the road.
4.
;OW
;
k
04
The proposal is for a 30 foot by 30 foot garage to be placed 5 feet
V.I
from the front property lino requiring a 20 foot variance. As of ..
&
IA :.=
now Lakeside Avenue S.E. is a 25 foot private road and should the
City ever acquire- this road it would require a 50 foot right
P
0 In this case the garage would be-facing the adjacent property to the
Wg
V. east therefore cars would not protrude into any right-of-way. It would
be beneficial for the applicant to build as close to the road as
6
Id possible from an economic point of view.
,..
-.-0
STAPP RECOMENDATION:
iv
14 Deny the request as applied for but recommend a 10 foot setback from 1 .
2-„
ia
the road.
LL . .
' 4
03
P--
ill
FS
t ( ,, , 9 , - , .1:::- , .: ,' - •
. . • , . ,.,,: ...,,, j,:., , ipt r .9 9. k.94 , 9 1
. .
i. , •
1
I
.„,
,
evp i /011 yl .
THE CENTER OF LARE COUNTRY D
— _
rig .-grpfQ 1.4...,6'0Vits;;WW—I'f:V;;A>:9),' :', .• .. - t '1 1. :" • . 2 A" ".:1------. '''' - . - .
:'' . - , . . r.dt . 9:, `-:`,- . _10,.._ A ■ • 3 Nr., 31 . 4.3,
,4Y .i. s 37 +7i tU ( t, r0, Y 3 ,k 1 t 4,� ;r, , ••: '� f 4t r. ? . r , - ! } .
i s [ v
y ' , s tf/ . t t - , EE #} ?{fi ' 1 a; {` ' Sf : J' a _ fs , .. € r. 1 _ _ S �F f. .�
, :-1-'•';;;:::..:‘,-.".-.'"i;41:?: , r
�J L i F O i 1 S . ' l s)
t x ` ?•y, 1 e . � S :4 tt i - + � ... ,. + - 1:0?t ..-$:• si t r . _ i.
kf ,.-.✓ } 1 1 J .i ii . ;
fc, s t . s t r t' r , r„ 1 + s h ••r.t h l' ; 1 t , r t ... , r y } •
_ i. ) ,
fi t y4 i;
,A r ikiay { , CITY OF F -
i�' fe r
�Yt: z• X413 PRIOR LAK MINNESOTA 65372
1.w. _ * : '� f '� ? fir u,
t +yi 1 1 A
V11 A : y ))
f p 3 '4 ) k f ' fL . . r
t; . e _ PRIOR LAKE PLANNING ADVISOR' CO4'11SSION MINUTES �
,A�; g } .
.• 1 �.
.. September 2, 1976 ,
i s '
,
i
1 } � 0i4,4 Tho September 2, 1976 Planning Advisory Commission meoti,tg was 1 t
�<, s ; tr°' Li :. 1 : , ,oponed •at 7: 35; P,M.. by { , Chairman Thorkelson, Member r
s- e sent e , <:}4j r1 #Y''
e ta i t , , - `„ :.Coiomissioncrs Klein,; Houts, Weninger, COOtneilmun; :EU Ad 4 , {� ,,g ' ;y .:.•,
f `,, 'i }}.. 3 S { 1i y s. 4 �+y ri . �} Eta:, z. r i v 3 u
,, P) N �• i � : li t - $Ti. .,,41s . s4. S.. '4D . ,,, ar #S. . • sr - k.t ! .. 3 R f : { . '.: t : , : . x' -r E . 0 s . .s -e
i 7` Tt1"•''' . R•i Stt'i Ytif;�{fsrtiA4". (: ;aI::;i'E• - 'r �,},_.,;:.....' >;., i .. • }; Ii ? -,• - - ": .. t r r- e..'.',i•- i'f -4.11 t •
t. ` The minutes of the August 19, 1976 Planning Commission meeting were
A ` • +i : :a 4 :.. A t.a mended to, read: page 2 second paragraph,-„,way way s o ldtibe w
as B ;,..`• -•... �i , `•,,., >, ' •
, { ' :.,:!. :-•;".•.-- .minutes we e motioned :
r;£ or approval as antell , .k .Y-�;at ` 0,;,•,Tc ;, ,,
WIC ":�`�,rt`'1"''rr•?t" ., i Klein 'and-upoma vote were approved aS .:amondeit- .. {: = ;` +- t''. 'j
`�
W; September 30 at 7 :30 P.M. was the date set for the Planning Comm• ;,;:;
' 1 0 fission workshop to discuss the by - laws for the Planning Commission,
T (i - 't R.
.e ~
r3 ' ; �� Motion was made by Klein and seconded by Houts to recess the Planning , , <�
VIA Commission meeting and open the Public Hearing for Len Grassini sub- t
M il �� - di vision . Graser gave a brief presenbation of Mr. Grassini's sub -
Mil ddivision on • plans. Don Williams asked if sewer and water wore availahie ,-%;.,:f.::,
;,
;`
� ; t o these lots. Mr. Grassini replied yes, stubs were put in when sower ti
' r
,,,� and water went through the area. There was some discussion on lots to
ter the rear of being subdivided. Motion was made by Houts to approve , ;
41,f the preliminary plan, seconded by !loin an upon a vote taken, motion
{t wa s duly passed. The hardshell procedure was then explained to Mr. r
1 =� ' Grassini. The 13th of September was set for the date Mr. Grassini
{ is to go before the Council for approval of t preliminary plan. ; .. • 10 , .. .
' - Conunissioner Klein moved to adjourn the public hearing and reopen the i
f,•t • • Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Woningor and upon a vote taken, ,�
Yr
t :,-. motion was duly passed.
,�tr After some discussion motion was made to recess the meeting`by Houts
. - to open the public hearing for Ron Edwards subd•ivision,.seconded by L
> .411'::- : Klein and upon a vote taken, motion was duly passed. Graser gave a .-4.' , {= i ;
N brief description of the two lots involved noting that `the area:was ,t :_�' ;'
r►� .a� f ti
.11 , t € z, ''} :i; a(= sever and: there are no drainage problems The: exist>in `houso the ° '1 i
• ( ; - t# t1'" ' ,140141 itlier . lot.1i. i the divi'sioi►z lin6 and +�;a1 o� , f ed i sJ $251 f:-
F �� " Sip i[) �S) jy� 4 J RYl1 �41 , y et. - s,40. 'feet from S # { � _ 4 1 i S 1 � . r :E a ��i �5���. �4 E1� • t' } t kF
, - b � A I ' e � ' i o ttreesl riot' park not:.LAort set, 1 ((t a x. P 1i ;
l4'+ ('f7 f1 +. � �. V�7,� l S + J j43 t: ■.�{ � � � t 2 Z#��� tt � { - �H� iS _ �i
d - f 7 _ � f az plan U -,Weningek secgnded`P� g Hout #d s�,,u ttA.
X 't s. 4 €l4 , f ifinok NiAia`t, : 'The p ieXimindiy, 06.0 ,a
'wl jl l uca,o 4 1+6 t � _ p� �p ` - 1 -
, S'`' ' t`'t r,, #s ,) -' x`�4i approval on. :Se t•ember 13,1;1976. .M6tioi1todjourn,the:ptlt iiiti; a - _ r
L � Iti lira . ,tot l +{ ;•by by Weninger and upon =n ? vdto - taken ,,- I4OfiOn4tiaisidi�ly pd � s ,( s e � :1 +r, 4 Sr • £ ,•
&;a r 9 c °r4 -,,t•:. :1• #:: -'E ; ° ' . :' F .,i r :! : { it,...r i st i fi e f._i'71. -V. t i
, : t f ` :..•t : . +`: }A3 i S; • Ar 7 .,
, ` Because of excess time, Mr. John Bjorktand: was ahlowed_to prosont his ii: } ;;
� - plans for a house to be built that would require a variance. Motion
ttr3
1'-I0. 1 was made by Weninger to deny the variance request because there is no
t.
,. '.. p hardshi involved, the lot was not unique, there is sufficiont room to :4:•.
t
r� � � -• l build o modern home without a variance and the trees are not a financial •
' hardship, seconded by Houts and upon a vote taken motion was duly passed.
THE CENTER OF LAKE COUNTRY
{ 4 5 :4413`` )jj , ' - 2� .:,. . ,��
N. 11 l \'
. ,.. s 3 :•. �y : • , i '4;1: � t 1.• ..• = S -‘':i. Y M ` t r •', •, .; . r .,. • ._ - +. , \ � • } +. ., - l.a� }YIA- 4i . yy . _L�:c �... tifi,.,J..Y
•
2 s , {:.� a r r : lX ' a �� ° t a'uj,i i4 `t`�Y' Y l2'� i s< s , 4 ' ` - . r t t '' . ~,x: , �'A` ^ is' 's �. x ..V 1r 1 ((,,.. y.r, a '.
b k `,r tt ♦ - t : . r s •
AW ti ;
m , l
A Next item on the agenda was Mrs. Lnnghorst subdivision discussion. '_`
} i :. After some discussion, Mrs. Langhorst was told that she must get t
.' t, easements from the State Highway Department and that she must have the F ;4• '
lines drawn on her map stating where the subdivision lines are.
' Q Y The cost of the Park dedication must be worked out with staff.
t
1.34.,414s Next item on the agenda was Mr. Milt Swanson requesting n S foot
i 1,,,
variance for constr.r of a garage, Motion was made by Bouts
We to deny the variance as requested because n S foot. utb ek ; would, bo_. •; r - !t <� > t > :;;
- t V ► F :A s, : °doti�imental to snow plowing and other c f.ty_'inuintorianc'S oi^k, rScco '- "`i'" r' i rl • 1 a - - £ :b W r , i! t on a 7 vote.. t� en o • "s y � {� ;_.,, hd�a �. , �.-'
, , 4 " ,y ip ,,i v,.. r4 t 1- ' {l • :- {,Kt nt i 4 n :f :.1 .;•.E1,? e.. .4 y r• ' . : , 4• 4. ,.f le'
ii Y ' ,• o;'r -. i t t , � . t j ' � s � ♦
t'} 4; jt{71 � [1 , s p; is j g 4 - : 111 9. ?, t 2 3 l i � • f i : . e IV i l' : i' re it 'ii i `r�4t.si. ;i -: [' + ' . •� � ti � t , . p
r �„!e {•!rf?. i ) - > 4 l 1 t�'i S`t z_ { "t' 'NO' ` i}} } A }! . l �S.
3'b ,l x 1 t '1 Noxt• on the A onda if Mr'r;r 1 , . e s`i _ r F.,, ;�
�, r" � r a 4 s:,; r s t 3., r � } : 7 y �, n¢lli QQ�B,S� ,lt�:� { �06�� � 1 �1, t y i . � 5
t { �� � :�� r: ` t r. � ' g tut n e is 1 .
L 413_ � , € - �l �'� }q = s : � � _�� i.l� })(31 ti�r i•���7 ti �0��� i�Wa3{ ddo�tiy F - t � ��: { . �� § � � .
L h s l { p.J � � ( • A -> i �f 8�V' � t i'4 s s ° r g3Ei� i a b t y r sa . { ,� } t �.
L � � t . s i
c , ; sk i 5 f •C a d i , , s •. 1..s..- , « 1. r a _ v e G .3 + I h Eg t -fx 1
c s �r ▪ f f tts l OCOndC y" On ngC s t l b rs iS
rf £l s -t tt'ir a k o�► motion duly ed. Weninger tanned. {- :,
` my pass coin er abs
7
r i : k vi ' by Klein to adjourn t! .: r noting, seconded by Weninger and
r w .:,?::::,,,,.:.-1--. , :-:::_;,:-:-:.:-Ii,:,3,,:._,..,,:.,,....
•
t i ,. upon a vote taken, meeting t:.• t ;;dj at 10:10 P .M ' •
+r
..., .. .. ,‘: '.1..:
t' .
k i 4
i S t J f
r o i { ' d
T y L S )Sir r 4� r
J iy r •
F O _ t i { ' t s S e . t.( r t k ,{1 ?.tr ' 'G �` •
3 - 5 1 ` t4 i f { { F F C� }• t it' f -
xr 4'r 4r t ' �isS P } j� 'Ca �� i Ss i •�•r:
nr ! > e ., . a y. -4 } r 7 u -7 is t 54 t
4Y• s .. } 1 ' Y {t�qy`'t} S t S i ; l
�' 1- j s i r S o O. :itrY v � Y 1 •
3 it i 'Sftn rrj ,'.l = { Sa t } i Y J4 .
�. ._ ii. t r . Zsrt ":.k4.-;:.'-':-:.:''.:' � ( - J cirr�G }��' t
,} t ?t :; :;s J t to
ca l S
V: f i s � - : •�� tf> t.
( S r : ..: < c .i , �i
i :
}
c y .t- .f
�yF :J f� :.
OWN C, r r - fK •
d y ,
�• . • }' �r - \ / , i 4 64t f !
y,�'ti+i" ,-.i
ir 3 r (, i �'iF , t}fi`1
p .
. ,- —,: cc 1,,;. ,..t,,.4 q .„.,...e..• .....v.,,:t1 ,..?%:,,.. 0..„ .....„,...,„,.* .., . 4... J 4 4 ,,
.10351CP1”.14;;Ift;11"'•2104414(0--% ' iirl'iNit; 'eS",git-::1A.44.W.Ii 1 : - " , i .. . , / ik ' , t . .A , .... kg:4,W %..., +S! , y , . t- i,t . .... d .:..,, , L....,i 'NV flipi .-,:-..- 4 V,,,
'i4'.4 ."."451:4:''VPAIR;f4,..0,$.#0..A1M.10,,W„fp.,:?...,;!-,i;44.f.i1,44,4$4.1•41,' ,,i414:1,,W,..65U). i.:4-4A61,15,11-34i'dat-kftkA.Ptwitoalke,V-rMt 04.,
0., ..;,13,3,?4,,i„„:tv.,,,...,J....,2,..„.,:,„...0,,,,..4,;:air.,,,,,„;;,,i..„-„,14,...-;..:tiev.-.413.0.,04,-ozi ..,,pizlri ,J •%..t 4.4. ..,,, -. K. ,, , , ..w.:,-;!_::::—....-.A,..„.-ps, 4,, ,---.,., - 1• .A., .:,-.......
P.417
\if') 7(o f (i
Ai•P .1CA1 It'.1; i-"O;•. V;:s ':.: :•''. . :•., :.s.'., ' ',;(4;ING oiti,s;:ia.;;F,
'
1 -14 ..
.p t p) i ?•an Or A.•11t :Bac -r), . 1,..)0 1 6 ‘,
km
. _ . , _ . .._.._____ _ _ _ • ••••...._______ ________
„„.. ,•:•1 esu of Appi i can t , _I 20.4 .Lo. <.e.ici .e. . A v 4 . .. .9.E __ .7.Pr .1 _o.c.._ La Ic e _____.
-41)
I.,..... •.,id 141:1fibe of /t' ii.ni J . 3. c line
r 1:.e4 $
ir'i °nI:Nr.÷_... a . L{.* . : ie)....a rid . . 30..
1 01
If re La i Size of InTrove::....tot-n 1i-44 Eyintitsg _Res_i.d.c. ..._
.A 4
.,,sm ,... :• )i,1; elannification_ ... 4 . ' 1 .
• - — . _ ...._. ___________.
fgtA.-
pt. ion of thi: V.tri;.ttt:t• i : ed rod..„.c,c,c2.4- i 0 y) . oc_.....p.r_optased____a_e_mwr...,
pr.op.c.,r1.y. .... .1.ct
kOk _L r_o_ad A..1/4.1.c1/4_y_ • .. ___ - . _ _ _ •• - - -------- ----;--------------- ----
_ „.......,,,
ofkci.v. amon 9 34 hy Va l i II he e i :i !le • i hr, ;i - ....i , ror : I .12) u. e . ,,. t o:. - - Ls ttep F _ci
40 , rtAl tilteri 0 4 .... - 0...-?:1....yf -,,,•: , -,, •• _
ar_.).___..n I .y___ _
. ., .
be._. _e..
e_...-Cta... o_as. 1._ b I e... .... 4c ........_ Lak eide_ e
, - -,-,,,,.„,._ , , .:, : ,...:. , : ...•....,...,.. ,. . -: . .-- -
I II; ,.....,,,..., ,,,,, _:;. - • • . • . _
f0, . ._ .... ........._ ....... ...__________ .. ........_. _. .._ .____ ....... _ ... _ . .__
,4441 - : pi tie (5) etpi es of a .%lat plan, ::l.owing the ',cleat St tit or h 11 4...): 1 ;sting and propoLed ntrne tut
- 'stubi be fi fed wi 1.h thin ;p;) feu Lion.
et
-
tp4.1 - A. ,,,.,),:te 13.0 roth-min, ._
p
Wis.
er, , . I. t• rh 1 on PO: iolli-lit. or 1..i.o oi-1 i milloo would penult i undue harrlahip with respect to my
rty
r '
A vi,...
• ..:, . .•,.. ): • ,••:: -.,, i 1 , rc-,..1 1 of ;.• 1 ,........:•:.,,,....8 unique to tuy prt
A
0 . S‘lat
IA
ow 4- . „,. 1. .eii• ), . p i n cni.tns by •euvi 13 i ona of the ord nance and i s not the resul t of a e Lios '
;14
pet:stmt having an intereet in uty parcel.
i s
,..,..,
„Al
„IA P T..e --. 1. - -um° uhserven the :spirit anti intent. or (iris Ormit :nee and prouee eubstantia:
1
Sli,:f
u.i.i. e, and is not. eittitrary to tht.• public int.t.rest.
4 . :..
er cc,i' Oi-- is : : . , • . .; ,r.o,r,:,,„ .„
4 - ,)t ,, ,:‘,14/.! !_lrep,,,q.41,44..1.)...t. ,if..,. : A . . , . ,•: - J . :itt • I . A
.1 e i;', •- ...,741majh e jki,1 I ,
q 2A, ' l'A 10 OtAI;Mohlkii. 1 :
... . 4r.1,4t#Y,tfeRiftli ' '. ''
kt : kR 4,T,Ythili ' ;- : .. t A''' ' ).P.0 r '...: . . 1 .' -" 1::' . 1 • 1 1 .. ' _Si Erlh Weak 044 .ip / ;.!).
,
fy tha t . was r eceived Lid 8 .e.t.2. •day o _. 't...s.- 19
t e:A
...._...,.-- , ... . _
14. .....':,:•)..:1 I.; it:•at..ion Pee.
.
1feet: 4 VC•ti by ..-.,.. ,..„..e.....,1,..,....:-:.......
. _
. „ .
This siv,(;13 TO ISE Pt 1,1.;u t N ,SY P1.41•1141 NO GOMIS:3:10N
it -'•
h • :
fit•• Variance Crantt.t)
A il Denied
• I I :. ' . . .... . -. .. . . . .. . .
PA
)01? •
0 • i .. i...
d
k .ti :,-.,•••• :" 1 ,• . :,t; : ..Niii n r, i tin_
'-(t1 -•• - - ‘......
-.•-•-•-•+•-----.-..-■-•---.-•••••••■•••-
tf
VI
•
t,
i
i),,
� PRIp
u ` ' 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 11 -08PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR A REMODEL AND BUILDING ADDITION
FOR A DETACHED GARAGE ON A PROPERTY WITHIN THE R -1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Matt Williams is requesting variances to allow a remodel and building addition for a detached
garage within the R -1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District at the following location, to wit;
16204 Lakeside Avenue, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Lot 29, plat of Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota and that part of Lot 28, plat of Lakeside
Park lying Easterly of the Westerly 12.00 feet (as measured at right angles said Westerly line)
together with that part of Lot 30, plat of Lakeside Park, Scott County, Minnesota lying Westerly
of the following described line: Beginning at the most Southeasterly corner of said Lot 30,
thence Northwesterly through a point to the shore line of Prior Lake; said point described as
follows: Commencing at the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 30, thence Northerly along
the Westerly line of said Lot 30, a distance of 150.50 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an
angle of 70 degrees, 26 minutes, 30 seconds (as measured North to East) a distance of 15.00
feet to the aforementioned point.
(PID # 25- 096- 017 -0)
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case #11-
124 and held a hearing thereon on October 10, 2011.
3. 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, Tight 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.
4. The applicant could possibly relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to a 25 foot front yard
setback distance and place the lower level woodshop /storage area underneath the newly proposed
driveway. Therefore the applicant does have a reasonable alternative that is permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance that would allow for parking area in the garage and in front of the garage without
the need for the requested variances.
5. Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "limit congestion in the public right -of -way" and
"Provide adequate off - street parking and loading areas." The approval of the variances as
requested would not allow for an adequate space in the driveway in front of the front - loading garage
door for a vehicle to be parked without extending into the right -of -way or actual street (in the case of
some longer vehicles). In addition the 1976 variance request which approved the original
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / w•ww.cityofpriortake.com
placement of the existing garage stated that the existing garage would have a side - loading garage
entrance.
6. The variances are not necessary to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant could
possibly relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to a 25 foot front yard setback distance and
place the lower level woodshop /storage area underneath the newly proposed driveway.
7. A practical difficulty in this case could exist due natural topography of the lot because a
considerable slope exists from the rear of the existing garage to the house; however, although
possibly an inconvenience, the applicant could relocate the upper (main) level of the garage to a 25
foot front yard setback distance.
8. The granting of the variances will not greatly alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The
applicant proposes to maintain the existing front yard setback but does request and expansion of
the structure and a change in the orientation of the vehicular garage entrance from the side of the
garage to the front of the garage.
9. A detached garage is allowed as an accessory use within the R -1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
10. The current proposal does not involve any proposed solar energy systems.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following
variances to allow a remodel and building addition for a detached garage within the R -1 (Low Density
Residential) Zoning District:
• A 24.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot minimum front yard setback. (Section
1102.505 (1))
• A 24 foot variance from the required maximum 24 foot driveway width at the front property
line. (Section 1107.205 (7))
• A 285 square foot variance from the required minimum 1,000 square foot maximum square
footage allowed for detached structures within Residential Use Districts (1102.700 (8h)).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 10, 2011.
Paul Perez, Acting Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Dan Rogness, Community & Economic Development Director