The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-050 Variance & Appeal Resolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC FOR A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE FOR ALVIN MONNENS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. CASE #97-066 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR C. H. CARPENTER, 16450 ANNA TRAIL SEe Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing. The City received an application for a conditional use permit from C.H. Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type buildings in a phasing plan. The applicant is proceeding with a tree inventory/landscape plan, but is in need of more time. Considering notices of public hearing were sent and published, the Planning Commission must continue the hearing to August 11, 1997. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRlEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: ---7 A. CASE #97-050 (CONTINUED) BRYAN AND PHILIP HINES REQUEST SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct anew, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request ofthe applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck. However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same Ordinary High Water setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The greenhouse which was originally proposed has been eliminated. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN072897.DOC 3 - - -- -- -- - -- -- ..- --- -.-- Staff concluded there are legal alternatives for construction of the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck ofthe same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a vanance. Comments from the public: Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, explained his change of request to extend the roof of his house as well as reducing the deck setback. By placing the deck on the west side of the house, it would line up with the existing boathouse. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . Does not support the additional 8 feet. Replace the existing deck. . Sees other alternatives. There are no hardships. Criego: . Ordinance states applicant can repair existing deck. . Applicant is not encroaching toward the lake. . Accepted proposal. . Questioned the building envelope. . The Commissioners are concerned when someone goes out of the building envelope. Cramer: . Stated he was not present for the previous meeting. . The applicants tried to make a significant changes but there are other alternatives which would satisfy the setback requirements. V onhof: . Question for staff on the roofline of the house as proposed by the applicant. . The house was built in Spring Lake Township. . The ordinance had just recently been changed to 50 feet. . Applicant should replace the deck, but there are no extraordinary hardships. . Recognizes there have been significant changes in the proposal but still go a little bit further and modify. There are other alternatives. . Does not oppose to replacing existing deck. Stamson: . Strongly agreed with V oOOof. . Recognizes the substantial changes. It is too close to the lake. . Hardship has not been made. Mr. Hines said he asked for a continuance under the impression the Commissioners would accept staying within the extension of the house line. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN072897.DOC 4 Commissioner Stamson explained the hardship criteria in the ordinance. The Commission does not find any hardship. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-14PC DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES. Discussion: Criego felt applicant would not be encroaching closer to the lake. V onhof explained the applicant has made a choice. There are substantial alternatives with the large building envelope. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process. B. CASE #97-066 (CONTINUED) VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR BRIAN MATTSON FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. The hearing was open to the public. On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian Mattson who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54% and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting an extension until August 11, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the impervious surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MN072897.DOC 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 1. Call to Order: The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: V onhof Stamson Kuykendall Criego Wuellner Absent Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: --7 A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. MN062397.DOC 1 The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement ofthe existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed ifhe built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The existing deck can be replaced. . Concurs with staff s recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake . Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: . Supports staff recommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. . The existing deck is well laid out. . Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. Stamson: . Questioned previous variances. . Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. MN062397.DOC 2 . Reasonable use of the property. Criego: . Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. . Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. . There are no hardships. . As presented, agreed with staff s recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side ofthe principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 24% variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of 54%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% and a 4 foot variance to the driveway side yard setback to allow a 1 foot driveway setback rather than the required setback of 5 feet. MN062397.DOC 3 - - - - - -..- - - -- - -- - - -- - - .....-,..~ . .,...._..!.i.::,.;;_~.:.. t:'~~~'i~~~';'_:;:~~'~:~~:~~~~?;:'C:~~+' - , ) FILE COpy December 16, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: City Council Resolution Dear Mr. Hines: Enclosed is a copy of the City Council Resolution denying your appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission relating to OHW setback variance. Please call me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Jncv1 .J:\97fil~\97var\97 -05D\tesolet.doc 16200 cagle creel< Ave. ~.t.., I-'rior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RESOLUTION 97-104 AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER (OHW) OF SPRING LAKE (912.8) RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED EXPANDED DECK AND THREE SEASON PORCH AS DRAWN IN EXHIBIT A, CASE NO. 97-050, FOR PHILLIP AND BYRON IDNES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD MOTION BY: Kedrowski SECOND BY: Schenck WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 23rd day of June and the 28th day of July, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Phillip and Bryon Hines for property known as 2719 Spring Lake Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance request based on lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal on November 17, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission held hearings on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997 to review a 20 foot variance request to permit a 30 foot setback, and then a modified request of an 11 foot variance to permit a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of Spring Lake (912.8 e1.) rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as drawn in Exhibit A, for Phillip and Bryon Hines, on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shore1and Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 16200 EaSbu!ilii~otute.pStfi~\Enlmrlh.ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~gt47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as: The westerly One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake, in Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-050, and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on November 17, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance requests for the proposed additions as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the applicant's can build the proposed additions on the property within the legal building envelope and can rebuild the existing deck as it exists. 8. The contents of Planning Case File #97-050 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance request and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny an 11 foot variance request to permit a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake (912.8) rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-050, for Phillip and Byron Hines on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. r:\council\resoluti\planres\hines.doc Page 2 " Passed and adopted this 17th day of November, 1997. YES Andren x Andren Kedrowski x Kedrowski Mader x Mader Schenck x Schenck Robbins x Robbins NO {Seal} r:\council\resoluti\planres\hines.doc Page 3 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. 'SUITE 120-C. 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 . ~U"vt, ~h~~A"tU rUh. PHIL .HINES 271 ~ SPRING LAKE ROAD ?RIOR LAKE I MN. 55372 o I SCALE EXHIBIT A REVISED PLAN ( .SPRING 9Z5.ulAKE . tL, 9 1..4k~ 11 /14 09.8 DESCRIPl'ION AS PROVIDED: /96 ~ The westel:'ly One lIalf of Lot 3; and I,ot 4; and the l':astel:'ly ()'Ie Ilalf of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a stdp of land between said I,ota and lying' sOllthedy thel:'eof and the watel:'s ed<Je of Spdng lake, i.n Spdng I.ake Townsite, accol:'dinrJ to the plat thel:'eof on file and of I:'ecol:'d in the Office of the Registl:'at" of Deeds in and fot" said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pal:'t o. pol:'tion of any stl:'eet 01:' alley abutting said pt"emi.ses vacated 01:' to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pt"oposcd NQ1'ES' Benc~~l:'k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gal:'age slab on Lot 4. 9;m.l .. Denotes existing gl:'ade eJ.<!vation Denotes pt"oposed finished gt"ade elevations ~ Denotes pt"oposed dil:'ection of finished sllt"face dl:'ainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 .) The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW POOPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~~~bY certify Ihallhi. ","vey lOa. prepared by me or under my direcl .upervi.ion ond fho' , om a duly ficensed land SlWVeyor under 'h. .~)<~~llh' sla~;;'~,:~:r'O.,? ;/. ' ./' I ,,>7/ ;. '-, 'J, ' (.'~'__L.-r, ~~~~,~.,,!, Net Lot At"ea = 12,800 sq. ft. 30 60 , o Oenollt 1/2 Inch x /4 Inch Iron mo"ume~1 tt~ _a~d_ marked by IN FEET CITY OF PRIOR LAKE , , Impervious Surface Calculations , (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) , For All Properties' Located in theShorelandDistrict (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface'Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent Property Address 1.. --1\':\ S fd~ Lc.. \-~ ~o ..." Lot Area ,\'2-, (Qoo Sq. Feet x 30% = ............~. '-;<OL\o \ ' * ** **"',** * * ** * '" * * * ** * lie '" *** * * '" * ** *"',* '" * "',*-*"'''' "'* "'* ** *'" * '" '" * * "','" '!C '" "'** '" '" * '" '" * '" * * '" * HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET . t,\ <o,.Lj. . ~ -1:L- = i \ LP~ :"'~'T 1:.~.~ x 1..'2'.<; = S'1LP x = TOT AL PRlN~IPLE STRUCTURE..-........~........... \'l'leO DETACHED BLDGS Bc~+' (Garage/Shed) \-to....'4e -1...1J . S x \ 0 ,x --z.oC; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... : '1.0 r S ~ 2'"2.. ~ c:; ~ L. \ DRlVE\VA YiPA VED AREAS _ ' \ ~ X '-:\<1 ' = tD~'1 (Dri~..:way-paved or not) ", , ""2..lo " X 8.S = '- ~ I ~~arkil1gAreas) -~~x'/"'V = \ ().....\ '1,0 c; \~L:" . . TOTAL PAVED AREAS..........................-...............-, (Open Decks 114" min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface below; are not considered to be impervious) --1L'X' \S.lo1 = 1-'Sa'L X = "X = ,TOTAL DE.CKSt".,...!'...~....................."., .....,.."........, .~ c;;,6 t1 OTHER X = X = , , , . TOTAL' OTHER",,;.,..........~...,.,.............,................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VER[\ ...... . PreparedBy D "'-~~.:&J . . ... . Company \11\ \ \o,^ S~;;'"e.u ''J (1,0, 9 (.\. , '\' \, . , '. '. L:~ 3(" if)'1 ' L___ / 9 / ] 'Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ / Phone # L\ '-\1 - '1.. S'l 0 , -~ A.c.. ~Gl "'> .D;U "'m )> rl-" il !j :1 !l 1l II ;1 :1 !! ;\ II il \1 ,j !I il ;1 ! ... ... , I I ~~! r- ~. i i'~! \ ,~ ! Ui (; i I i C5 -~ p ~ S' i , I i 1>, C I --,1 I ' ! --'--- !I ." i 1 _ ~ i: I 'I II I. \1 i}"f"'OS~ II i~!.(..k.. II ,I il I' 24' S' 18' r ~~ f' ~ :r '" ~ Q :;: ill I i I 1.---- -', OJ< 0>_ ><Z -Gl UJ! ~~ I ~\) .. 'cl--""J o Il~ i,' "1, I (r-- i ~ I !l! I ~I; T ~ ,IP ! XI ..... _.-- .--.r.... . I I i ! 1 "I ~ I 1 ... i .. ! I "I ~ 24" ~ I I ~ I I I I I i I I I I I I l-L J 7:00 .m. FORUM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Date: November 17, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER................................................................................ 7:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES: A. November 3, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting B. November 5, 1997 Special City Council Meeting 4. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. C. Consider Approval of Animal Warden Report for October, 1997. D. Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for October, 1997 E. Consider Approval of Building Permit Report for October, 1997. F. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Approving Amended Bylaws and Amended Joint Powers Agreement of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. G. Consider Approval of 1) 3.2 Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for St. Michael's Church 2) Temporary Consumption and Display Permit for St. Michael's Church H. Consider Approval of 3.2 Temporary Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for St. Michael's Church. I. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Authorizing the Preparation of Specifications and Solicitation of Bids for One (1) Four Wheel Drive Articulating Tractor and Attachments. 5. PRESENTATIONS: A. There are no Presentations 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Ordering the 1998 Improvement Projects and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Therefore. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 16~OO.iiagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Phillip and Byron Hines to the Setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) for Property Located at 2719 Spring Lake Road, Case File 97-050. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-XX Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Brian Mattson to the Side Yard Setback for Driveway and Impervious Surface for Property Located at 16575 Iguadona Beach Circle, Case File 97-053. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Ordinance 97-XX Amending the Flood Plain Regulations of the City Relating to the Establishment of the Official Flood Map, the Flood Protection Elevation, and Nonconforming Structures. B. Consider Approval of Oridinance 97-XX Amending Title 9, Chapter 2 of the Prior Lake City Code Regulating the Use of Public Parks. 9. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE A. Executive Session to Discuss Pending Litigation. 12. ADJOURNMENT 1 11 797.DOC 7. . MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- ....101 .DRDERINGTHE 1998 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE WITH THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS FOR AREA 5 OF PLEASANT AVENUE. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. Variance Request-Hines Setback OLD BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 97-104 Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance Request by Philip and Byron Hines to the Setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) for Property Located at 2719 Sp~ing Lake Road, Case File 97-050. City Manager Boyles introduced Planner Tovar to report on the agenda item. . Planner Tovar showed a site plan detailing the deck on the property and reviewed the Staff Report. The Planning Commission gave the applicant an opportunity to modify his request of 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The legal building envelope is 85' wide x 47' deep, and he could decrease or eliminate the variance request altogether. His existing house is encroaching 3 feet on the setback. The existing deck is 39 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The variance he is requesting is a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. There is a 6 x 8 feet area encroaching on the ordinary high water mark setback. The Planning Commission upon reviewing the modified proposal, stated that legal alternatives exist and a hardship does not exist. He could utilize a different design. Base upon this decision, the applicant filed an appeal on July 31 st. . Mayor Andren referred to a handout from Mr. Hines and asked if it was still staffs opinion that they should not grant the variance. . Planner Tovar said staffs opinion is that with the Ordinary High Water changes in the handout, there is still room within the legal building envelope for the applicant's proposed addition and the deck to be replaced without a variance. . Councilmember Mader mentioned a substandard lot size of 15,000 square feet. He said he thought the lot standard was 12,000. . Planner Tovar said it was a riparian lot in the Shoreland District. She said the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet with a 90 foot lot width at the front setback. . Mayor Andren asked the applicant ifhe wished to address the Council. . Phil Hines of 2719 Spring Lake Road addressed the Council. The Planning Commission's objection was the deck and porch area which required a variance. The ordinary high water mark falls 47 feet from the front of the house. They were considering that both of those items needed a variance. They were operating under the assumption that the DNR was against it. He said he contacted the DNR because he wants to do a shore restoration project and get a statement from the DNR supporting his variance request. The DNR agreed to let 13 1I1797.DOC . him do the shore restoration without a permit. His proposal to the DNR was acceptable and would move the shoreline 3-5 feet forward from the house, moving the building envelope. . ._As.theproposal exists, .the only thing that requires a variance now is a small section of the deck. To go from one deck to another he said he would have to go through the house. He asked that Council consider overturning the Planning Commission Decision. Councilmember Kedrowski asked Planner Tovar since Mr. Hines was not encroaching on the lake and just expanding the deck laterally, hasn't the City allowed that in the past? . Planner Tovar said she did not know. They would be allowing him to expand a non- conforming use by approving the variance, which is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. . Mayor Andren asked if the Planning Commission had seen the most recent proposal. . Planner Tovar said the only thing the Planning Commission hasn't seen is the DNR letter. . Mr. Hines said the shoreline restoration would move his proposal into the building envelope. . Councilmember Kedrowski suggested the item could be referred back to the Planning Commission. . Mr. Hines said but this is the next step in the appeals process and he doubted the Planning Commission would reverse their decision. . Mayor Andren said so the DNR letter has little if any bearing. . Mr. Hines said it has a great deal of bearing because it reduces the amount of variance requested. . Planner Tovar said a variance would still be required and hardship criteria would still have to be met. Whether his ordinary high water mark setback is 39 or 42 or 44 feet, there is still a legal building envelope in which he can build his addition. She said if he moved his three season porch to the north, he can have his connection to the deck. . Mr. Hines said on the backside of the porch is the window to the kitchen, and if he moved it back three feet, then he would have to reduce the size and have a smaller view. He said it fits in the building envelope by restoring the shore. . Mayor Andren said the Planning Commission found there to be no hardship. . Councilmember Schenck asked whether moving the deck back three feet would require removal ofthe apple tree. . Mr. Hines said the tree covers forty feet and it would damage the root structure by moving the deck back three feet. . Councilmember Mader said it is difficult to say no to a request that seems reasonable. He said the Council was not comfortable making decisions that are not based upon the 111797.DOC 14 ordinance. He s id he was not comfortable granting some requests and some not based upon reasons other th the ordinance and its requirements. . Councilmember Robbins said Mr. Hines mentioned there is no other way to access the deck unless you go tough house. . Councilmembe Kedrowski said so the whole purpose of the variance is to build steps to the deck. . Mr. Hines said' order to access the front deck, he would have to go through the house. . Mr. Hines said he purpose of the variance is so he can build what he wants and fit it within current guideli es. . City Attorney ace asked how do you get on the deck now? . Mr. Hines said the stairs now, but if he built according to the planning commission criteria, he would have 0 go through the house to reach the other side of the deck. . Councilmembe Kedrowski said so the hardship is you won't have access to the property. . Mr. Hines said he is asking for a variance on an existing allowable non-conforming use. . Planner Tovar aid he would be creating his own hardship by cutting off the stairs to build a porch, and that is not a hardship. Variance Request Mattson Side Yard Setback B. r Approval of Resolution 97-XX Affirming the Decision of the Planning Comm sion Denying a Variance Request by Brian Mattson to the Side Yard Setback for Dr'veway and Impervious Surface for Property Located at 16575 Iguadona Beach ircle, Case File 97-053. DROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97- G DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A QUEST BY PHILIP AND BYRON HINES TO THE SETBACK. MOTION BY 104 AFF VARIANCE Upon a vote, a es by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader, Robbins, and Schenck, the motion carried. . Planner Tovar showed a site plan detailing the proposal. Mr. Mattson is proposing to build a garage and a 'veway. The proposed driveway is setback I foot from the property line, and the requireme t is five feet. His impervious surface proposal originally was 54% which would be a 2 % variance. The setbacks are met for the garage. The Planning Commission gave him the pportunity to revise his impervious surface proposal. He proposed to remove 1 foot to m e it seven feet wide, with a 2 foot side yard. Staff recommended approval contingent up n him obtaining an easement. The Planning Commission denied it because they felt lega alternatives exist. The driveway could be moved to the opposite side of the house, allowi g 5 feet. The garage could be smaller. I 11797.00C 15 Staff Reports L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 7A ~~ JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~~ ;ff JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97- AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST BY PHILLIP AND BYRON HINES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD, Case File #97-050 NOVEMBER 17,1997 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Phillip and Byron Hines of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a variance for the removal of an existing deck and construction of an expanded deck and three season porch on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. The appeal was to be considered August 18, 1997 and on September 15, 1997. Upon request of the applicant, it was continued to November 17, 1997. This request was verified via conversation with Mr. Hines and written confirmation on October 20, 1997 and he will be sent a copy of this report. " BACKGROUND: Phillip and Byron Hines submitted an application for setback variances from the OHW to remove an existing deck and allow the construction of a larger, expanded deck with a three season porch and a separate greenhouse. The original request was for the proposed deck to be setback 30 feet from the OHW, the greenhouse to be setback 37 feet from the OHW and the three season porch to be "lined-up" with the existing principle structure at 47 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the request was for a 20 foot variance from the OHW to allow a setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. On June 23, 1997, the Planning Commission heard the case. Upon the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the case to allow the applicant the L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC - Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER opportunity to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance requests. The applicant modified the proposed expanded deck so as not to encroach any closer to the OHW than the existing deck, but to extend 8 feet longer to allow for access to a proposed deck that would meet the 50' OHW setback. The proposed three season porch would remain "lined-up" with the existing structure at 47 feet from the OHW. The proposed greenhouse was eliminated. On July 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified proposal and concurred with the staff recommendation. Citing that a legal alternative exists and that undue hardship is not created by literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission denied the variance request. The Planning Commission felt that the design of the proposed deck and porch is within the total control of the applicant and the variances can be eliminated upon redesign of the addition. The applicant can rebuild the existing deck as is and construct all proposed additions setback 50 feet from the OHW. Utilizing a more appropriate design is a viable alternative to the variance requests. The attached minutes of the June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this variance request. The applicant filed an appeal of the decision on July 31, 1997. The appeal was originally scheduled for August 18, 1997 and on September 15, 1997. Upon request of the applicant, the appeal has been continued until now. No new information has been presented to the Planning Department regarding this request. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission based the denial of this variance request on the following factors: 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for the applicant, and that is to build the proposed additions to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 2 to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances in this case could be the setback of the existing house and deck. The applicant is not proposing to encroach any more than already exists. However, there is no topographical or vegetative hardship relating to the property that warrant the granting of a variance. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback 39 feet. Considering that the applicant can replace the existing deck, it is contrary to the intent ofthe ordinance to allow for an expanded non-conforming use. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by Phillip and Byron Hines and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Phillip and Byron Hines' appeal by L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 3 overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal a upholding the decision of the Planning Commissio . L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050C .DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX AFFIRMING THE DECISIO OF THE PLANNING COIMMISSION TO DENY AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQ ST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER OHW) OF SPRING LAKE (912.8) RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FOR PROPOSED EXPANDED DECK AND THREE SEASON PORCH AS DRAWN IN E BIT A, CASE NO. 97-050, FOR PHILLIP AND BYRON mNES ON PROPE TY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lak Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 23rd day of June and the 28th day of July, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Phillip and B on Hines for property known as 2719 Spring Lake Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning ommission has denied the setback variance request based on lack of hards ip as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Co cil heard the appeal on November 17, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Cou cil, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning ommission to deny the setback variance requests. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission eld hearings on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997 to review a 20 foot variance request to pe it a 30 foot setback, and then a modified request of an 11 foot variance to permit a 39 fo t setback from the ordinary high water mark of Spring Lake (912.8 el.) rather than the inimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as rawn in Exhibit A, for Phillip and Byron Hines, on property located in the R-1 (Suburba Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wi ; 2719 Spring Lake Road, leg lly described as: 16200 E!i~ief~~'WAoo:-~.t)~,C~ili@ncLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~~gM7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The westerly One Hal of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake, in Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Planning Commission re 'ewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-050, and denied the setback vari nce requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteri set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council eviewed this appeal on November 17, 1997. 4. The City Council has consi ered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission upon the heal h, 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 sounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The City Council has revie ed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback variance requests for the proposed ad itions as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has dete ined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that a e not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. The City Council has dete ined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the appli ant's can build the proposed additions on the property within the legal building envelope a d can rebuild the existing deck as it exists. 8. The contents of Planning Ca e File #97-050 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record f the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set fo h above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance request and concurs with the re ommendation of the Planning Commission to deny an 11 foot variance request to permit a 39 oot setback from the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake (912.8) rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as drawn in Exhibi A, Case No. 97-050, for Phillip and Byron Hines on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Roa . Passed and adopted this 17th day of November, 1997. 1: \97fi1es\97var\97 -050\ccres.doc YES Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins NO Page 2 aUhV~1 ~h~~Ah~U ~UH. Vall 'Y Surveying Co., P. A. 'SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRAN UN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELE ONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A PHIL .HINES 271 ~ SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 REVISED PLAN ( .sPRING U5.92lAKE . GARAGE n_ IL. U..40 SPRING DESCRIPTION AS tL 9 9 11/14 .8 PHOVIDED: / 6 ~ 'I'he westerly Ol'le lIalf of Lot 3; and [.ot 4; and the Easterly One Ilalf of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a st ip of land between said !.otu and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge 0 Spring lake, i.n Spring [,ake Townsite, accordin'] to the plat thereof on file and f record in thp. Officp. of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Hi nesota, including any part oc poction of any street or alley abutting said pr ml.ses vacatP.d or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the 1 cation of the proposed NCJ1'ES' Benchmt\rk Elevation 9 8.38 top of the existing garage slab on [,ot 4. 928.1 .. Denotes exi ting grade eJ.p.vation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ---"'" Denotes proposed dl.rection of fInished sllrface drainage The existing gar ge slab is. at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 \ The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Area = 1 ,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK I PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~~~bY cerlffy that thl, survey was prepared by me ar under my direct supervislan and that I am a duly IIcens.d land Surveyar under the ~Y'.' the Stat~;~, 'Inn, ..ata.,? / ..' . .I' (/..4' /. 1._1 '} -' (.,'! ,. GJ'.-., ,,,'~w,~,,~,,""'" .'1,::"-:'", . ," . IN FEET o O.not.. 1/2 Inch x 14 Inch Iran monument set and marked by lIc.ns. Na. 10/83 r ~ ~z ~G'l "'> .0;:0 "'m )> ;i d , l " r-~ ! I ~ i!! il i; ~t'q I ,j ~ ~. 0 :! ~ ;~ Ii _ ~ i!: \ 15! ; o ; ii 'i ;! 'I :1' ['I II I' II \I i I I' I I ,i 8' I II II i}oroS.t'cJ 1::J e.c:.Jt:. 16' ~~ (' ~ J' cJI ct. 24' ~~ I , I ; ; i ~r ~S ><Z ~G'l ~! i II I -2<"- i.----.-.--' '-'-'-- m !It ~ n! :i: I;" "i" /' ---,I f! if II Ii II Ii ;, Ij 11 Ii II 8' '~ , I I i i i ! I , I I i I i ! i ll; I i i I i .. I i ~ i I I i I I i i I I ! I i i i i I i i II I I I I I 1 ! I I ! I I I I I -.-L_L-L , ! CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Pennit Application) For All Properties Located in the ShorelandDistrict (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address .1..1 \ q .S \'~, .~. . L~~ . ~c A)) Lot Area \'2-., <2:,00 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. . ~<OL\.O \ . . ************************************************************************ HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ . LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET . 4CO"~, .,X.~ = ~ 1:.lD . <S x 1. "2.. <; = S'1LP x = .. TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..........~........... \ 'l~ 0 DETACHED BLDGS f)c>Pt-+' (Garage/Shed) tto,-,'4e. '1..1D,S X \0 .X "'"2.0'7 TOT AL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... DIUVEWAY/PAVED AREAS _ '~o-:;? t 2~''? = ~.~ (Dri~'.:.:"ay-paved or not) ". . '''2-1o . X 8 .S = '- ""L l .@~arkingAreas) -~~X'?4 = \ 0'-\ -1,0 C; \~L?' . . PATIOS~~E~KS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface below; are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL P A YED AREAS.............................,........... ~'X' \S.lo1 = 1-'Sa'L X = 'X = ,TOTAL DECKS,.......!...................................,............ ,~?O ,1 OTHER X X = = . TOTAL. OTHER....~..............."..,...................,.._....... TOTAL' IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~::~~~~~ .. .. ... . Company \J p, \ \€u S"i>-"e.u I:J Co, 9. (.\ , . .\ . \ . . . L~ 3br~1 L___ f 9 I I Date 7 - \ 0 - <1, Phone # Y ~1 - -z... S'l 0 , SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL .HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ~rn:~~:~~ r ( SPRING 925.92LAkE . GARAGE I~A!I E:L .U 40 ct. 9 l..41(€" "/1 09.8 " / DESCRIPrION AS PROVIDED: 96 ~ The westecly One Half of Lot 3; and [.ot 4; and the Eastecly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said [.ota and lying southerly thet:'eof and the waters edge of Spring lake, i.n Spring r.ake Townsite, accot:'ding to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc pot:'tion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed ~ NOTES' Benc~~t:'k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gat:'age slab on Lot 4. 928.1 .. Denotes existing grade e!..~vation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ---+ Denotes proposed dixection of fi.nished surface drainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 ~.'he lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PFlOPOSED ?~~~bY certify thot this survey wos prepared by me or under my direct supMv;slon ond thot 10m 0 duly licensed Lond S.."eyor under the 1o)V~.~f the Sto~~,~....,~~soto,:: /. . I /"/ J. i/.'_". ...F _,,' ,.,' .,' ..l.'- _ _ _# Net Lot At:'ea ~ 12,800 sq. ft. o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET o Denote. 1/2 Inch. 14 inch Iron HINES SPRING LAI<E ROAD LAKE. MN. 55372 lIulley ~urv'eYlfIg (.,O.,I-:'t.\. SUITE /20-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 2199T"' ~i PHIL 271 !", PRIOR .~ JUN EXHIBIT C .----. ( spFiiNCi--.----- 92sulA/(E RO---- , AD) co SHOWS EXISTING DECK 't:, ---- '---'--~-- ..~~:-------- F(NC( -/7--__...__ . NErl l' "~.o, N 74. 101. 3 38'35" .4 as . "'00.00... IV EXISTING HOUiE ,0:' 91'?8.. SPRING .OESCIUPTION 1\:; Et I" 9098 /14 /9 PROVTDED: 6 L41(~ . i ~ Tt'I@ Wt!lsterly Une Balt of Lot J; and I>ol 4; and the f>nster.l.y O1e all in Block. 46. and a stdp ot: 1;'11'.1 between sai,l Lot" imd lying southerly thereof and the ..ilLen; ,,oqe of "pt'inq I"ke, ill Spr.inq I,ake Townsite. according to the plat ther.eof on fj Ie CInd of r.ecord in the office of the Hegistr:ar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Ni.nnt"?sol:;'I, in~l.'-lrlinq any pFli:.t or- poct.inn of any street or a.lley ablJtt i.nq snid prerni~1P~ vacatoo r)(' to t-y: VrV.::ate<J1 Scott county, Minnesota. AJ1'o showing the location of the pt'opol'ed NOl'ES' Benchmark. Elevation 92A.38 top of the existIng qacage slab on Lot 4. * 920.1 l:J<motes existing gcaclp ., ,.""tion .. ~~ ~ >i DenoteA proposed tinishecl qr:'ldr- <?levations f ---'P- Denotes proposecl dicection of finished surface dcainage The existing gar.age slab i,) i'lt elevation 'J2fl.3H Thp exist.i.nq top blor.k in .1t ro>lro>vati on 'PH. 7 The towest floor e!"v'~t;on J" at 920.37 o I SCALf 30 60 I Net pr.oposed impnrvioll" cov0caye 2fl.OO" REVISED 1214/96 TO StfOW ~b> ?~~~bY wtlfy thot /hi. ......., we ",.,..-ad by m. 0' unde, my di~""'erMiOllllllll'" I am a dufy "<'f\Md LGriit,......,........". ...~.. ~..~"~~ / .. . .<!./A'J ...' ..' , ,..~.~>.~Iur.. " Do" II. t<!)-.,,,,,. Licenee No. lOr '. Net Lot Area " l;>, BOO sq. tt. IN FEET o Denot.. 1/2 Inc" .J4lf1c1t /rOfI monument ..t IJtId iMttad by lie."" No '0I8!l .....)\..;1\ \ILl I I\LI nl\LU I un. Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT D PHIL 27~9 PRIOR .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 92s.uLt\l<E . ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE ,< 6 '-';i 0.-"'-01 S\.AS U.. .21.40 CL 1..4k~ 909 // //4 .8 DESCRIP'rION AS PROVIDED: /96 ~ 'l'he westerly aile Half of Lot 3; and [.ot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said [.ots and lying sOllthecly thereof and the watecs edge of Spring lake, in Spcing I.ake 'l'ownsite, accordin'J to the plat thereof on file alld of cecord in thl! Office of the Registrar- of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc por.tion of any street or alley abutting said pcemises vacatlld or to be vacatlld, Scott County, Minnesota. Also ahowing the location of the pro[XJsecJ Norr;:s' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garagH slab on [,ot 4. 920.1 ~ Denotes existing grade elevation Denotes proposed finishlld gr.ade elevations --+- Denotes proposed dicection of finished surface dcainage The existing gacage slab is at elevation 920.313 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 'l'he lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 Net Lot Acea = 12,UCX1 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~~~bY corlify that this survey was prepared by m~ or under my d;r<<t supervision and that I am a duly licensed land Surveyor undor 'he fa)'i~~f the Stat~~,',;~sota7 1c..!'2,':f'.': (~'c'" c..;f.' ~t~..,-:.... .. o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET o Denot" 1/2 Inch x 14 inch iron monument SIt and marked by. ~ July 31, 1997 Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, MN Dear Jenni, Please receive this letter as written notice that I intend to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the variance request for my home (Case File #97-050). Please forward to me any procedural information necessary for the appeal as well as a schedule of dates for the City Council meetings. Sincerely,.. f~' ''//// ;;;i/!rl;-- ,- Phillip ~ines 2719 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, MN (612) 447-8033 October 20, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Scheduled City Council Meeting Dear Mr. Hines: The purpose of this letter is to verify that your appeal has been scheduled for City Council review on November 17, 1997. On October 10, 1997, you left a message indicating that this is the date you wanted. If this is incorrect please let me know. If there are any changes to your request, please forward the revised surveyor other information by November 3, 1997. You will be receiving an agenda and the staff report for your request prior to the meeting. The meeting will be held at Fire Station #1, located on Fish Point Road just south of C.R. 21. The City Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. This is the same meeting room where the Planning Commission meets. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. ~CerelY' ni~ JWW1 lanner 1:\97fi1fts\97var\97 -050\ccmting2.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -- --, c;-;J I r \ LL!\ IS 't.. 1 I ! ! :'1 : I L.J 'J I. L.; L... U U MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-16PC DENYING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET FOR A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE FOR ALVIN MONNENS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. CASE #97-066 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR C. H. CARPENTER, 16450 ANNA TRAIL SE. Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing. The City received an application for a conditional use permit from C.H. Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type buildings in a phasing plan. The applicant is proceeding with a tree inventory/landscape plan, but is in need of more time. Considering notices of public hearing were sent and published, the Planning Commission must continue the hearing to August 11, 1997. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5. Old Business: ==7> A. CASE #97-050 (CONTINUED) BRYAN AND PHILIP HINES REQUEST SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck. However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same Ordinary High Water setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. :nl [-~ ~ [f;\ Ius L~) Uu U-:J q II U Staff concluded there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. Comments from the public: Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, explained his change of request to extend the roof of his house as well as reducing the deck setback. By placing the deck on the west side of the house, it would line up with the existing boathouse. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . Does not support the additional 8 feet. Replace the existing deck. . Sees other alternatives. There are no hardships. Criego: . Commented on entries. . Ordinance states applicant can repair existing deck. . Applicant is not encroaching the lake. . Accepted proposal. . Questioned the building envelope. . The Commissioners are concerned when someone goes out of the building envelope. Cramer: . Stated he was not present for the previous meeting. . The applicants tried to make a significant changes but there are other alternatives which would satisfy the setback requirements. V onhof: . Question for staff on the roof line of the house as proposed by the applicant. . The house was built in Spring Lake Township. . The ordinance had just recently been changed to 50 feet. . Applicant should replace the deck, but there are no extraordinary hardships. . Recognizes there have been significant changes in the proposal but still go a little bit further and modify. There are other alternatives. . Does not oppose to replacing existing deck. Stamson: . Strongly agreed with V oOOof. . Recognizes the substantial changes. It would be different if the distance to the lake was 50 feet. J] Uj H~ ~ [IT . Hardship has not been made. Mr. Hines said he asked for a continuance under the impression the Commissioners would accept staying within the extension of the house line. Commissioner Stamson explained the State's hardship criteria. The Commission does not find any hardship. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-14PC DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES. Discussion: Criego felt applicant would not be encroaching closer to the lake. V onhof explained the applicant has made a choice. There are substantial alternatives with the large building envelope. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process. B. CASE #97-066 (CONTINUED) VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE FOR BRIAN MATTSON FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. The hearing was open to the public. On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian Mattson who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54% and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting an extension until August 11, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the impervious surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT S'A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97 -050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD , ./ JENNITOVAR,PLANNER ~\~ ~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TO . _ YES ..x.. NO . JULY 28, 1997 On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the OHW and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the OHW. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck. However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same OHW setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER larger deck and porch (Exhibit A). The applicants are requesting an 11 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 39 feet rather than the required 50 feet. DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The applicant has significantly reduced the variance requests and is proposing to build no closer to the lake than already exists. However, the variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed deck addition and porch 3 feet away from the lake to be setback 50 feet from the OHW and replaced the existing deck as it exists. 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances in this case could be the setback of the existing house and deck. The applicant is not proposing to encroach any more than already exists. However, there is no topographical or vegetative hardship relating to the property that warrant the granting of a variance. 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. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -50PC2. DOC Page 2 The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. Considering that the applicant can replace the existing deck, it is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow for an expanded non- conforming use. 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 additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. If the Planning Commission grants a variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -50PC2. DOC Page 3 "UMVt.' PHIl: 2719 PRIOR t-'h t.t-'AN t.U r UH. .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ o I SCALE DESCRIPTION AS Va lIey Survey; ng Co., P. A. 'SUlTE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TElEPHONE (612) 447-2570. EXHIBIT A REVISED PLAN ( SPRING 92s.uLAkE . E:t " ;,'1 909.8 PROVIDED: /96 1..4kc 'I'he westet'ly One Ilalf of Lot 3; and I.ot 4; and the Easterly One !lalf of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of lnnd between said I.ots and lying sOllthet'ly thet'eof and the watet's edge of Spring lake, in Spdng I.ake Townsite, accot'dinrJ to the plat thet'eof on file and of t'ecot'd in the Office of the Registt'ar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pat't or poetion of any steeet or alley abutting said peemises vacated ot' to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the peoposed NOTES' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 30 60 I IN FEET o O!no'" 1/2 Inch x 14 Inch iron monum!n' so, ond morhd by I l____~ 1I_ 'rill!!" nB.l ... Denotes existing grade e.!.<!vation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ~ Denotes proposed dieection of fInished sucface deainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 92B.38 The existi.ng top block is at elevation 92B.7 , 'I'he lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify 'ho' lhi, survty wo. pr.portd by m! or und!r my dirKI .uptrvi,'on and 'ho' , om a duly "<,"sod Land S....tyor undtr 'h. ~)W.~f 'h. SIOI~~,~,'nn~'olo :!? / /' .I . "''1' / /. . ,-.' ..., ., - ,.'. --:~,~ (~. L , H~'.~. .. Net Lot Aeea = 12,800 sq. ft. r- -~ ....c... :;;G> "')> ::::0 -m )> C: " '.'.....!...11 " " '1 " " , '! ai l! I :: ! i1 i 'I I Ii . .-+ II ~\) .:~ o i i ,.,~ ! ~. ('> c.--- i 1: ~.._._J.ji i}"f"Os.ed 1:J!.d~ ~~: i ~j i 9 I (; 1'1 ~R II (' 'I f\ II 8' ~I I' Ij I, I II II I I 16' ~~ (' ~ J ~ ~ 24' ~LJ r- <: z p ':11 'I' :1: i!1 ~ l d! ; ------,; il li ii f! " " .. 11 !! il i1 8' - --'-1 ~" l"l I OJ :t--H 1\ i f I il~i II' I I I i I I I I I . I I i I II i I I I I , I ~ I !! II I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I! I i I I 1 i I 1 I . I I I I I I I I i j" 'I i I i II II 11 II I ! I I i II i , 1----- I I I I I I , i -J. ~.- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the ShorelandDistrict (SD). The Maximum Impervious SurfaceC()verage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1..1 \ q -Sf~'~. .~\-~~~.~~ Lot Area . \'2-1 COoo Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. --;<:0'-\0 **************~****~**************************************************** . . . . HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ . LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET t1'b..~. . x ~ = ~. 1; lD . ~ x L.. '2-. <; = '5'1LP x = ... TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \ "lle 0 DETACHEDBLDGS B~~~ (Garage/Shed) ~,-,"'e. '11J.S x \0 .X -z.oC; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... DRIVE"'A.v,PAVED AREAS . .'to .? i-"2.;-:z.... c; = ~ ~ \ n 1 \~ X 4q ~~~ (Dri::.:way-pavecl or not) . . . .1..1o . X 6.S = --z.. ""L I ~~arkil1gAreas) ~.x't...V = \ 0'-\ .toe; \~L? . .J~+'"~$o. PATIOS ORCHE ECKS (Open Decks 'A" min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface below; are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS...................".,................... lto X \S. tel = L-~.1 X = .X = ,TOTAL DECKS........!..".........."..........",................... . ~ '7:>0 .1 OTHER X = X = . TOTAL. OTHER...t~........,....................,.,.................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VER[\. .. ... Prepared By D f>,.v.JL ~ 'I\..,.J Company \J P. \ \€~\ S~f"".<'U \ ~ cp.9 f.\ ' \ .\ . L~ 36 '77'1 L__ /9/ I Date 7 - \ 0 - <1 '1 Phone # L\ ~1- -L~1 0 SURYEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL .HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKUN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ID)~ @ rn 0 ~ rn ~ IE~ ( SPRING U5.:2lAk~ 12 IA"AOI tLAI!J EL.U...40 SPRING DESCRIPTION AS f:( . 909 " /1., .8 PROVIDED: /96 ~ The westedy One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly one Half of Lot 5~ all in Block 46, and a str:ip of limd between said [.ots and lying sOllthecly thet"eof and the watet"s edge of Spr:ing lake, i.n Spr:ing r,ake Townsite, accot"dincj to the plat ther-eof on file and of r-eeor-d in the Office of the Registt"ar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part Oc por-tion of any stt"eet ot" alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed ~ NOTJ~' Benc~~r-k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gar-age slab on Lot 4. 9~8.l ,. Denotes existing grade e'-,,,vation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations --+ Denotes proposed dir-ection of fInished sur-face dr-ainafje The existing gar-age slab i.s at elevation 9?8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 9~8.7 1'he lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 Net Lot Ar-ea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PA:lPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify thot this survey was pnpor<<1 by me or under my direct superv;s;on and that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under Ihe 10\0" "f the Slole, a~_t.l'nn..oto. j". ____~ ____ .~-_~,. !~-:7~__-----! o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET ^ n.........'..., /, ,......h v Iii i..,.J>t irnn PHil.. 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, NlN. 55372 Vtllley ::'UnieYlIllJ <..,0., t-:A. SUITE 120-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL .FRANKLlN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ~:' ~;:115W' EXHIBIT C --'- ( SPRiNG-- ----- lAk -- 92S.U E R----- , OAD) Co SHOWS EXISTING DECK -or ---- -- -------- ~~:---;:------- FENc:.C y------- - 1VE:'ly II"por IV 7~. 10'. J - "IOC}8'JS"w ' ~ as 00_._ ['J(,IS T lNO H OUi[ t.... -' I ..ftA.. IL.tI u. '18 40 SPRING OESCRIP1'ION ^,. tt. II /I~ PROVIDED: 9098 /96 l41(~ ~ The westerly Une Ilalt of Lot J; and I,<,t <I; and the EasterLy one BaLf'. 1111 in RJock .~6, cmri il !Jtdp ot: !,'n"~ hf>twp.en sili,l I.ot" ilnd lying sontherly thereof and t:he \"'.;)i~p.r:; (~d(Je of ~;pci.nq IrlY.~, 1~1 Spc.in'_l !,;l~:e Townsite, accordtnq to the plat ther.eot on file anri of cecm:d in thp. off kf> of the Hegistrar of Deeds in and for said ;-;(.()t!:. l :ounty f ~lir.n~~nol:;) I 1.11r:-'lld i nll any ~:"4i~'I: ()r;:" ~'l(')t"t i l~TI of any street or: alley ahJtt;JKI f-Vlid pt.erni~~P'1 V.1.CFl!:P{1 ')(" to t)t"'! Vi1~':~'!"~P(j, ~3cott County, Minnesota. AJ "0 "hnwi.n<] the location of th" pU)fJ<1f'ed NOl'ES' Benchmilck ~~Jevation 92A.3H top of the p-xistinq gacaqp. slab on Lot 4. .~ 920.1 "- \)rmotf>s existing qrati,., .."tion DenoteR propoRed finishoo (fr.~(10. l"levationR __ oenoteR proposed dir-ection of fini.shed surface dcainage ['he existing gacag" slab ;" at "Ievation (!?fJ.Ji~ Thp ~xi3t_;_n(J top b!or.k i:~ ,1t C!i.Pv~ltjcn ()?~L 7 The i,owp.~t Cloot:' r7i.~v;.-~t:;on l.r:. rlt: 97.0.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net pcopoaed im~cvi.o"'~ 'XW0C"Yf> 2.H.OO .. REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW ~ED ?~~b, cer'ffy tha'lt1i. ~.... pr8fl'lll'8d by me or l1Itder my dinct. ........itiOll """ ""', 1 am 0 duly II~Md Larilt:s.na,w.....,.. 1M //(J.....~ the S'/J:~ ~(Jf",';;.ota ~ . . ~ _~:-'""7~,/4> .c;.r. ~~ 1)01. II. _lr'J . '7 /<P _I '""n.u N'LlmilJj_ Net I.,ot Are" " 1/, mX) "'1. ft_ IN FEET o De.at. 1/2 Inc" . 14 iflCIIIr/J/1 manum.",' ..t /JIId .......d by , le"n!fI' No 10'83 0UI\ ....LI I I\LI'HI\LLJ I Ut\. Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT D P~i IL 2719 PRIOR .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 925.:zlAKE ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE 12 QA..AO( ,,",AIS t\..92...40 SPRING DESCRIP'l'lON TIS ct . 909 /1//<1 .8 /96 PI,OV IDEO: 1..4kf The westecly One Ilalf of Lot 3; ~ Norl;;S' Benchmar-k ~~levation 928.38 top of the existing gar-ag(~ nlab on Lot 4. 97.fJ.l "- Denotes existing gr-ade ,,'.,~vation Denotes pr-oposed finished Cjt'ade elevations ~ Denotes pr-oposed cJir:ection of finished sur-face dnd.nage The existing gamge slab is at elevation 97.8.3B The existing top block is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowent floor- el<'!vation in at nO.37 Net Lot Tlt'ea = l2,!lOO sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH e. GREEN HS E. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify that this survey was prepared by me or lJnder my direct supervision and thot , om a duly licensed land Sf/f'Vt!'IOr undtr the law"~f 'he State ~'.-~''::';,so'a ' /. //. I ~~j'_L~1 '.- _ ~j'_ ....".. .~ o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET o Oeno',,' /2 inch x 14 inch iron monum@nt ut and mnrJ(l'~d by. RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Phil and Bryan Hines have 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 porch and deck on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as the westerly one half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the easterly one half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and July 28,1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same, location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be pl~ced within the legal building envelope. 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-050 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 porch and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. An 11 foot variance permitting a 39 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. /1-\,-~ Anthony Stamson, Chair 1 :\97var\97 -050va\97 -0 14re.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 ~ ~~ Q~\S %..':\.. \S'\\ \)0 , \, \ \ \ \..., 1. Call to Order: The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: V onhof Stamson Kuykendall Criego Wuellner Absent Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: ~ A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants MN062397.DOC WOO&~U are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed if he built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The existing deck can be replaced. . Concurs with staff s recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake . Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: . Supports staff recommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. . The existing deck is well laid out. . Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. MN062397.DOC 2 OIJOOffi~u Stamson: . Questioned previous variances. . Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. . Reasonable use of the property. Criego: . Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. . Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. . There are no hardships. . As presented, agreed with staff s recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397.DOC 3 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97 -050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES l NO JUNE 23, 1997 The Planning Department received a variance application from Phillip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. No previous variances have been granted. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house (Exhibit A). A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The proposed porch and additional deck area will be located on the west side of the dwelling and setback the same distance of the house (approximately 47 feet from the OHWL). DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line (Exhibit B). The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope (Exhibit C) shows that the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter date June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area that can accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC. DOC Page 2 There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant is proposing to build a porch and part of the expanded deck within the legal building envelope. Considering that the existing deck can remain and be replaced to the same size (outside of the legal building envelope), the proposed porch and most of the greenhouse would fit into the area where the applicant proposes to place the porch and expanded deck. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. To encroach any further into the required OHW setback would place the proposed structures significantly closer to the lake than the adjacent properties. 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. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC. DOC Page 3 building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC. DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Phil and Bryan Hines have 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 porch and deck on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as the westerly one half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the easterly one half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope. 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-050 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 porch and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. An 11 foot variance permitting a 39 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. IL /l..-A-;:-- 11 ,'''if\ ~ - . Anthony Stamson, Chair 1:\97var\97 -050va\97 -0 14re.doc 2 PHIL 27!9 PRIOR ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 vUlley ::,urveymg CO., P. A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT A IDY~@[gO~[g ~ 1%8~1 PROPOSED ADDITIONS ( SPRING 9Z5,uLtH<E . GARAGE SLAB IE.L U:8 40 SPITING CL L4/(c ' 909 II/I., / ,8 DESCRIPfION AS PROVIDED: 96 ~ The westedy One Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the l;asterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying sontherly thet"eof and the waters edge of Spring lake, in Spring r,ake 'fownsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pat"t oc portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed "'" NOTES' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 928.1 '" Denotes existing grade et'ovation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ~ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage The existing gat"age slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 'l'he lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot At"ea ~ 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 6 GREEN HSE, REVISED 12/4 /96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify thot this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that , om 0 duly licensed Land Surveyor under the ~;...?' the Stot~~.-'i:~esoto /: j'~ '.. L /., i~/tl ~/ ,___ IN FEET o Denot" 1/2 Inch x 14 inch iron m^nlJmlllnf Ill.' nnll mnrJt.rl hu CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations . (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) . . . For All Properties Located in theShoreland District (SO). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent . .. Property Address 1..1 \ q S f'd~ 'w.-..\-,,- ~...'\) IJot Area ". '.' \2.., COcO' .' . '.. Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. . ?<C>L\O . . . ***************.***.*******************~****************'*************** '. LENGTH . WIDTH SQ. FEET .' HOUSE . ',,\f(,.t), " ~ ~ "" ~ ATTACHE~ GARAOE~ 'tt,o.'5 : ':2.~~ : S~LP . . . . . TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...;.......~........... '').~ 0 DETACHED BLDOS B<>A-+ (Garage/Shed)~ \J4e. -W.t; x \0 .X ~c;; TOT ALDET ACHED BUILDINGS....................... . . '" "'7J;>.S ~1..'i..,e:; ~ l. \ DRIVEWAYIPAVED AREAS .\~ . x,-\<\ . = lo~'1 . (Dri~eway';paved or not) :....... '1-lP . x 'B .S ==''7..'2-\ . ~arking Areas) .~. x't..~ . "" \ ",-\ 1,0~ \ ~1...~' . . PATIOS~~E~KS (Open Decks '1." min. opening betweeri boards. with a pervious surface below; arc not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS....,~............,...................ti... ~x' \S.lo1 x "" "2- tSo .1_ = 'X "" OTHER . (J~o~,() .... G~-e-('~ ~ . \\.o.,)s~ , ,TOTAL D Jt,CK~"", ',t !........... .... ............,~ ......... ....... ... .1.,t?c .1 I ' )r '\.s X X \~ = _,~,S "" I I ~U)-' Date La - \0... '\"1 ~Phone # 4 \.\1 ,. '1... ~'l O. .\ex,.~ -1>'~~ 13100 1\ L.\ 0 . TOTAL' OrHER~...~..................,.,.......~..................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ..~~:R~~~.~~ CQmpany \j ll. \ \ex. ..~f.i."'1~ C;O. \ . . .'. . . SURVEY PREPARED FOR. PH I,L HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD 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 !~t~~ i EXHIBIT B to:, ------ --- ( SPRiNG-----___ 9zs.9ZLAk€ R-o ------ -. . AD) CO --7r '/ SHOWS EXISTING DECK " -------------- ...----......----- WOon rfN:C :;;r--.--.__~ . IVE'I )' li,,~o, IV 7.," 10ls 3 _ __10038'3'''"" ,., 6S .00___ ['lC.1STlHO HOUYE '1rS' -- I'\r-!'t. ,l; t;; ;;..tu ... a, rv , .c ':\., '1 ,. .: ~- f.... 'If I <)~",,,, t"'" '" on ~.,!!!: / /"0., r1J?- , rous,: .j ---~ L-<___:1'9! ..,..-_'..,"_,..,_.__..~ -g/.?6__...." ~-~ Ore/( SPfYlIVG tl. 1.4/(t' II' 9098 /1., DESCRtP'I'ION 1\" PROVIDED: /96 ~ 'I'I'le westerly une lIal t of Lot J; and r,ot 4: and the Eilster I. y One illl in Block 46, and il ntr-ip 0(:);111(1 between sn kl Lots "nd lying southerly thereof and the waLpn' ed'1e of Spt-in(j lake, in Spr.i.nq r,ilke Townsite, according to the plat thet:eot on fUe ilnd of t:ecord in the office at the Registrar of Deeds in and for said :~cott County, clir.nt;~[;ol.:n,inr:'~.'ldinq any ~,,-:":');:-t oc portion of any street or alley abutt !_DC] Rnid pl-emb:;p~ vacfll:Pt:1 ~)c to b,-,~ Vi1Ca!-~f~j, Scott County I Minnesota. AIAO nhowillg the .location of the pr-Ofl01'ed NOrES' Benchmat:k f.~.Ievation 92B.38 top of the existing gat:age slilb on Lot 4. 9213.1 '" (),?notes existing gr-an" , ."ration '!i:; Denotell propoRed finished '1r-'1<l" f'levationll -+ Denotes proposed dir-ection of tini.sh!!d surface drainage The existing gar-age slab i;.' ilt elevation 97B. 3,~ '1'hf' exist.;.n~l top block i ,) "t e lev'lti on 920 _ 7 The J.owest floot: f'!r>v"t;on j.., i'\t 970.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net pr.oposerl im~r.vi.olw oovnea,!", ?/l.OO " REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW ~I:D ?~~~bY cerlffy that this _,..,. prepared by m. or lItld'r my direct ........mOll .... fIrfI, I am a duly "C'i/hsed Lri~'''' 1M "'WIt-; the StO~~.jIf~f~'Otclh ~ / _.~. ./;' :.-;:a/ .J{~" Net L.ot Aren 1 :?,BCX) nq. tt. IN FEET r\ n.rtt~" I /~ IftIo!h . ... ..~_ iron l II L..l I~I' L..l.J I VI \. Valley Surveying CO., P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT C PHIL 2i\19 PRIOR .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE I MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 925.92lAKE . ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE 12 , '., GARAGE nAB EL. t28. 40 DESCRI P'l'ION 1\8 <I. . 909 11/1'1 .8 PROVIDED: /96 1..4k~ ~ '1'he westerly Olle Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the Easterly One naif of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a stdp of land between said [,ots and lying sOllthel:'ly thel:'eof and the watel:'s edge of Spdng lake, i.n Spdng [,ake Townsite, accol:'ding to the plat thel:'eof on file and of I:'ecol:'d in the Offi.ce of the Registl:'at' of Deeds i.n and fol:' said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pal:'t 0(' p0l:'tion of any stl:'eet 01:' alley abutting said pl:'emises vacated 01:' to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1\1130 showing the location of the pl:'oposed NargS' BenchlTk'll:'k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gal:'ag(! slab on Lot 4. 9213.1 ... Denotes existing gl:'ade et'!vation Denotes pl:'Op0sed finished gl:'ade elevations --'I- Denotes pl:'op0sed dil:'ection of finished sudace dl:'ainage The existing gal:'age slab is at 'elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 Net Lot Area = l2,8CX) sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 6 GREEN HSE. REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~~~bY certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my diroct s"pervision and that I am a duly licensed land S....eyor under the Ia)\'.~f the Stot~.~inn:.soto:;~ ./~..._ _,;<: _ __,,1r.L _--'----'-- o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET ^ n..........., I!J l....h .. ,.4 in...h irnn ITT PROPERTY LOCATION \...O~ O~ ...I\~ GO.... COUNTY OF SCOTT 14 I I 17 I-- WATERFRONT 1--- . r------ I " j SENT BY:, DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1/2 Minnesota Dcpartrncnl of Natural Rc.soLJrces Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 _Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 JW1C 19, 1997 Mr. ()on Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-171 4 Co.lDept. Cg. ,~ Phon" # 7671 ~'\~"Qj FF1>m . Post-It" Fax Note 1"0 Phnnn H r (ll( U RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRING LAKE) AND MATTSON SIDEY ARD AND lMPER.VlOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARlANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Rye: I have received the hearing notices for the subject variWlcc rcqucsLs which ""ill be considered by the Prior Lake Planning Commission on June 23. 1997. Please include the following commenls into Ihe offici<l! record o[the hearing. _...~ HJNES OHW SETBACK VARIANCE REOUE~T The city of Prior Lake recently amended their ordinance to reflect a relaxaLion of the lake setback standard for Prior and Spring Lakes_ The required setback is 751. It is recommended the variance as requested be denied. The deck Sil.C depicted on the survey which accompanied the hearing notice appears to have pll1ced little regard for' the setback requirement in its design. T note the structures on eilher side oftile Hines' pJ'operty un.: selb.lck at. 5]' and 46'. The DNR recommends the applicant re-design the proposed improvemcnlS to meet the required setback. There appears ample buildable aren to the west and north of the existing structure. 1n addition, the property currently has a deck. If the existing deck is in a sLate of disrepair, the DNR is not opposed to reconstruction at the existing loc'tl.ion. and to the c~jsting dimensions oftl1e currcnt deck. It will be dirrlcult to argue hardship in this case. MATTSON TMPft:RVIOUS SURFA~ (;OVERAGE AND STDEY 6RD SETBACK VARTAN~'~ The subject lot is vcry small (5,607 square reet), and is relatively narrow. The potential for additional dcvelopmclll on the lot wilhout I.he need for multiple variances is limited. The DNR is not opposed to \.he construction of a g:mlge at the proposed location. provided an equnl <IInount of impervious surf<lcc is removed. It appenrs that Ulel'e is u significant amount of concrete on the west side of the property which could be removed to balance the additional impervious of the proposc:dncw garage. Another option, perhaps lllore suitable in t.erms of impervious sur[Llcc, would be to construct a garage on the existing concrete slob. This would Tesult in the elimination of the need for variances from impervious surface and from the sidcyard setback. ltwould, however, most likely require a variance from the road setback. The DNR would not be opposed to the road setback vlltiancc. As proposed, the DNR r-ec:ommends denial of the vllIiancc for impervious surface coverage of 54%. r>1'i(~ 111"'''''IIIHI;lil1: liJ:!-:!'.Jn-hl.~7. I-KOO-7h6-6lHlO . TTY, ,.,1.) }I.J!.> ~J.l';4. 1.~UU-(-'Y/-Y)2() :\11 blllal ()l'l"urhJllil, li'"pltl\'t''' Vt'"h.l V:llul.... I)h....r...il~. ft 1/;IHl'u O(II(I..:l.'.~.,...It.'u. 1'~11";1 t'llfllalllll1~' ,I c..- \1illJlllUlII (I) lor:; I'm;1 CI\lI.alllh'r \V.J'ill' SENT BY:,DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 "'> 6124474245; #2/2 DOll Rye June 19. 1997 page 2 Plca:;e enter these DNR objections into the hearing record. If you have any qucsLions or comments regarding DNR rcvicw of the pending shorellll\d issues. plclJSc call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, yo.i,~iULU- Patrick J. Lynch 1lI Area Hydrologist ~ rr:~~l (r:::~ ; :"~ I 1\ \ I c.' \ ','_....-} i i ': \ I I. 1 'I ~...:J '-..f. 'I ' i U r-.----..--.. '-'-~'-"'---'-'-J i! I i WII JUN 2 i991 iilll ~~L I~ Planning Case File No. ~ -{)50 Property Identification No. ;J b I :l5 0 "7 , 0 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 zonin~) to (proposed zonin~) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit lXI Variance o Other: sheets/narrative if desired) J !f@.oJqCf' rJ. l:x;c;n -jJ...r;. V DF'.eJ... fl rtl\~ Il1~ . S e.c> ,4/.1<. c~(') c'. e.xlsl~ Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Brf/.ri;c, rJ a;jf 12 J/;tJs:.i Address: !J."}/9 ~r' :::.. Rd. S.u.l Pr'I~~' J,.""I-:e. MeV. Home Phone: 4t/~ sro3~ Work Phone: tCJO - ~Gb~ Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee.A- Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement---,- Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet): ) F> Q Alfor:~(j 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 applicatio . ot be pro essed ntH deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. 5/30/'9; Date' . Fee Owner's Signature Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date City Planning Staff/Planning Commission, We are proposing to make some additions and changes to our home located at 2719 Spring Lake Road South West. Despite the fact that the majority if the proposed construction does not occur closer to the lake than our existing structure, with the present changes to the setback requirements the project will require a Variance to meet current Ordinances. We are proposing to add 16 feet to the West End of the house. The lower (ground) level ofthe structure to be used for storage of recreational equipment (canoes, life preservers, ski equipment, etc.). The upper level is to be an entry porch facing the north and a screened porch facing the lake. The second part of this proposed building project would be the replacement and updating of the existing deck. The existing deck is 24 feet along the south side if the house and extends 8 feet toward the lake. The existing deck is structurally over spanned with most ofthe members substantially rotted. When it was built I am sure that 8 feet was the standard, but by today's standards 8 feet is an impractical size with limited use. As is the case with many aspects of house design, over time the normal uses of a structure change. When this deck was built it was common to pull a couple of chairs out on the deck in the evening and spend an hour or so enjoying the weather (until the mosquitoes chased you away). Today the deck is a family gathering place and the focal point for most recreational activities on the lake. Its structure is far more substantial and its size increased to accommodate meals and permanent seasonal furniture. We are proposing to increase the depth ofthe deck toward the lake by an additional 8 feet and the length ofthe deck along the house to the other side if the windows that open from the living room (14 feet). The design of the addition and deck was done with our neighbors in mind for both privacy and Lake Ascetics. The enclosed structure has been designed to the West Side ofthe house, where it is behind the line of site to the lake. The house to the West would only have partial view ofthe structure through a single window on their Easterly side, a view that is obscured by a large pine tree. The deck once constructed will also fall behind the line of site to the lake. The view from the east is blocked by an out building and a large oak tree existing on the neighbor's property and the view from the west is blocked by the location ofthe home itself and a large pine tree on our property. The fmal part of this proposed building project would be to attach a small Green House on the South (lake) side ofthe house. This structure would be glass over a aluminum frame extending approximately 10 feet toward the lake and would be six feet behind the proposed deck. We would ask you to consider, when reviewing our request, that a large portion ofthe area between our home and the lake is unusable. It consists of fairly steep grades or is encompassed in the retaining system currently in place to help counteract the shore line erosion conditions experienced on the north side ofthis lake. We have been in contact with the DNR in an attempt to determine what other methods of shoreline restoration have been approved for this area, but to date the most reasonable course of action seems to be to create level recreation space next to the house. We would also ask you to consider the following four responses to the Ordinance criteria: outlined in the (Planning Commission ReviewIDecision) section of the Variance Procedures / Land Use Application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. 1. Our home is situated on a substandard lot (Less Square Footage than standard lot). The home was constructed approximately 47 feet from what is now considered the (OHW). The setback requirements as they exist today do not allow any improvement to the lakeside of our home, All will require a variance. 2. Our lot is at the apex ofthe shore line arc which makes our home closer to the lake by inherent geometry even though our house falls on a strait line with our neighbor to the east. 3. When this home was constructed I can only presume it met all the building codes and zoning requirements. Today however the Ordinance has been changed to the extent that this house no longer complies with the standard. 4. The change we are requesting will significantly improve the use and enjoyment of our home. And because ofthe topography and location of other existing structures on and around the area, there will be no reduction of views and no other reduction of use or enjoyment of the adjoining properties that we can foresee. 16' ~ .... -l (j) ~ OJ I 24' 15'6 r < mz ~G) 2;:t> ",,:;0 m :t> 24' I 8'6 2: ~ NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; 1. A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS 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, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Bryan and Phillip Hines 2719 Spring Lake Rd. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Part of Lot 3, Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 2719 Spring Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the re-construction of an existing deck to be larger than the original deck and a new greenhouse to be constructed in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed construction will result in the following requested variances; 1. A 20 FOOT OHW SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 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. 1620ct~~ItfIfi~~AR~f:o.fd\~sb*AP~i95egljgo~N~~66t4 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) (47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~ A 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. .Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: June 10, 1997 Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\9750V APN.DOC9750V APN.DOC 2 '" ~ SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PH ILHINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 ( SPRING us.uLAKE:' . DESCRIP'fION AS f:~. 9 // 098 / /4 /96 PROVIDED: ~ I The westerly One lIalf of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the l;;asterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying sOlltherly thereof and the waters edge of Spring lake, i.n Spring r,ake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Offi.ce of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTI~O Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 9713.1 Denotes existing qrnoe 2~ '''''''lation rl1)J . @ ~ o'W~ n Minnesota Department of Natural i~( uijj~sl 91997 ~ ,! \, ',-- Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St Paul, Ml\f5s'106 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 17, 1997 Mr. Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road S. W. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: RIPRAP SHORE PROTECTION, SPRING LAKE (#70-54P), CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Dear Mr. Hines: I am in receipt of the revised riprap aoss section you submitted to me today via fax. The revised drawing represents revisions to the typical cross section of shoreline extension you had originally submitted to this office on October 29, 1997. Your original proposal for shoreline extension was deemed inconsistent with DNR permit rules regarding shore protection. The slope and backfill proposed would have resulted in unacceptable encroachment offill into the lake. Specifically, Minnesota Rules. part 6115., subpart 3, item B., states, in part, Placement of fill shall not be permitted to create upland aretl3. Based upon field inspection by DNR staff, and review of photographs of your shore frontage, it appears your original proposal was ovec-designed for the site. There is currently some rock placed along the shore. The revised riprap plan you have submitted can augment the existing rock along shore. If completed as depicted on your revised drawing, the work can be done without aDNR permit Riprap can be done without permit provided the toe of riprap does not extend more than five feet wataward of the ordinary high water elevation, the finished slope is not steeper than 3: 1 (horizontal to vertical), the riprap conforms to the natural alignment of the shoreline, and the riprap consists of natural rock averaging 12 inches in diameter or larger. I note that the most current site plan differs significantly from that which I reviewed and provided comment to the city earlier this year when a setback variance was considered at the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. It appears the greenhouse has been eliminated from further consideration, and the deck dimensions re-designed such that there is no encroachment lakeward of the existing structure and deck. That is. proposed improvements are proposed to be located laterally to the west of the existing structure. Historically, the DNR has not opposed variances for lateral additions/expansions provided there is no further encroachment waterward of the existing structure. If your shore protection plans should change from that which you faxed me today, please contact this office so that we may determine whether or not it is consistent with DNR permit rules. Please call me at 772-7910 if you have any questions. ~~1/ Patrick 1. Lym:b Area Hydrologist c: Jenni Tovar, City of Prior Lake 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 c..I Minimum of IO'7c Post-Consumer Waste FilE COpy September 16, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Extension of Sixty Review Period Dear Mr. Hines: 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 has been extended an additional 60 days from September 29, 1997 to November 28, 1997. The reason for the additional 60 day extension is to due to your request to table the appeal from a decision of the City Council. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. L]cereIY' I '; - I '-tvW4th}1a1 nnifer T<9var Planner 1:\97files\97var\97 -050\60d~It2.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER From: Bryon H. Hines Fax: 612447-8033 at: City or Prior lake Bryon H. Hines Pago 2 or2 Monday, September 15,1997 2:22:22 PM To: Jennifer Tovar . September 8, 1997 Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Request for appeal of Planning Commission Dear Ms. Tovar I am hereby requesting that the hearing of my appeal be tabled and removed from consideration for this Council meeting. I will contact you when I have completed my work with the D.N.R. to reschedule the hearing. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-8033 Sincerely, Phillip Hines From: Bryon H. Hines Fax: 612447-8033 at: Clly of Prior Lake ... Bryon H. Hines Palle 1 of 2 Monday, September15,1997 2:21:21 PM To: Jennifer Tovar I date Monday. September 15. 1997 time 2:17:01 PM number of pages 2 to company fax number from company voice number fax number notes Jennifer Tovar City of Prior Lake 447-4245 Bryon H. Hines 612447-8033 612447-8033 filE COP, September 8, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Scheduled City Council Meeting Dear Mr. Hines: Your appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission relating to OHW setback variance has been scheduled for September 15, 1997, as you have requested. The City Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. Enclosed is an agenda and copy of the staff report relating to your request. The meeting will be held at Fire Station #1, located on Fish Point Road just south of C.R. 21. This is the same meeting room where the Planning Commission meets. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. i.1incereIY" . ~ _....-A J l.~. '/111'; 1,/ A ~ ,.... ennifer~r' lanner 1:\97fi1es\97var\97 -050\ccmeting.doc S200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ) June 24, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Extension of Sixty Review Period for Variance Request Dear Mr. Hines: The purpose of this letter is to advise you the 60 day deadline for City of Prior Lake action on your variance request to OHW setback has been extended an additional 60 days from August 1, 1997 to September 30, 1997. The reason for the additional 60 day extension is to due to the continuation of the Planning Commission decision of your request, to allow you to make revisions for consideration of the variance. Please submit your revised survey to me by July 15, 1997. This will give us adequate time to prepare a report for the Planning Commission of July 28, 1997. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. j~ 1:\97files \97var\97 -050\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 i' "~". . -!{.; ::'!!<1,"""'~,~;~'~~~."l"'f~~";' .. "-' ~ ,.-.., - ,. .. """,.~ ',"'-O"'~:~'"H" "~~'~'''''''''''"'''' "",.,;.s~':'."";Mlf.""''7'/: ;,,,,,,",~""" ,. ., ;-. ,::"~)'1c"'.~:.:'/" . . - .~~. .~ ..:,...... ."'~. RECEIPT N~ 30720 ~ ~ -;)-9; DATE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE. S.E.. PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372 Received of . f'.l ~ the sum o~ for the dollars whose address and/or legal description is Reference Invoice No. $ /)O,OD J ~JflJ vrtfG Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake PHILLIP W. HINES _' ~8 2719 SPRING LAKE R AD, SW PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 \ 75-9050 919 2111227 (!1)j<)1 $ /f6'ciJ DATE ~LLARS m =~':: fl'~~~~~!~.~~~II~;1 J,j MEMO 5~2___~ W --... I ~S 1= 211I ~~ Cell' (n~-- ( :]-:- L. --- - --------- _____________ n.__ _____________ -- -- -- ----.--- ----- -- ---------------------- ---~--~---- : I \ L-'-\ I\, L, I I II i. .....J V oJ , (.... . oj V I I LoI'''' '-, 1I111'" L. ...... V j " TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVEL -------- GARAGE SLAB EL. 928.~O ( SPRING 9Z'5.9zlAKE . ROAD) co. /I) . ROAD 92.6.9{:JO. 12 . ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE Wooo >- ; .... > ~ o ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANS'O R- 0 - w II> ::> o ~ ~ ::> I- III ~) ,-; L_ ""'-- SPRING DESCIUPTION 1\8 The westecly One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the gasted.y ()r1e Half of: Lot all in Block 46, and a strip of land between Gaid Lot~l and lying. sOllther:1.y theceof and the waters edqe of Spdnq lake, i.n spdnq [,ake Townsite, accordin(J to the plat thereof on file and of: cecaLd in the office of thf~ RegistLat" of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, inc1udinq any part oc [.XJction of any street or (\11ey abutting said premises vacated 0(' to be vi.1cnted, Scott County 1 Minnesota. 1\180 showing the location of the proposed tl. 1/ 909. e //4 /96 PROVIDED: L.4kt \ NCyrES' Benchmark Inevation 928.38 top of thee! existinq <Jar-Rye ~,lClb on Lot 4. HINES PRING LAKE ROAD AKE, MN. 55372 ------------------------------ I I\LI ,...1' Ll., 1.....)1\. Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE. CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 '~iU" \2, (c: 12 III' \\i/ [2' ~'\I I ---' '- .. L.:: :J. ':.J.=:1 1 , --- --_. j JUN 2 ISJ~ r v../ ----------------- t i) EXHIBIT B "- --- --.----- ( SPRING".l-;--.---___ 92!>.n 1<( R --.-, · 0/.\ D) 'co SHOWSrEXlsTlNG-OECK t..- --~t:~ ":" - -- -----7 /' r"- I / I '-. -~---. ROAD "." '.','" 'iI'l...~o. 't~' ,'. 'f; ;;~~~t1-~+;,:&, '. ',d , '.,~,;~;~~:~l:~tj~o':', .' ' ~ ---.~-- -- Ivooo ------ FENC( _l-'----- Nt'ly , I,,,E' 0' N'?4" 10ls 3 38'35" ,465 -"100 W ,00.._ E><.ISTIHO HOUiE I ! ! to) --!OF/CH -. I SPRING ,DESCRtP'l'ION 1\;'-, '", ~'~~ ~ '.1'h'e westeeJy l)lIG \luH of Lot J; and l,\)l Ll; and the E{\ster:Jy One HaLf'; of Lot 5"'-;-.,.,,;-,'. <111 in BJock ,)(" anci il ,st:r:i,p 01. !,1W1 bf'tl,men si:'lic'1 Lots And lying southerly ther:eof Clnd th~, ''';'lLp.t> edqe of ~3pt'inq litke, in Spcinq I"l~;e Townsite, accordi.ng to the plat thet:eo( on [; le Clnd oJ: r:E~cot:'d in the oft: i,:e of: the Heyistcar of Deeds in i'lnd for: :-;" id :;, 'ot t O:-,\1nt y r :'-1 i r.nl"i\OI:71 r ; 111.1, lc1 i nq F\ny' l-""ld'. Or:' rOll: i <,,:1 of (lilY steeet or olley <lh, Jt t. ;.11"'\ rFlicl pt-el1i i ~~p~; vd,;i1IJ~(1 ')[' r.o bn. \'71'>1 ~_C'd I ::'cott County r _ .__~, ~ ,'", ......f: "'hn f)Y'fv)nE:..c~il EL.., I I /14 PROVIDED: 9098 /96 L4kf2 -~ I-III-\I~I\L"'J , Ill-\/L Urr/Gt. GUNUUM/N/UM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 L..~"I nUl I 1-\ .......J I I.' t 'v '-,-~ t, '- t IV("'U LAKE, MN. 55372 PROPOSED ADDITIONS f~rn.G~rn.~ JUr1 , ,1991 lU ( SPRING 9z!>.9zlAKE x ROAD) co. ROAD 9Z6.9C'JO. 12 x .. ~) GARAGE SLAB EL. 928.40 SPRING DESClup'rlON AS CL 11/14 PROVIDED: L4kt 909 .8 /96 'l'he westedy One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the l~asterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a stdp of lana between sa id Lots and lying southec ly theceof and the wateJ:s edge of Spdnq lake, i.n Spdnq fJake '1'ownsi te, accoJ:din(J to the plat theJ:eof on file and of J:ecoed in the office of the RegistJ:ar- of Deeds in and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, including any paJ:t oc paction of any stJ:eet OJ: alley abutting said pJ:ernises vacated oc to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pJ:oposcd ~ ,vvr1PC' Uonrhmrlrk Elevation 928.38 top of thn existing gat:"ag(~ slab on Lot 4. -- - - ~-_._------------ ----------~- -------------------- VEY PREPAR ED FOR: L ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD R LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying Co., F?A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT B -- - - ---- - . fP_BI.GINAL P80PO. rn<0rnD~~ ~ >>l , '199( ( SPRING 9z5.9zlAKE ~ co. .. ROAD 9Z6,9t-JO. 12 ~ 6 GARAGE SLAB EL. 92B. ~o SPRING DESCRIP'l~lON 1\S Cl. It 909.8 //4 /96 PROV IDED: L4kE 'L'he westerly Om~ Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easter:-J.y One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a stdp of land between said Lot~; and lying sOlltherly r ___"':1 t-\__ ~.....f-,...,,~,... ,...r:lf'tn. Ar (~t"\rin(l Jr\k~. _;n___~"\~inr:1_r_"'11_:o__.!.p~-~~'''-..:t: L. VEY PREPARED FOR: L ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD R LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying CO.. F? A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT A REVISED PLAN ... 'f.xrSTI,v~ DE (../<. L Frr{'os~J g.x~SiDn ( ,SPRING l 1125.9Z AKE . .. ROAD 112UIVo. . 6 GARAG[ 'LAIl [L. 921,40 tl... 9 1..4kE' It /14 09.8 DESCRIP'l'ION AS mOVIDED: /96 'I'he wester- 1 y One Hal f of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the EElstcr- 1 y One lIa l.f of [Jot 5, Cl.l.l .in Block 46, cmd a stdp of J.nnd bet'oJeell nnid LotH and lying. southedy ther-eof and the water-s edge of Spdng lake, i.n Spdnq r,ake Townsi.te, accor.n;nq t-n ..... RVEY PR EPAR ED FOR: ilL .HINES 19 SPRING LAKE ROAD lOR LAKE, MN. 55372 I Valley Surveying Co., F?A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAil FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVE EXHIBIT D t~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO SPRING 92'5.92. LA k E . ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE . ROAD 926.9CVO. . ~) GARAGE SLAB EL. 9Z8.~O r-; L_ Dl~:SClUPTION ^S tl. // 909.8 //4 /96 Pl~OVIIJED: L4kE" The wester-ly O[l(~ HuH of Lot 3; 011 in _u.... c~~... r-----1...:,.. __11l.,...,'-....""'_.:_~_~____'"l_. EY PREPARED FOR: HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying Co., !?A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAil FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 i ~y~~ ilPI \Vl [g rrr ml JUN 2/997 U EXHIBIT C .------- --..-- .I80IJr 70llSf / / --------L c --<..--.i~~i! .,......."..,...---9/<.6..... ---. ~------7 / r~' / I ( sPRING" .LA-.---~------ 9Z!>.97. kE R -------. 014 D) Co SHowsl~.,ftl.S~:.DEfJ ~r~' . .. to -.---- -. R6tl[)..~~6. I ~ ----........._- -----""-------- IVOO{1 "-. _ FENCE .~r-.._ ~ ~. ,., ~. "'}6~~ NElly. lint> Of N 740 10ls J _ 38'35" ,485 "100 W .00... EXISTING H OUiE I / I to) -.----J --.!'OF? C'-/----. '- I ~ 8 ~-r-. i (;;' ~ tu <l> '" iv , ~ '.a'1" " SPRING t/... 909 II / '4 .8 /96 .\)F.3CRtPl'ION ^:: PROV 1 DED: L.~k~ - ; .;-:-~.. ~~ .., The westerly ()ne Halt of Lot J; and I,ot Ll; Clnd the r;:ilstedy One HaLf'. of [Jot 5;- i1U i.n Block ,1h. ""nd <I .'3'xi.~) 01: !.lTl,.1 b0tloJP.011 Suid Lot:~ <'Jnd lying' southerly the]:;'ooL..aucJ !Jl'2 ',j.'JiPC:...< E.d<l'~o.f. ;}1>U[\<.] 1'1i<.8. i:LSpci.nu 1~;JkQ 'I'n\,m~it'p. .:lrr"'nrr1inn rr, '"'' ~ ',F~ ,,\ .;Hi."1 .;1 o.H> ':I:! .1Hl. "f :.j ,;("hHI .,1 .,i"\ .'1 :'11* 01 ';H,~ .,\ .;\:; .J> .* <I. ":H*..:,j .:1-'?\ :it n\."i"'i~np41':)'~ I' ~Tr ".'1\ (~ ;;, .':~I'!FI').RI!J: H"\ldc"fO'" '.. .+,'l,+,,~'~'''''' f"!:,1 . ,~, ..,.,. ,oJ"..,... \ -" "tl~."",:J i~ L. .::. T:.1I3 GPR J !)G L(.:;~q:. F 0 St-I / p p \. iT" l { v;~" 1''\1,1 c; "l":~"7 .:' Llel. ( .J...., \r., ...:...../ 7, ./' ,......f\ . \,,,. .. .... ..... '... . L.y.~) ,,/ 7~t<;C!OC~2 E:::~C ImHWE-:'GT C'..E:C THON l' C Tl\X SFJ~V J CE 1\ Tn'l . IlJ,,'P'i\ FEN '-) . P I\S I NCH,n C 1-\ P O. BOX 9309 UNIT 1760 ATTN: BILL HOLDING DEPARTMENT DES MOINES IA 50306-9609 U'i'.)\3m14 j'Ell TODD G tl :;;;:HERR I V~ HN'J<::1ON 2738 SPRrNG LA~E RD SW PR~OR LAVE MN 55372 /" ......................... ... ......./..... .-..--' ........ ............. .....--............... -' -....... ... ...... - ............ ......... ......-... .... ..' ................... /. ()I)] J :;.':3? ff f.:(..v~ STEVEN D G()EGEt1AN 1/ ':.''7''')('', Cf:'l:~ll'.jl:~ t A"[:: r:1 n c;w '".. t ,_ .,1 ~.) " _ \.. ... y\ ,,- '" ....' ..... PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 q'~~)():3,L;;;i r::.E3C t'1ELLOhl t'EJF TGAC~E CDViPANY Tn'\NSt:.,t'IEr~ Ie f-\ 1775 SHERMAN STREEl 'SU 1 TE 2:30(5 ATTN: LYLE GIEM DENVER CD 0031232 HSl STEVEN D BOEGEMAN ;':7~iO ~jPRIN.G LAII.E FW mJ PRIOR L.AKE MN 55372. "" 11 'I3b ~:'~I~~; ,. ;, u!l';;~';' ~ ;;; ; ~ -' u' .. - ' 'u ",~,,; . ,;:,;):\~; ;') ./' . ,;~~-; ..... 2ll.t::1 SPR1PG LAII..E PC' II 'I~l--~ -1<" /. Pt;'IOR LAVE 1'11',\ ~}~):3I~~ 'i"C) . ..)L )':;OOO.3~} E'':;C PPUDENT I (.,L HlJt1E l1DHrGt~GE co 1 t',j ATTN: REAL ES1ATE TAX DEPAR1M PO. BOX. 41.:57 ATTN: VICKI WIGGINS FREDERICK MD 21705-4157 ::I() 1 '7'7'36 Hf3r P ,'-':ULG ~:( ,.l(,>,I'JET L Gt-: I S 2743 SPRING LA~E RD PRIC)R LAKE MN 55372 .. ......... ....... ..."":..-.....-. ........... .... .-"-'" .......... .-......... .......- ....._.~.... !'\n'::":"':':~Cln f)f~' f ,.1J"""'I) 1..1 '.lIO' t/i '.' ,.11.... ....,. ". ,.I../~ ~ l.J . 'T l_ . . . L/ 2733 r:;;-' r'. I NO L.t"'V-..E P n :3 hI PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 QQQ0048 Ese WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY P. l] BUX. t;;:89 FORT WAYNE IN 46897-0165 0025300 Her TODD H HOLM 2733 SPRING LAKE PD SW .... ,_... ....~~.~ .~'.,~/!=~~~'=" ~ ~:~~,r:~: ._., _, _.. ......... 002".)()1.1.6 FFI I BY ,.f..'N H H INE:S ~. 271' SPRiNG LAKE RD SW PRIOR _.KE MN /J5372 ~,::::.'0406 E>:JC U::lT N{.~TU:Jl,jrrrDfi:. t'1DP TGAGE F IH~Jl' {,11ER.I Cf'o,l..\ Tl',\ '::";EHV Ief;:: BPC T <3. l~ t:i Ii" t: em (~)'~J /' ()~.~ / r.;? '7 1 (). ~;:~r: 7)4. .~ - ,'.'J I. ['::114 >:'1' \.J .,::1111 e 1'". f\ ;',; ;:\ I '0' ,:, :;; \ \ \ ! Bf~C T a): SI,\ stem 00/02/97 10:27:54 T.;;iXpa\if~r Name ~,: Addre~,"" *******************************~******** 5280 CORPORATE DRIVE ATTN: SONDRA YAUKEY FREDERICK MD 21701 0025046 H8T BYRON H HINES 271q SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 }'.J,lilic.' f:',ddrfo;,,;:' L,:!f,~a lJ i.::; t 'r ,/( Sc i'j ";3p 1 '3p ~~,:: () () 1. r.) ~3 c.. <~: ~J 11 '7 ~1()9 (}] ::c' c) /~, I ::::'.1~': () 0 (1/:1 e,' ':'.iO'; 0:' 4VrJ ..- I ~'~~ ....-....-..- .....- ...,. ..,--- -..--', :;::'001. UHOC'\ 0717 '509 Lli.-{I/5/11 . ..... ._.'~... ,"" ....' .-- -... .-.' ,.". ..-. _.~ ,...' -,~ .'-' -- -- ,,- ,,-- :.()01 ':)i3CO 0'/10:;,' ~1 () f; Name Ar.!dre,:,s L Gist T/C t;ch Spi ... ~...:,.... .....-... .........-.--.....-..-............-. -.-......,.-........... ....-. ...-....... .... -.....-.-.. . ..... .....-.. ......-.............,--........ -.--..,.- I O~773 PRI EAHL l~. ~~ G~~lL N NELSON ;;::001 0\:300 0719 50s L...... 2697 SPR 11\1(':: LA~\E RD Sl-J PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 00l~773 HSl EARL K & GAIL N NELSON 2697 SPRING LAKE RD SW . :::==:.::.:~~~~~:.~~~~::~~::=~~::~~:=:=!:!.f:t :~!:)=LI:10:!=~:.~::::. b RECORDS PRINTED bNE i~-7 -....) .~LI( . . I u - ",,,, - "'~ \ . i ;z. ~ ...!- \:::> i .... ~ ~ ...... I ...'" It I: ! '"" It I: 0- ...", ",.. ~ c i 4 Co ! , I ~ C). . \))' I - ~ ! , . ,. , . .', ., "", ( i \, - ....'t,.'l:F. .".:t;- . (I) '"1J :u Z Gl Ii' A G> Cl_ '"" n o c z ... "" ~ CO n o ... ... ~ '"" r :.- ~ fI'I G> " <1_ " , \ C) '"" ~ C ~ n 0 ~ c () z ... I "" 0 "'- (:) I ... --t. CO ~ n ('" " ...... 0 0 ... I ... '"" \>) I ~ ~ I I , I I G> 'i_ '"" n ....... 0 ~ c z ... -() "" ~ ~ '" ~ n , 0 ... ~ ~ ... ~ 'f.. ~ \.>> N , U>. I ~ ~ n ~ ~g~ n Z I: ~:: (J) ~..!- .. i en c<n ~~~ ~ :s:o~ ;l r I I i = =l~ ! ~ n" : I ;.. ! I\) t:: iN ------------- x.~ . :..<,.:. '. , , ! . V) i . I . , ~ I I\) I 1 ! ~ (1 . ~ :'-t i ::::: ~ ~ I\) I\) -- -~:'--;;-;;-I ='l"a3:j;: I ~~gEar::1 ~ 1-0 .. ~: ~ ~" ~mml "-"'01;9_\ al:~ftb~g p~~~i~!i ii'i:r==r:j