HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-012 Variance/Appeal Withdrawn
. Jolin MdIioney ConstructionJ Inc.
S"-t D rnD\Yl~ ~
f ~ ry;r , MAY 61997 ~
i
J _ ~~~/~~
~ d- ~ ~ '1- 5"0' ~~
1()y')A~ ~, cI ~ ~ ~
V~ ~ 1.>731
~~t;:?{r~ .
-
18 ~
Post-it- Fax Note 7871 Date
To Fram
Co.lOept. CQ,
PhOl1e /I PhQne II
FUll Fax'
Staff Reports
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR
JOHN MAHONEY, Case File #97-012
15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES l NO
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
The Planning Department received a variance application from John Mahoney,
on behalf of David Fong, who is proposing to replace a deck with a four season
porch and construct a new deck. No previous variances have been granted.
The lot is located in the Island View 1 st Addition on Prior Lake.
The existing deck (14 by 26 feet) is setback 51 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of 904 instead of the required 75 feet (Section 9.3 A of the
Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck
and replace it with a four season porch of the same size (14 by 26 feet) and to
construct a new deck on the east side of the dwelling setback 51 feet from the
OHWL.
Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the adjacent properties are
setback 56 feet and 54 feet. Setback averaging results in a setback of 55 feet.
The applicant is requesting a 24 foot variance to permit a setback of 51 feet from
the OHWL.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1 st Addition was platted in 1976. The house was
constructed in 1977, with a basementfinish in 1990. The property is located
within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district.
This lot is 15,335 sq., feet and 103 feet wide at the street and approximately 100
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
feet wide at the setback. Therefore, this lot is a conforming lot under the current
Zoning Ordinance.
The structure is situated toward the lake shore within the legal building envelope.
The front yard setback is slightly more than 50 feet. On the lakeside, the
building envelope accommodates most of the proposed building alterations. A
corner of the proposed four season porch and part of the new deck extended
into the required yard setback. The applicant wants to preserve the existing 32
inch oak and the 8 inch maple tree adjacent to the existing deck. As a result, the
location and size of the four season porch are the same as the existing deck and
the new deck is located on the east side of the structure.
The variance to setback from the OHWL could be eliminated if the applicant
adjusted the size of the proposed addition to meet the current setback
requirements of 55 feet. This would reduce the corner of the porch by 4 feet, to
be 10 feet in length. Or, the applicant could move the porch addition to the west
and the size could remain the same. This would result in the loss of a tree,
which may be lost anyway, upon construction of the four season porch.
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 additions smaller to meet the
setback or to moved the proposed addition as not to encroach upon the
required setback. The building envelope can accommodate either
alternative.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant could reduce
the size of the proposed addition and thus could construct a four season
porch and deck that meet the required setback, preserve the existing trees,
and is considered to be reasonable in size.
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 not considered to be substandard. It is over 15,000 sq. feet in area
and about 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces or relocates the proposed
97-012pc.doc
Page 2
addition, the setbacks can be met and a variance 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 existing and proposed structures on the lot are
not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The
property to the east is setback 54 feet and the property to the west is setback
56 feet. The applicant can utilize setback averaging, resulting in a setback of
55 feet which could allow for the proposed addition if relocated/reduced in
size.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could
build the proposed addition. A reduction of the proposed addition to meet the
setback or relocation of the addition as is are viable alternatives to the granting
of a variance.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 97 -06PC.
97-012pc.doc
Page 3
BLOCK 3 ISLAND VI'E~
1ST ADD'N
L
W. FISHER
101-198
o
c::t
o
IX
L. BOHNSACK en
149824 LO
_ (\J
J~
, .~M j
~
\...~'c(t
~~
~-~
II-
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONEY CaNST.
17276 MURPHY LAKE BLVD.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
\
" ~ ,
;~ ~lAND-::~NW
'-.,',", '~!,i\,":,i<"~~"; ~'{{~~!'(~'~~;it~j:;"i:;. ,l
~'i? "'<':;". ~~:, <.'.~.;.i:.'~:'....i", ,.,....... ~.
>':::;::k:l, ,. :,j~t:I'/'~~ ~.:"J" - - - :"~'. '.
f,e!E~; ..
lit.:..
fQ....~
'-'"\.',',.."
, :;I:~.-~
~~.
"I..~:~
911.7'
~~: . ';;;' -
,..~:~.;,
, ~~-
"';.hY;'
.-"".:..,.,;;....
----
/
-L= 102.72
. ..1
~+, fl'....
.....tJ' +'''''
....
'!o--
,
. "
~..
,
,,<,+6
to"".. ,)'!oto
+0
to'"
..1~0'.,1
..
cf
,0"
t.,..
o
O\:!>
9 'J...~
\,..\):
~
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 4, ISLAND VIEW 1ST ADD'N, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the
location of all existing improvements and impervious surface this 4th day of
t"ebruary, 1997.
NOT&S' Benchmark Elevation 914.92 top of the existing garage slab.
912.2
"
Denotes existing grade elevation
The garage slab is at elevation 914.92
The top block is at elevation 915..25
The lowest floor elevation is at 912.17
Net Lot Areas = 15,335 sq. ft.
Net impervious coverage =~ NEW PROPOSED' 23.5%
o
I
SCALE
30
60
I
REV. 2/11/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK
a PORCH
1 hereby certify that this .."".y wos prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and thot
, am 0 du~y licensed land Surveyor under th.
f the Sto Mlnne.oto.
IN
FEET
Licen.. No. 10/83
~';
.
...;", S
o Denote. 1/2 Inch x 14 inch Iron
monument SIt ond morked by.
LiceNe No 10183
Denotes iron monument found
Oote
aenotes P. K < Nai' set
FILE No.
8445
800f(~"AGE~
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONEY CaNST.
17276 MURPHY LAKE BLVD.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE; MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570
\
~~~.~~-::E~NW
, ,Y;::,..~":'.}.:';:"~.L~..~..,'.)f; .~:),~
, .3'!; :'\i,;';:
, ",~i!tr
;..t,I!~.;. ;
"*...11'.
.' .'\;~';<'"
'~";/~/~):i".
"';1:',-:,"..
";1 ~ "
, \(.0
l:i,~ It)
~
iil"::~::";AS?_~,~
~
-L= 102.72
;<'r:",.,
":;'3,:';~
:; ','ii::r_~':!.:.:'
.'t,.;s;
~'~:
... j.
---
/
. ~1.
'<.,1-&
......,.. ~..,..
+0
foci'
,0
~,...
o
S,."apo rD
DrCI(
-:
~
O\~
~\... 9 .J~
I \to 91 \...\)."
090 ,,-
~ '/.-
'?~\O~
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 4, ISLAND VIEW 1ST ADD'N, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the
location of all existing impeovements and impeevious sucface this 4th day of
~'ebt"Uary, 1997.
NOT&S' Benchmaek Elevation 914.92 top of the existing gaeage slab.
912.2
~
Denotes existing grade elevation
The gaeage slab is at elevation 914.92
The top block is at elevation 915.25
The lowest flooe elevation is at 912.17
Net Lot Aeeas = 15,335 sq. ft.
Net impeevious coveeage =~ NEW PROPOSED' 23.5%
o
I
SCALE
30
60
REV. 2/11/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK
a PORCH
I he,eby c.,Iify Ih.I lhis surv.y w., prepared
by m. ., under my direcl 'upervi.ion .nd 'ho'
I.m . duly lic.nsed Land S.....y., under 'h.
I th. S/. Mlnn..oto.
IN
FEET
Llc.n.. No. 10183
~';
.
.~'." ..
o OeoottJ 1/2 inch x 14;nch iron
monument .et and marked by
Lic.n.. No 10183
Denotes 'ron monument found
ea/.
~o'el P. 1<. Nail se'
FILE N..
8445
800K~PAGE~
~
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
8C
JENNITOVAR, PLANNER
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 97 -XX DENYING APPEAL
OF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR JOHN MAHONEY ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15731 HIGHLAND
AVENUE
. MARCH 17, 1997
John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, submitted an
application for a 24 foot variance to permit a 51 foot
setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of
Prior Lake. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing deck and replace it with a four season addition
of the exact size in the same location. The proposal
also calls for a new deck to be constructed on the east
side of the house, connecting the two.
A public hearing was set for February 24, 1997, and
the variance request was heard by the Planning
Commission at that time. The staff recommendation
was that the requested variances be denied because
the request did not meet the Ordinance criteria. The
Planning Commission agreed with the staff
recommendation and denied the requested variances,
specifically determining that denial of the variance does
not deny reasonable use of the property
The planning report indicated that setback averaging
results in a 55 foot setback from the OHWL. An error
was made in reading the survey, and the actual
setback using averaging is 60 feet. This was brought
to staffs and commissioner's attention on the day of
the hearing. The staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission remained the same, as the corrected
building envelope allows for an addition (not of same
size or location as proposed).
By letter dated February 25, 1997, Mr. Mahoney
appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.
16200 Eli9'1J~~~kW~~S~.~\~1fM25~,cMinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ANALYSIS:
AL TERNA TIVES:
RECOMMENDATION
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
1:\97files\97var\97 -012\970 12cc.doc
In denying the request the Planning Commission relied
on the following fads
1. The subjed property is 15,335 square feet in area,
which exceeds the area requirements for lots in the
R1 - Urban Residential and SO - Shoreland
districts.
2. The subject property is over 100 feet wide at the
front which exceeds the requirements of the R 1 SO
and approximately 76 feet wide at the Ordinary High
Water Mark which is wider than required by Section
9.3A.
3. The applicants have legal alternatives under the
City Code for the construction of the proposed
addition which would not require a variance.
4. Literal enforcement of the ordinance does not result
in undue hardship, because the applicants can use
and maintain the existing deck. Denial of the
variance does not result in the ability to not use the
property as it exists.
Because of these facts the Commission concluded that
compliance with the Ordinance would not result in a
hardship, and would still leave the applicant with
reasonable use. The staff recommendation was based
on the same or similar factors, which it concluded
caused the request to fail the Ordinance criteria for
granting variances.
1. The City Council could support the
recommendation of the staff and Planning
Commission by adoption of Resolution 97 -XX.
2. The City Council could support Mr. Mahoney's
original request for variance, directing staff to
prepare a resolution with findings.
adopt Resolution 97-XX
. ger
RESOLUTION 97-XX
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A 24 FOOT VARIANCE
REQUEST TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY ffiGH
WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND DECK
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Board of Adjustments conducted a hearing on February
24, 1997, to consider an application from John Mahoney, on behalf of
David Fong, for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance
in order to remove an existing deck and permit the construction of a
four season porch and deck on property located in the R-I (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustments proceeded to hear all persons interested in
this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to
present their views and objections related to the variance request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as
contained in Case #97-012 and denied the variance request and adopted
Resolution 97-06PC.
WHEREAS, The applicant has appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustments to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council was presented with the appeal and materials
contained in Case File #97-012 on March 17, 1997.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE:
That it deny the appeal of the variance request for John Mahoney. for property
located at:
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4,
Island View 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447.4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNlTY EMPLOYER
FINDINGS
1. The City Council 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 City
in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
2. There are no special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such
property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist.
3. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant can use and maintian the
existing deck A variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is
not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist.
4. The contents of Planning Case 97-012 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 City Council hereby concurs with the Board
of Adjustment and denies the following variance for the proposed four season porch and
new deck;
1. A 24 foot variance permitting a 51 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
Adopted by the City Council on March 17, 1997.
YES
NO
Andren
GreenfIeld
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
GreenfIeld
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
1:\97var\97-0 12va\970 12re2.doc
2
Resolution
and Minutes
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
RESOLUTION 97-06PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 24 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A
51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND DECK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the .soard of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, has applied for a variance from Section
9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remove an existing deck and permit the
construction of a four season porch and deck on property located in the R-l
(Suburban ResiQential) Distriqt: and,theSD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the
following locati()ll, to wit; .
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1 st
Addition, Scott County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #97-012 and held hearings thereon on February 24, 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. Adjacent properties
are setba~k further, and legal alternatives exist.
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
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship
as legal alternatives exist.
5. The contents of Planning Case 97-12 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 four season porch and new deck;
1. A 24 foot variance permitting a 51 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on February 24, 1997.
crST:
Donald R. Rye,
~~
William Criego, Chai
17D1:1 rt~
1:\97var\97-0 12va\~.doc
2
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Ordinary-High-Water is 904 on Prior Lake.
. The amendment is for all riparian lots in the shore land area.
. What happens to the land between the O-H- Wand the lot area? Kansier explained it is just
for figuring lot area.
Kuykendall:
. The word "land" should be defined. Kansier said the standard dictionary definition would
apply.
. Questioned property owners who have land down into the lake. Rye explained a meandered
lake.
. Support the intent.
Wuellner:
. Questioned property lines, abstract or torrens. Rye responded.
Stamson:
. All concerns have been addressed.
Criego:
. Agreed with staff's recommendation.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL
APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-1-7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
AND AMENDING SECTION 8.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing closed at 6:45 p.m.
-+
B. CASE #97-012 JOHN B. MAHONEY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST A VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF
PRIOR LAKE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (FOUR SEASON PORCH) AND DECK ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-l DISTRICT AND THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a
variance application from John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, who is proposing to
replace a deck with a four season porch and construct a new deck. No previous variances
have been granted. The lot is located in the Island View 1 st Addition on Prior Lake.
MN022497 '
IPAG~J
. Approving the enclosed deck goes against our ordinance.
. There are no undue hardships..
. The City is trying to preserve the lakeshore and stop the encroachment to the lake.
. Suggest to redo the deck and keep as is.
. Agreed with Planning Department.
Open Discussion:
Wuellner:
. The lot is extremely flat and heavily wooded which helps reduce the runoff.
. The applicant would be willing to reduce the porch and cut off part of the slab
reducing the existing runoff. Applicants could build their screened-in porch and stay
away from the lake.
Stamson:
. The lot is unique and does not encroach on the lake but there are no undue hardships.
Kuykendall:
. Discussed driveway standards.
. The City picked a 75' lakeshore setback arbitrarily.
. The structure is a reasonable use.
Criego:
. This is not a substandard lot.
Wuellner:
. Discussed reasonable use and substandard lots.
Kuykendall:
. Applicant has many trees between the house and water. A visual barrier is a positive
thing to have and should be considered with setbacks and variances.
. Given the fact this is an existing lot, it is not unreasonable to build a three season
porch.
. The visual impact is reduced by the trees.
. The neighbors do not find any problem with the addition.
Wuellner:
. The neighbors' enclosed deck is 54 feet from the lake.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-
06PC DENYING THE 24 SETBACK REQUEST TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE RATHER THAN
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND
DECK.
NB022497
{PAGE )4
This is based on the findings it does not deny reasonable use of the property.
V ote taken signified ayes-by Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson. Nay by Wuellner.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Criego explained the appeal process.
5. Old Business:
A. REVISED 1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
The Commissioners discussed hardships and interpretations of reasonable use.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE PROPOSED REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
. Don Rye reported an applicant proposing to build a strip mall off Franklin Trail.
. Discussed supporting rationale statements with every motion.
. Discussed shoreland areas.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY ST AMSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN022497
(PAGE .5
anticipated appreciation that was hoped for. He said people can't buy
property today for same price that they could years ago.
. He said he'd like to confirm that this town is way too high in taxes.
. Jacquin Bohlig 2831 Wilds Lane concurred with other Wilds residents, and
wanted to be on the record.
. Doug Cooper of 3810 154th Street NW said he had a $6,000 increase for new
improvements, and all he did was put a shed back up that went down. His
total valuation changed $8,500.
. Mr. Arnoldi said even if he replaced something, they can look at the
difference.
. Lorraine Borka 14384 Rutgers Street, every year taxes go up, there is no new
construction in the area, and every year her taxes go up, and she feels this is
an injustice, and by increasing the value it is putting her out of her home.
. Mr. Arnoldi said lake shore property has historically been increasing in value.
He said her home will be reviewed. The legislator will have to look at what
sort of tax rate she will pay, but that is another issue.
MOTION BY ANDREN SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO CONTINUE THE
PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MAY 19TH.
Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the
motion carried.
,\1 7.
Y
OLD BUSINESS:
a) Consider Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Structure Setback
from the Ordinary High Water Level within the Shoreland District
from 75 feet to 50 feet.
.
City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said the ordinance is attached
to the agenda report.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 97-12 AMENDING SECTION 5-8-3 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AMENDING SECTION 9.3 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE 83-6.
Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the
motion carried.
R:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\MIN5597.DOC
10
Correspondence
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
.
Planning Case File No. '/l:7-01c2-
Property Identification No.,g ~ / '-13 - 00/ --(')
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE 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 zonine:) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonine:)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
De Variance
o Other:
iJ~ l(~ rJ~
~ ~C S-I ~-h-.
re9Y~~ f
fJ pA4A jLLf4~. efT ~
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different fr m Applicants]:
Address: t:J e9
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership:
o
tJ~
.F~
").... Work Phone: 2-
Fee VContract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ----'"
~
Legal Desc .ption ofPro~rty (Attach a copy if there is n t enough space oIl-this she t).kT
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
applications will not be proc d until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
;1--/]-17
.
Date
.-:;2 - I 3 -- err
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
Date
~-"
~ "r ~ ",.tq,...~",,",,:~ Jh_~~'~4~, ,I r~.~~.~.,~l" -"!'J'I'"~~~~~~~;~~!~T.~~~,~~.~~~I.~~~;7tt'r::,:~1'!,~;;:~~;::~.:~;:i;:~t:::,~]?~1~.....~,.~\~~~~~~~~~~J~~~.~TI;~I.?~~~~.: ~.~.,,..,,,:
N~
29929
~j -j 3--47
RECEIPT
DATE
CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE. S.E., PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Received of
who5e address
,r) ",<~ i.
!;"IL vl1! t
, Y( ." I' /) /)
\1 ',It ,tc ! V I,/L-I: /t"'/)~ftJ'L...
an'~/or legal description,{
the
, - )
r~,'/tv'7;;
I
do n ars
for the purpose of
11...a
.
-L,/1
1..--ru
()
\,..
. /Vld
."
$ ISO 1--)
Reference Invoice No.
/~ ~,
{/(}r/f1.Jf (.jj~//~,~
Receipt Clerk for the/City of Prior Lake
February 25, 1997
The City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Denial for John Mahoney/David Fong
Case Number 97-012
Dear Sirs:
;...~,.~.
,,~,"''''-'~-
I am requesting an appeal before the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision
February 24, 1997, denying a 51 foot lake shore setback for the property owned by David
Fong at 15731 Highland Avenue.
Sin~erely, .J
~/ ';9 //~.' ,
, 'I .'~'
/ " li~ 7/7/2./1 I ,
" .... / ' v<./~
L-- John B. Mahoney
17276 Murphy Lake Blvd.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
'.
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY
HIGH WA TER LEVEL (OHWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET;
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (FOUR SEASON
PORCH) AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15731
HIGHLAND AVENUE.
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, February 24, 1997, at 6:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
John Mahoney Construction
17276 Murphy Lake Blvd.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PROPERTY
OWNERS:
David Fong
9400 Lyndale Avenue S.
Bloomington, MN 55420
SUBJECT SITE:
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4,
Island View 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to remove an existing deck and
construct a four season porch of the same size in the same
location and construct a new deck on a lot which will have a 51
foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake instead of the required
75 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.
97var\97 -012va\97012~n.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
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: February 13, 1997
97var\97 -012va\97012pn.doc
2
IWv: * *
it,: ~ -: ~~?.!~~~!~
111* .. * it 232 South Marschall Road
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1675
(612) 445-3196
(612) 445-9522 FAX
Home Office: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2499
February 12, 1997
According to the records in the office of the Scott County Treasurer, the following
is a list of property owners within 100 feet of the following described property:
Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1st Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
Mark A. Rude
Debra A. Covingston
15724 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
T
David T. & Lois E. Wade
15731 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Timothy Jaspersen
Kellie McCann
15704 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
George W. & Judith E. Pinc
15751 Highland Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Randy Enger
John B. Mahoney Const Inc.
15687 Skyline Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
David E. Lewis
15753 Highland Av. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Scott County Hwy. Engineer
600 Country Trl E.
Jordan, MN 55352
Gilbert W. & Marlene M. Rowe
15733 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
D~e...
Gary R. & Karen A. Miles
15711 Skyline Ave. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
O~;:;:;;;;t;;;;;;;;J;;ilce
By Barbara Marschall
Authorized Signature
Co.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District(SD).
The MaximumImpervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address /573 I ill '!~ LI::IJ) AtH- JtJ w
Lot Area /6, ~~~ Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~ ~t!Ji)
************************************************************************
LENGTH WIDTH
HOUSE . x
SQ. FEET
=
ATTACHED GARAGE
x
x
=
=
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... h ,9 Z, ~
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed) ,
x
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... 0>
DRIVEWAYIPAVEDAREAS . /~ x 'S.S-- = I) 11'
(Driveway-paved or not) '5IAh \ 0 x AI = II " I ~ ~ "
(SidewalklParking Areas) / ~ x I z.. = / ?z"
. TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... _,. 'i 67 .
=*- .. ",
PATIOSIPORCHESIDECKS. I t{ X IV = 170> New ft>I2<'I+ ~
(Open Decks W' min. opening between X = Atz.e ~
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
X
=
TOTAL ~...................................................
fO~1+-
X
X
Iq~
OTHER
=
=
TOT A.L OTHER..... ..... ... ....... .......-... ........... ... ... ~... ....
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
@DgB)OVER
. Prepared By .&,,; ..Swaa-U9~A j
Company
u4/117
2..-11-7 '7
S l.4 ~u 'i'!'1 I:' . t! ~
(' I
16 MY n-e''-U
~,~O 7. 1-'~~ I
qcr3 J-4-.'~,~ I
Date Z.... 7... 'i 7
Phone # '1~7" C~?b
non-h Otv~ -1-0 C 1+1 c. u I A-t-,' b,V S
v- .n.R.
.0",", .
11 c. U IS GO
April 22, 1997
Mr. and Mrs. David Fong
9400 Lyndale Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55420
RE: Extension of Sixty Review Period for Appeal to the Decision of Planning
Commission
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fong:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you the 60 day deadline for City of Prior Lake
action on your appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to
the lakeshore setback has been extended an additional 60 days from April 25, 1997 to
June 25, 1997. The reason for the additional 60 day extension is to due to the
continuation of the Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
a.~
~ Kansler, AICP
Planning Coordinator
c: John Mahoney Construction
1:\97files\97var\97 -012\60daylet.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
EDWARD M. CHRISTIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8609 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55420
AOMITTEO SINCE 1964
TELEPHONE (612) 881-8636
FAX (612) 881-9150
April 15, 1997
Prior
A ttn :
16200
Prior
Lake City Hall
Jane Kansier, Planning
Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Lake, MN 55372
Coordinator
Re: John B. Mahoney Construction on behalf of
David and Helen Fong Land Use Application.
Planning Case No. 97-012.
Dear Ms. Kansier:
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation of
yesterday. Although the City Council on March 17, 1997,
continued the request of Mr. and Mrs. Fong to April 21, 1997, so
that the City Council could consider with that a change in the
setback ordinance of the City of Prior Lake, it is my under-
standing that the proposal for the change in the setback
requirement is not yet ready and will not be presented to the
City Council until Monday, May 5, 1997.
With that in mind, I would request that the land use application
of Mr. and Mrs. Fong, likewise, be continued from April 21, to
May 5, 1997, so that the land use application can be considered
after the City Council makes its decision on the proposed
changes to the setback ordinance.
I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. and Mrs. Fong and the
other interested parties so that they are aware of the new date.
Accordingly, I do not believe anyone will be appearing on April
21, 1997, and would ask that the matter be set over at that time
to May 5, 1997. Your cooperation is appreciated.
W:~Yr d~5i~ >
E~~M. Christian
EMC:lr
cc: Mr. & Mrs. David Fong
John B. Mahoney Construction
George Pinc
Dan Friendshuh
, \
EDWARD M. CHRISTIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8609 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55420
Te:~e:P"'ONe: (612) 881'8636
ADMITTED SINCE 1964
FAX (612) 881.9150
April 11, 1997
Mayor Lee Andren and Members
of the Prior Lake City Council
City Hall
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: John B. Mahoney Construction on behalf of
David and Helen Fong Land Use Application.
Planning Case No. 97-012.
Dear Mayor Andren and Members of the Prior Lake City Council:
As you are aware from my prior appearance before the Prior Lake
City Council on March 17, 1997, I represent David and Helen
Fong. David and Helen Fong are the new land owners of Lot 3,
Block 4, Island View First Addition, located at 15731 Highland
Avenue in Prior Lake, Minnesota. The item on the agenda
relating to this was continued from March 17, 1997, to April 21,
1997, as you are aware. My reason in writing this letter is
that I will be out of town on April 21, 1997, and will not be
appearing at that hearing. I thought I would write this letter
so that certain matters can be hi-lighted or brought to your
attention in my absence.
First of all, I believe the item was continued to April 21,
1997, to allow the City Staff adequate time to consider and
propose changes to the se~back ordinance of the City of Prior
Lake. At the present time the DNR setback requirement is 50
feet and the Prior Lake setback requirement is 75 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposal of Mr. and Mrs. FQng to
replace the existing deck, which is 51 feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark, with a four season porch, likewise 51 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Mark, will not require a conditional use
permit or land use variance if the Council decides to change its
setback requirement from 75 feet to 50 feet. If that' happens at
the hearing on April 21, 1997, then I believe the use contem-
plated by Mr. and Mrs. Fong would be a permitted use and require
no further action by the City Council. If, on the other hand,
the ordinance is not changed, then due to time limitations Mr.
and Mrs. Fong would like action taken on their application for a
variance.
With regard to the application for a variance, if one were to be
needed, I would like to point out the following items.
Mayor Lee Andren and Members
of the Prior Lake City Council
April 11, 1997
Page 2
1. No additional increase in variance from the Ordinary High
Water Mark is being sought by Mr. and Mrs. Fong. The present
deck is 51 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark and that deck
would be replaced by a four season porch of identical size,
likewise, 51 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
2. The present deck, which is 51 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Mark, was built when the house was constructed by John B.
Mahoney Construction Company on August 23, 1977, at which time a
permit was obtained by John B. Mahoney Construction Company, and
the use was a permitted use not requiring a variance. A copy of
that building permit #150 applied for August 23, 1977, is
attached to this letter. At the time the house and deck were
built in 1977 the City was agreeable to that setback, even
though no variance was needed, since the prior owner had a guest
house approximately 10 feet from the lakeshore which was being
removed as part of the construction. The present 51 foot
setback has been the same for the past 20 years.
3. The City Staff apparently has indicated that there is no
hardship shown by Mr. and Mrs. Fong since the same four season
porch could be built to the south behind the existing garage
rather than at the location of the present deck. The problem
with this is that this is a split entry house and the garage
floor would not correspond with the four season porch floor.
Furthermore, if the porch were to be built there the only access
to the four season porch would be to go outside onto the present
deck or patio and then into the four season porch or to go
outside into the garage and have an access to the four season
porch through the garage. Neither of these would be practical.
An entrance from the patio doors into the porch is the normal
access.
Also, if it were to be built at that location, as suggested by
the City Staff, a 32 foot diameter Oak tree would have to be
removed. The picture which I am enclosing with this letter
taken from the rear of the David and Helen Fong house will show
the tree referred to. At the present day and year when we are
to be concerned with our environment I believe any trees this
size should be preserved, if at all possible.
4. The Staff also talked about setback averaging indicating
that the George Pinc house at 15751 Highland Avenue Northwest,
has a 54 foot setback and the house on the other side of the
Fong house has a 66 foot setback. By allowing a four season
porch 51 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark to be built, the
City Staff is indicating that there would not be a rounded
Mayor Lee Andren and Members
of the Prior Lake City Council
April 11, 1997
Page 3
average setback but rather a jagged setback. However, in making
that determination, the City Staff used a 54 foot setback for
the pinc property by going from the Ordinary High Water Mark to
Mr. pinc.s deck. In the past the City has always gone to the
closest component of the building structure which, in this case,
would be the bottom step of the pinc deck. Since there are 10
steps leading toward the lake from the deck and each step is one
foot, the actual setback for the Pinc property is 44 feet rather
than 54 feet. The 51 foot setback for the Fong property would
then be a curving setback with the pinc property being 44 feet,
the Fong property being 51 feet and the property to the south
being 66 feet. The 51 foot setback for the Fongs might not be
the average of the two setbacks but is very close.
The reason I refer to the bottom step as a building component
used for purposes of measuring a setback is because I previously
represented a home owner in the City of Prior Lake where the
City required his steps to be removed from the deck and re-built
to the side of the deck because the step~ were too close to the
back lot line. Also attached to this letter is a copy of a
newspaper article from the Prior Lake American referring to that
on October 22, 1990. Again, I am hoping that the ordinance is
changed from a 75 foot setback to a 50 foot setback since that
would eliminate the need for any variance whatsoever. I believe
it would also eliminate the need for many similar applications
to be made by other land owners on Prior Lake and eliminate the
need for the City Council to consider these variance requests
for the most part. I ask that you give every consideration to
the Fongs on this matter.
EMC:lr
enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. David Fong
George Pinc
John B. Mahoney Construction Company
Dan Friendshuh
02/19/1997 09:21
4473940
LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD
PAGE 01
~J~
February 18, 1997
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
We received your letter concerning the variance at the
David Fong new residence next door to us and we want you
to know that we fully support this new porch and deck
that they want to add to the residence at 15731 Highland Av NW.
Thank you,
W nc
ighland Av NW
aka MN 55372
&"'J.~~ 100--:-
udith E Pine
Minnesota Department of Natural Resour
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
FEB 2 5 1997
Febrwuy 21, 1997
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE, JOHN MAHONEY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I have reviewed the materials which accompanied the notice of hearing for the referenced variance request, and offer
the following comments for consideration at the upcoming hearing before the Prior Lake Planning Commission,
scheduled for Monday, Febrwuy 24, 1997.
At ftrst glance, the request seemed reasonable. lIowever, as I considered the alternatives available, and viewed the
proposal for consistency with the requirements of the shoreland management ordinance, I ftnd there are options which
reduce the setback variance.
If the dimensions of the proposed porch addition are reduced and the shape slightly reconftgured, the setback can be
increased. Also, by shifting the entire addition to the west, behind the garage, the setback can be further increased.
The DNR recommends denial of the variance as requested. We do not believe a hardship can be demonstrated, and that
alternatives resulting in a lesser setback variance have not been fully explored by the applicant.
Please provide me with the outcome of the decision concerning this matter. If you have questions about our agency's
position, please call me at 772-7910.
~'~
Patrick ~ m
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 a
'-.I Minimum of lO% Post-Consumer Waste
Whlte.Olll..
Vetlow.O'M\4f'
l'u..lnICM'CtOf'
Pink. A.IOtIO,
Property Owne.::lOl-MJ
Applicant
Contractor
VILLAGE OF PRIOR LAKE
SCOTT COUNTY
PHONE.417-3788
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
MM.)OA;f:,i
Address I:A I
Address
Address
Date ~-~-77
Permit No. ISO
~oe. I.A~. Phone lJI.i'7-
Phone
Phone
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPER~(AnaCh Lot Plan)
t...crr ,:t, j:a,U) (!.~
lSJ,AAJb U/t:;W I:J" AbI:>.
;~.:~;~~~~~\;r!~~~lt~~~~tr~l~t4'.;i
;;~J~~~~-!--J. -l 'c._" ,:;:
...~iZ
~t~
.~
" j!~-
.~'--
';",-
I
Characteristics:
Zoning District (check box)
Residential:O Commercial: 0 Industrial:O Other: 0 (SJ:ecify)
Lot size: Sq. Ft.: _ Widttl at Building Set back line:
Depth of Lot: Side yard Is_and_feet. Rear yard is _ft. Front yard is_ft.
Building setback from state or county highway is_ feet.
Building will be located_ feet from septic tank. (Sewage permit required).
Building will be located _ feet from soil absorption system.
"(yP2P improvement -
~ New Building
( ) Alteration
( ) Repair
( ) Movo
( ) Othar
Residential proposed use -
( ) One family
I Multiple dwelling_units
I Other Size_
Estimated Building Costs of Improvement S
Principal typo! of frame -
( ) ~"asonry
>..:C Wood Frame
( ) Structural Steel
( ) Other. spocl fy
TyP.!t of Roof:
4ilAAL'-
Type of sewage disposal -
K'" Public
( I Individual
Sewer systpm approved _
Sower system conditional _
!SEE SewER "PPI./CATIONI
Wate9lupply:
;>fPublic
( ) Individual well
Non Residential proposed use -
Specify
(OMIT CENTS'
Dimensions -
Basement)<'Yes () Nq
Stories above bawment ---1-
Sq. Ft. 10UTSJ!7E OIMENSIONS. / ISO
Bedrooms ~ Baths :2-
Heating: ( ) Electric ~as
I ) Oil () None () Oth",
~replace How many
Mechanical
Air Conditioning ( ) Yes ~o
( ) Central () Unit
.~-
~: 'MI"Iby wrtlfy'Nt tM l"forrNClon conglftld .......... It CCrrecl end ... to dO,he Pf'OOCIIId work 1ft 1GCOt'den. wlttt tM deM'1'"1oft
lIbow..t fon" Md 1CIDDf'dl"'l to tM1If'OV11IoM of tM ordlNMH o. "'lor L..., MlnMlDtL I met..... mlt..., ptatt,.. ....flatloN IUbmInM
.....th .MlI ~ . I*"t of thltlMl"ftllt ....Iclnton. 1.10 undlrst~ ::-: thl, t I, Id 1<< . o' Ill. I""lOft'dtL
~-Z3.-.."
S /12..00 Surcharge S ;2.2.$0_ Sub-total S
S Sun:harge S Sub-total S
$ Surcharge $ ~ S
Metropolitan Service Availability Charge. . . . . . . . . . . AI S
Park Fee Dedicated to purchase and maintain Public Parks . ().~ ."J I' S
If fee is waived. why7 ~ 4'/;;/
TOTAL CH!I(RGE S
1'1"'.50--
/(..t.loO
815.00
100 en
-."...:.
...;.-;
. "::~::;2ll{/;~~<'"
"';<;i":c'.1lI
::Y:':.,"..,'"
1tIJ .60
Four In~lon. will be requl,ed of which the contractor
. ",.11 notify the Building 'nlPeetor.
:: lit. footings beIo.. c:ovwing
':,2nd. fr.ming .
"". 3,d. dry well orplast.. _
: ~::~th:,:III1'" when building is complete but behnOCCUPlncy.
..,-'.~\:~~.~~:::/7.~::/::':", ,..~ ~
~l~t~l)
::-.\11"
J':,j
.~
.:::.
-,
~~:.
"
...
.::
.:.c~~
';:~,
.~~.::'
~:
~.
;.,;:>
'~':~
.~.
~'
,~,~
i",~.
-'~';
.~
}~;.
. -:.~-<.'
:::~c
~~:.-':-
'''4~
-:<"-'
. ..,..;....~..
~..
'.i. :~~.~:.-~.~~
\......
--:::..:.....:. ~~"
Reasons vary
Variance applic,ants find
, .
city council stiff .on rules
which gives the city the ability to
grant variances in certain cases. .
"1 thLll.k the Planning Commis-
sion was concerned about setting a
precedence (in granting a variance),"
Christian'said. "1 think because of the
uniqueness of the situation, (it
won't)." . '
But council members, who voted
3-1 to deny the variance appeal, dis-'
agreed. ' .
Council member Doug Larson, a
former planning commissioner him-
self, said the ordinance's definition of
hardship allows variances only when,
the hardship is caused by the passage
of an ordinance, not to forgive the
mistake of a builder.
"1 don't personally see a hardship
here and see y.rhy the city should suf- ,
fer (by weakening its setback ordi- -
nance)," Larson said.
Council member John Fitzgerald
said he believe Turner erred honestly
and had not tried to deceive the city
by intentionally overstepping the set-
back rule. "But as much as I'd like to
say, 'Let's proceed,' I'm at,a loss. As
sorry as I am about it, 1 don t see how
we can proceed," he said. .
But Council member Gene White
said the variance and deck would
have "no detrimental effect on any-
body," adding "an error made in good
: intention is not an error in the strict
sense of the word.'"
': . Mayor Lee Andren disagreed.
She said the city prevailed in one
rec,ent court case, in which a home- :.
owner was forced to remove a shed" "
from his property, because the.cityq;
''J r
~ ..
By Jim Riccioli
Editor '
. " Twice last Monday night, land-
owners hoping the city would bend a
little from its book of setbacks... and
zoning requirements found an un-
swaying City Council.
In one case, the variance involved
a 2 112-foot setback discrepancy
. which resulted when someone built a
deck too close to the rear lot line. The
other involved five variance requests
pertaining to all four sides of a pro-:
posed lakeshore home. .
In both cases, members of the
City Council said they simply
couldn't justify granting variances
and overturning the decision of t?e ,
city's Planning Commission.
The council-denied a request by
John Turner m, who had sought a
varianCe to allow him to keep a deck
he recently installed on hi.S- Shady
Beach Trail home. His request ~ad
earlier been turned down by the Plan-
ning Commission and, on Monday,
he appeared before the council.
Ed Christian, an 'attorney repre-
senting Turner at the meeting, said
the company which constructed the
deck inadvertently measured the dis-
tance between the deck and the rear
lot line on an angle to the rear of the
. lot The construction company, run
by Turner's father, thought they built
the deck within the 25-foot setback
required by city ordinance. Techni-
cally, planning officials told council
members, thebuilders missed by 211
2 feet. .' ,- ',' : , ' ,
", 'But Christian said removing or'
altering the deck constituted a hard-
~ . . . t_ ...... _ _~~_..,.. __..J!_____
Poee l~/October 22: 1990/PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN
, Variances
"....:.......... tn h....k- nsure
. '. .. '.-:.,.:~.",,'
. -
had a record of enforCing its planning
and zoning requirements. Granting
even a small variance could threaten
the city's ability to enforce similar
variances in the future, she said.
The council's decision left Turner
with no other local appeal options,
other than to challenge the decision in
court. '
While not technically denying an
appeal in the second case last Mon-
day, the City Council did ask a home
developer to return with a revised
plan limiting the need for variances
while satisfying the concerns of
. neighboring home owners.
Paragon Homes, run by Greg
Schweich, had asked the Planning
Commission for 3.35-foot side yard
and five..foot side yard, a 32-foot
Crom page 1
lakeshore, a five-foot front yard and a
120-square-foot lot. coverage vari-
ances to allow a three-level home to
be built on a 50-foot lot in the North-
wood subdivision.
In his appeal before the council
. last week, Schweich listed four rea-
sons why the council should grant a
variance, including assertions that a
precedence had been set on other 50-
foot lots in the city and in that neigh-
borhood. He also said the Planning
Commission had unfairly forced his
project to wait to give the council a
chance to review its policy on sepa-
rate ownership, which contradicts the
intent of the Shoreland District zon-
ing seeking to combine substandard
lots to make them "buildable lots." ,
The commission said that it felt
the cumulative impact of other vari-
ances previously granted in the
neighborhood were detrimental, a
point supported by neighbor's con-
cerns.
. The City Council heard from
several, residents who asked that
plans to build the home be altered to
fit in with the already tightly-fitted
neighborhood, built on a kind of
"peninsula" on upper Prior Lake' 5
southwest side. '
However, the city :suggested it
might be willing to consider several
lesser variances if the overall "imper-
vious surface" coverage of the lot did
not exceed the 30 percent limit al-
lowed in shoreland district zoning.
The appeal ,was tabled on a 5-0
vote. ',' , t"
, .
~.p' . .r:::' I.
i -: -Z 0'
~
~-
,~
(;h
-
5/
I
~.
j
,
~
\
\
,
./,r
p
-
..~
,,~----
,. ,
"
,111 /"
.... "
"" "
"
, "
, "
,
ll':,~'.~!:li' ;~1(':::
L,'~. J, :lll'~k. ,
.;0:;": ;;.:......: ""..j1.H1, 'II' r,jL:\;;"
I '.., ,,~: ~ : " I ., J' . ';
"j , ,
" ,i. 1"[ 'J"'"
..1 11... II ,'j
j3P77-/50
,
\
'.>!It'
,,for
.it;.
~
.-~":
~
';'for
.~
.~'"
-,-,,>
.,'!~;:i
$;:"
~:;.
j