HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-88 Gau Variance
Planning Case File No. C)'7-" LOg ~
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
ZONING/LAND USE APPLICATION
Type of Application
o
o
o
o
IXI
o
o
o
o
o
Amendment to Zoning Map
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Planned Unit Development
Senior Care Overlay District
Home Occupation
Amendment or Modification to approved CUP or PUD
Other
Brief description of proposed project
(Please describe the proposed amendment, project, or variance
request. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
fill) (' /',
\../ .!i()\)/TlOtJ 6r- (0
reA-Mc nJf~ (PlJ/J(
Uv) 2- EN ffiMGr-. . ~
lr0 - ./-:'\ 0- @ I
,~ ':/fA) ~ r tit 1<-::> f\ I
5"~ ({;rPoJ o,J~ ~ ~
A-~
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone:
<<r-:Jlc,.J!.W F ~
MnN ~[ &-J&. ~u .1/_
~? WD ICftJ I (home) ~ '1/{) 'f',tlJ(work)
Fee Owner's Signature
(fax)
(work)
o Contract for Deed
(fax)
o Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach additional sheets if necessary):
Property Owners (if different than applicant):
Address:
Telephone: (home)
Type of Ownership: 0 Fee
y knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
additio I ha e read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
ill not b roc~d unti~~lete by the Plan~f;~o~or';::'ignee.
Date I
Date
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
(Required for PUD, CUP and SC Overlay District applications)
Will the developers request financial assistance from the City?
If yes, please describe the amount and type ofassistance requested (attach additional pages if necessary).
DYes
o No
Will anyone other than the applicant be involved in the ownership, development & management of this project?
DYes (If yes, please attach a list of the names and the role of all persons involved in the project.) 0 No
1:\handouts\200J handouts\zoning\zoning app.doc
-r-
..
I
-'T
17 July 2002 Proposal to the City of Prior Lake Mn.
This proposal, to the City of Prior Lake, is for a variance to
the property located on the N.W. corner of Monroe Ave. S.W. and
170th St. W. Proper address for the variance will be 16994
Monroe Ave. S.W.
Property owners are Richard F. Gau, and June L. Gau.
Reason for requesting a variance is to eliminate the potential of
physical harm to anyone that uses the existing stairs. We have
had two people who injured themselves using our stairs when
leaving our residence in the winter when said stairs are iced
over.
By turning our stairs to face the east, or Monroe Ave. S.W.,
instead of now facing south,or 170th St. W., and placing an "A"
frame structure over the stairs and "eye brow" over the garage
door car entrance, protruding off of the Monroe Ave. side, east,
or front of the house, would add much safer entrance and exit
during the winter and spring seasons.
An "A" frame and "eye brow" would also add a touch of
character to this 20 year old house. We are presently in the
middle of residing this house, widening the driveway, and adding
a utility door entrance on the 170th St. W. or south side, of
garage.
All of the above said projects are now "on hold", until a decision
on this variance is made.
I must add that the way things are with these projects, posses
an extremely high risk for injury. There is a hole that has been
dug to put in the frost footings and it is covered by plywood. The
retaining walls need to be back filled and the asphalt needs to be
laid. The house is all sided except for the front of the house.
As you can see this leaves our front yard a "Danger Zone"!
Thank You
Rick And June Gau
7 "-
Received of .... ~ 1 M1 Jt'l(,Y GuiA
r H " (\ ~ ...'
th ...,-', 1,1,' .J.-.J11 Q r, - i .
e sum of . ... v' ,"- ,. : :. .', ,~.\. (~. ./';' f.:( ---.J..t
_ -'._,' - _ _ ,1._
tor the purpose of
$
, v
I i.-....i~) 00
I ')l'
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245
RECEIPT # 41651
. (0.
DATE: \; ()~e.~ ! 'D7.
I
r
'r-~ -,
" l \ --..
, t {} )
\
--.... . dollars
(-
l. ..:._
f; (1 ,\ i r'. ",i f 'I
. '-' " ",-L-L/ t..-t _'
'dJ~C .
I
',,-'
Invoice #
,'}. ....1 ,*
,.:;/;,--r-~'':.! / ;
f . f, ( ,1 f J II J (' I
\" \j . \. , U / i ;/.1 "
Receipt Clerk for' the' ti~'of .Prior L~ke
i
,
lIEARL~G
~O'l'lCES
.
-
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
.. ... .. .,,-... ...... '. 'T -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUESTS
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, September 9,
2002, at 6:30 p.m. or soon thereafter for the following requests:
REQUESTS: The applicant is requesting a 8.3 foot variance from the required
minimum 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of an
entry addition to an existing single family dwelling and a 3 foot
variance from the maximum driveway width of 24 feet on property
located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) zoning district and
the SD (Shoreland District).
APPLICANT: Richard Gau
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Prior Lake, MN
SUBJECT SITE: 16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described
as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, Scott County,
Minnesota.
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 447-9810
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 Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 27th day of August, 2002.
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner
City of Prior Lake
Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject site on August 28, 2002.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-088\Mail notice.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~ailing
Information
and Lists
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
, ,~-'." .~,., .".. ....... ......,......._,... , ... . .,,'. ., - '"''''I''' ' - . '.' --,^...."..- ..__d", ._.-.....
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTI )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
Q,{x~,\'\AL r,{U2J c..vYlofthe Ci~f}'rior L~;~f Scott, State of
Minnesota, heing- duly s~, says on the 11L- day of > 2002, she served
the attached list of persons to p~~ an interest in the . _ \ ) ~
~C1, \{:;..--(),+ --y, ~ . by mailing to hem a copy thereof,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
day of , 2000.
NOTARY PUBLIC
..
1 :IDEPTWORK\BLANKFRMlMAlLAFFD.DOC
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE I MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
:::::::t::::t:::: PROPOSED ADDITION
A LL.EY
p
50 plat
50.04 mea..
,I
I
I
I
I w!
I ~ 1
II ~ I
~ I ~ J'5100l'
~ I. _'--=-=~I ~o:~;;~ ~~:~~~ tlG
..... _ \ &G
I:;:. ')1: ~ ~~:::Oi I
/~..:: 14.1 -0
~.~.. "L;
-_937.0
~
,
I
I
I
TC El.
933.07
933.17
.
936.8
y- -
/
I
/
I
ILl
'e.
'!'
...
\
DECK
3
Deck
I ~', .".r-.: .. '"
Ib . (", 6
,. Slo'b' .\,.." Z I
P, '. . C>
::. : :7..~ ~'~l.::~:
I
Ol
N
:g 6.0
24
..936.3
19.9
HOUSE
.....
117
o
't
HOUSE
-
0,
"Ci
N
<to
5.8
T/U GARAGE
Slob EL.
933.31
24
,.,
o
~
>
.- ..
00
QI
e
l::~ !.u'i:.
93~.3 ~
N
<t
.
936.6
~
~
g I
E \
=
iii \
\
..
o
QI
E
\D
N
N
<t
4J
o
0::
~
o
~
,
I
/
/
'- --. /"'930.1
'..J SPR1NG---- LAKE------ ROAD
9:,f.'2' _
50.01 mea..
50 plat
I
I
I
/
,(934.0
-'
60
929.46
.
930.51
.
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE. Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from
said property as of this 9th day of August, 2002.
o
I
SCALE
2'0
40
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
'ii' 'I.;'lj ..~~
I'l j- 'I'I
I[ \ \ AlJG I 5 2002 J)'
~_.- ._~~~
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
~
, hereby certify that this survey was prepored
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage by me or under my direct super.ilion and thot
/ om a duly lieenled Land Surveyor under the
102~he Sto', Minnesot..
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31 I A7 /
ft ~ ~..~
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31 O.te 9-1 i - Cl -c... Licen.. No. 10/83
IN
FEET
o Denot." /2 inch JI[ 14 inch iron
monument lit and marked by
lIc.n.. No, 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
II Denotes P. K. Nail set
....Contractor to verify dimensions prior to construction....
F/LE: No.
9566
BOOK 236
PAGE:
l7
Jfl
----........
-~~
\ TRACT. I
'" . ---"....
. ~ TRACT .
TRAC.T C
d
3.
. ~ 2
~:
___ ..:...T"-----.J _
~ \
Tr?WNS'T,. ~ {I t f ,
. t to ~. 1 ,. \
-.:.c-~--:- ~ C; \ ~~z i
12 en 7 '.
~.
",.
.!-,;llACT D ~ 'TRACT .
I . .
I
I
13
;. ;Q'
BA5S;Ooo-~. ROAo
I ~
.. , :5 .!)
F ~. 7J
-:, ~I ~..w f t---J ....-
· a:: T ~.$'~ 2 . .1l : _ 13 ". '.' " ~.
HI. ~ . I 4 ~ 8' 14 . 4 ~ I~G~
~LOT ;1/ 0 :~OU7L07 ·
I ..,... ELM DRIVE .... ~ I. .' ~ STATES
I.&JfZ -- oII(CI'I - n#1
~ " b $ a ~ % .. . I....
~ 08~' .
Z ct 4 ) ~ Z 1 3 2; I ;j In II I
~:I 4 3: _ _
t ~NTT ROAD 'Z
I ----
- -
. 3 .. , 6 4 I
/' 2 7 · · 10 II 12 13 '4 I' 16
/ ------
-- ...----
...
u
g
...
z
..
..J
...
>
~
,.
4
\
OUTLOT
HO....RD IitONNENS
1779&8
PATRICK McCOMt CK
16~ -38'
SPRING
LAKE
Cl.RENCE O'8RI.N
t6lit02~
~ ....
/" \ ....JQ~/ ~
....// ,?-X"'''b '-o..\'~
./ I :::> .:;,,,~~ ~,,,\s
-:J-.6-\3 :3
as - '\""\ ').
.,0(
,.;.
-~
.,
e:-
"'ILl.lA~ J.: S.MPKINS
'/I8~49
0-
EDWA"P. .S'''PKINS
1250"
.,~,.
/",--!l
\..O~ ...#/ -- I
V,#' - """".u.. -- I
~.~ ~~~. ---..;
.0 ".. V "R..
./' w -=--~.'.'- L -"0
/' h ~ -"
~
CRYSTAL
LAKE
~\
~~.. "
~
October 15, 2002
Anthony Stamson
Planning Commission Chair
16095 Wren Court SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Starns on:
Enclosed please find Variance Resolutions 02-011PC and 02-016PC for Richard Gau, 16994
Monroe Avenue SW, and Resolutions 02-014PC and 02-015PC for Mark Liesener, 4525
Jackson Trail, as adopted by the Planning Commission on October 14,2002. Please review
and sign the Resolutions and return them in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 447-9813.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~
Cyncl ia R. Kircho
Planner
Enclosures
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I have reviewed the attached proposed request lGau Variance) for the following:
r --~
Water City Code Grading
Sewer Storm Water Signs
I Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
I Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
I Assessment Electric X Roads! Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other
Recommendation:
Approval
)(
Denial
Conditional Approval
comr~
A/w wiJ.l-h \uW
-,;. ~ ...u~ ^,.. 7_~ ~ 7
~
1<
J-h.,
~
Signed:
~ g r .no.~~ Date:
./
'Olzll/02-
I I
Please return any comments by Thursdav. Auaust 29.2002, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\referral.doc
Page 2
p~
~INNE~
August 21, 2002
Richard F. Gau
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variances for entry addition and driveway expansion (Case # 02-088)
Dear Mr. Gau:
The City of Prior Lake has determined that all of the necessary information for the
above application has been received. This letter serves as your official notification that
the application is now complete for a front yard setback variance and a driveway width
variance. The City will now begin formal review of these requests. At this time, the
variance application is scheduled for the Monday, September 9, 2002, Planning
Commission meeting.
The City review process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to
progress in a timely manner that provides a complete and professional review.
Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend
the 60-day review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is
extending the. 60-day deadline for an additional 60 days from October 14, 2002, to
December 12, 2002.
If you have questions relative to the review process or related issues, please feel free to
contact me at (952) 447-9813.
Sincerely,
't: tt~
. .. ...;:-" j
., . ~-- } ~
C -C:J" -YU:-L- . ...,( )
Cynthia R. Kirchoff, AICP
Planner
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\complete app.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~z ~ ~e~
Richard F. Gau
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Review For Variance Application Completeness
Dear Mr. Gau:
The Planning Department received a variance application for construction of a roof
projection over your front door stoop, and attached to your existing dwelling on your
property at 16994 Monroe Avenue. The following information is necessary to process
your application:
1. Submit a certified list of property owners within 350 feet of your property, supplied
by a real estate abstract title company, including map, and two sets of mailing labels.
2. Submit a certificate of survey depicting: a) the existing structures, the proposed
addition and setbacks to property boundaries; b) total impervious surface coverage
area c) submit 10 full size copies of survey, and 1 reduction size 11"x 17".
3. Proposed building plans and specifications.
4. Include all impervious surface areas on the subject lot including structures, hard
surface or class 5 driveways and parking areas.
Once we have received the above information, we will process your application and
schedule this item for a public hearing. If you have any questions, please phone me at
447-9854.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
~i erely
~~/7'4"(
teve Horsman
Zoning Administrator/Inspector
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-088\INCOMPL T.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
II DISTRIBUTE TO:
I. Frank Boyles . Bud Osmundson
1 Sue Walsh . Sue McDermott
1 Ralph Teschner
1 Chris Esser
I. Bob Hutchins
I. Don Rye
I Jane Kansier
1
I.
1
PROJECT NAME:
I APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
I
I PID#:
I LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
PROJECT REQUEST:
DNR - Pat Lynch
County Hwy. Dept.
MNDOT
SMDC
Mediacom Cable
&-i.cr 8/2:2 ~ L
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
GAU VARIANCE (Case File #02-088)
An application for a 13.3 variance from the required minimum
25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance
from the maximum 24 feet of driveway width on property
legally described as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village.
Richard Gau
Richard Gau
(952) 440-1901
SITE INFORMATION
25-133-041-0
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
R-1SD
R-UMD
Review and comment on variance application.
I
I~l
-I
APPLICATION FOR:
- -
Administrative Land Division
Comprehensive Plan Amend.
Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupation
Rezoning
Site Plan
Preliminary Plat
PUD
Final Plat
. Variance
Vacation
Fire Chief
Bill O'Rourke
Minnegasco
Watershed Dist.
Telephone Co.
Electric Co.
Met. Council
1 Date 'Receiv~ - =il
7/3/02 Date Distributed 8/22/02 Date Due 8/29/02
I Complete Application 8/15/02 Date Distributed to 8/22/02 DRC Meeting NA
Date DRC
I Publication Date 8/24/02 Tentative PC Date 9/9/02 Tentative CC NA
Date
I 60 Day Review Date 10/14/02 Review Extension 12/12/02
-.,-".".._--
--.-.-..-..'.'.-
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\referral.doc
Page 1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request {Gau Variance} for the following:
Water
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
Assessment
Policy
Septic System
Erosion Control
Recommendation:
Comments:
Signed:
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
Natural Features
Electric
Grading
Signs
County Road Access
Legal Issues
Roads! Access
Gas
Other
Building Code
Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
Date:
Please return any comments by Thursdav. Auaust 29.2002, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\referral.doc
Page 2
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
ALLEY
Deck
I ' '.r"'",
,~"e...'{...~ 0
,. Slab"\ ' Z I
v... .0
,. . .c.........
"0" ,,',';;" 16.1-. .
.93!~a -1~
. ,"
'01
, a. I,
N-;
<t'
HOUSE
,.,
"
~
..
> .
g 2
E
.::=~~.
935.3 I't)
N
<t
~
"
g 1
~ \
;;; \
\
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
!'
50 plat
50.04 mea..
- _ 937.0
'q
\
I
I
936.8 _
:t""-
1
I
I
I
n: EL 933.17
933.07 '
w
1/'
I ~
./ ~
en I. ~
~ ~L o",,,~;:~bo"
I : ,,- 1
I I
: IJ
I I
I I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
II
I
j
I
j
I
'e.
'I'
....
\
en
N
~ 6.0
OECK
3:
24
.936.3
19.9
HOUSE
...,
11.7
o
...
"'ntI .
~ ....tJ
:.;; el I
=6 ~ G(o" ~
t ~ O"\".ytd
\~l 14,1
~3~1
5.8
T/U GARAGE
Slab EL.
933.31
24
...
"
a.
N
~!.-
936.6
..
"
..
E
lD
N
N
<t
laJ
o
0::
~
o
~
I
I
I
1
/..4'934.0
60
9'/"2', 50.01 mea.. I
50 plat /1
"'- --- /"'930.1
'-.J 3PR1NG---- LAKE---~ ROAD
929.46
x
930.51
,
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE. Scott County. Mirmesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or ofT from
said property as of this 9th day of August, 2002, "
.---
.- - ;'(r~-l ~~ IT\,' ,._.~:,,~ f', >'.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
o
I
SCALE
20
40
,
IN
FEET
o Denot.. I It Inch x 14 inch iran
monument ..t ond "",,ked by
llc.ns. No 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
. Oenot.. P. K. Noil .et
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
;i( MJ.J 15ZOOl
,\
lJ.lk----
I
II'
:0
, hereby certify thot this survey was prepared
D d d t f fi I d ~ d by me or under my direct supervi,ion and thot
--. enotes propose irec ion 0 mis Ie sUflace rainage 10m 0 duly licensed land Surveyor under the
:r:>. tthh... S St taa}1t. ,:;n.~~___
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31 IL: ~ (/K A~ ~
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31 Dof. ....ll::../L ~,,-c... lic.n.. No. 10183
***Contrac\or to verify dimen~ion~ prl..r to cGnstruction***
9566
236
PAGE
f7
FilE No.
800K
~~-' I
Original
surveys and
drawings
.
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
~-
FA'~ · .",~IJ!,"
/l/f,1a)
. 'Iff"
I ~ F'~~ ~N ro .~ ~~ ~I:- ~tJS~/d- /JtIIII!>Ie
M"'./'~~ ",,I- A~~:s ~
:t .. FJl'.... F-"""~4 ~ CP~e'A'f ~ J;,A'"",,~
u/' z. ~A"~t.
~ ;~~.- · t'S AlC.fc)~h""P/N'
-
.- .~~ ~,.~...s
-
n' MIH..Arg~J8./"
,""~..~
'"
" . .... . - ..-
~ g'X /~', ;:;J"'~S-'
- .-T -
?'7
0,
j
I
l
(Jf s. tAJ.
Mo~~o€ IfJf
t;.u
L6()~/,J"
~~.,.ft
I
~
;;",.. ...
r:
i:
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ! ~'(. ME 5
Impervious Surface Calculations ! [\\: I am
(To be Submitted with Building Pennit Application) I U I
ForAH Properties Located in the Shore land Distr1dt (S:9).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Ii
.1 ",
i) II
j~'
Property Address \ 1oC1.C\'--\.
~~~o~ ~.~.~. ~~
Lot Area 1, \ \ '1 ,Sq. Feet x 300/0 = .............. -z..\~'\o
************************************************************************
HOUSE
\
~ .
A'IT ACHED GARAGE
LENGTH WIDTH
'-\ 0 x 7..'-\
=
SQ. FEET
G\~c
x
=
x
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
C\bO
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
I.
C;('~\
DRIVEW A YiP AVED AREAS
(Driveway-paved or not)
-
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
x
x
=
=
x
=
TOTAL P A YED AREAS.........................................
4~(p
TOT.>\L DECKS........................................................
OTHER
e~~o~C o~.ev\M.~, ~~
..\+*-w\\\ 0..&& ~
TOT AL OTlIER.......................................................
',~"(""\.l \~~
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
~ER\\
Prepared By ~~ ~ ~
\
"Company ~ ~~\"" r ^ '\ .(. ~. Phone # ~'\, - "th'1D
11 x ~
x
=
\i_
=
\7..-
101 tb
,I
I,
Date
I
I
el\~
\ \.\.;e
SLOG, PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE, SW
PRIOR 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
ALLEY
<D
936,8
<Y-"-
I
I
I
I
50 plat
50.04 mea,.
- _ 937..0
~
\
\
I
I
TC EL 933.17
933.07 x
1LJ ~
= at
m ~ DECK
N __~l
-
<D 6.0
I "--:"~ It) 24
-:., b 0
Ib . ( " 0
. \ \'1;) HOUSE
Deck ,. Slab ~ . Z
'0, 'a. ... C>
(.. . .L-, ..
.'..,.. .. &' : ..e.:-'~I.:.-
0
. 9316 q-
~
UJ
::>
2:
LIJ
:>
q:
,..936.3
19.9
=
-
m
It)
8.1&
'f11i 1
o Er..
v _Ul
11.7
o
SiOO'?
o\J€"fl.'t:P ~G
-- €..O C N€..fl.'(t:>..
_I *",fl.o'?OSG€" fl.Oof 0
. r>,fl.t:>.
~G
"" 0
V)
HOUSE
-
~ .!:!
a.
N
V
dl ~
T / U GARAGE
Slab EL,
933..31
24
;eg'
o
..r::.
...
CIl
::.
'I~ 14'
U ,I
~:"~ -.
''----''----
o .,e'
, GfO"
~ ylo'l
.~ OfWe
>-
o
3:
<II
> .
'i: ut
o 1:)
(II
e
c: : .~ :?lri..:'.
93$,3 ,."
N
q-
936,6
-
1:)
a.
N
""""'q-
5.8
ell
::J
.5 I
E
~ ,
lD \
\
II)
1:)
<II
E
<D
N
N
"'"
l.LJ
o
ct
2:
o
~
9~ ,2......._
50.01
mea..
I
,
I
/
)1:934,0
-"
60
929,46
x
930,51
X
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from
said property as of this 9th day of August, 2002.
- (;:::> \'C:;.'. n '\\/7 rs.. ~. '..~
. ~-7 cS lJJ.;..... ;.~:.J, I ',i
Ii :. i" ,-_.-'- ,.-- ,; i
\ J H ; j I
V/ 5312 Ii
~ I:!
1\ . Nl1' 1 )
t'J'~l l~
\
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
o
,
SCALE
20 ... 40
I
IN FEET
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933,0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
..
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared
Denotes.proposed direction of finished surface drainage by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the
:.Jr1. , the Sta}1 :'.i~nei.ta. '__ _
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31 Ie:: ~ C;X A. __
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31 Date 51- J 2. - a -c... License No. 10183
o Denotes 1/2 inch x 14 inch iron
monument set and marked by
License No. 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
aD Denotes P. K. Nail set
***Contractor to verify dimensions prior to ccnstruction***
FILE No. _~566 _
BOOK 236
PAGE
17
~/;!ItB~~!2
Sold To:
Richard Gau
16994 Monroe
Shakopee, MN 55372
Customer ill
Gau, Richard
Sales Rep ID
Quanti ty
Item
'JA
Check No:
128 W. 3rd Avenue
P. O. Box 355
Shakopee, MN 55379
Phone 952-445-1050
Fax 952-445-0319
Ship to:
Customer PO
350' Owners & Addres
Shipping Method
Hand Deliver
Description
'Jwners & Address Search
Invoice
Invoice Number:
S4865
Invoice Date:
Aug 8, 2002
Page:
1
Payment Terms
C.O.D.
Ship Date
Unit Price
PI, ,k ~t!
j{(!fl1
Subtotal
Sales Tax
Total Invoice Amount
Payment Received
TOTAL
Due Date
8/8/02
Extension
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
Resolution
and ~inutes
~1q D~ vlLV\~ <~ fL--
.. )
rcu . OL-(l PC-
~. 02--- tt0?e-
q 'l'Zy I () L P t 1tCvuv(~
ro/ltloG- Pc ~
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
., ..,~ .....",.,.".,-- ,.
.. ,'._ _.~ _'_',~_ ._._._. _ '.,~;.~."'::,~,~'._'_~' ,'.._.. ....., _ . '". .._.__,_<_,___~'__"'_'w _.__ ~,~ ,.,._._ _...._._ n _~_ ...
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
VOTE: Ayes by Stamson, Lemke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood, the motion carried.
B. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the
required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated September 9,2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard Gau to permit a 6
foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to encroach into a required front yard setback on the
property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling
maintains a 19.9 foot front yard setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7
feet from the front property line and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be
14.1 feet from the property line abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop
and eave addition, the applicant is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet.
The project was started without a building permit. The applicant is requesting the
following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Staff believed all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested
variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide driveway.
The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the driveway. Staff
could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety of the dwelling
entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested
variances as proposed by the applicant.
Lemke asked for clarification as to the side yard, front yard and rear yard. Kirchoff
explained.
Criego questioned how the City became aware of the violation. Kansier responded this
was unknown to her, but upon investigation by City staff, a stop work order was issued.
Comments from the public:
Rick Gau, 16994 Monroe Avenue, indicated he had obtained a building permit and his
intention was not to deceive anyone. Advised the awning, stoop and high-brow garage
door was to mitigate the impact of snow melt in front of his garage and front door. Gau
felt he was misled by the building staff and believed the 27-foot drive is necessary to
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN090902.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
adequately provide parking on his lot. There is no parking along the street. Noted that at
this point he has spent a lot of extra money and time waiting for the process.
Jim Petersen, 3338 Todd Road, advised that Rick had misinterpreted the extent of the
building permit. Believed the additional driveway width was reasonable.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Asked if discussion had taken place with the applicant as to a smaller setback, and
if the photos brought in by Mr. Gau had some other type of circumstances other
than the homeowners not getting caught.
. Kansier advised no discussion had taken place with applicant regarding a lesser
setback. There are quite possibly extenuating circumstances surrounding other
properties, including being done prior to the ordinance, or that some lots may be
nonconforming.
Ringstad:
. Did not believe the setback met the current hardship criteria. Would like to see
additional conversations take place with staff.
Atwood:
. Sympathized with the neighborhood with respect to the parking issue, but could
not support the request.
Lemke:
. Believed the request was reasonable.
. Supported both requested variances.
Criego:
. Noted the 24-foot driveway width is calculated at the lot line and the driveway
could be flared further into the lot, thus eliminating the variance for 27 - foot of
driveway width. Questioned the applicant if there was a railing and where the
steps would be.
. Asked for staff to clarify the difference between an awning and the proposed
structure.
. Gau explained the proposed improvement.
. Kansier clarified that a stoop can be extended.
. Believed the problem was difficult and the property was unique as a comer lot,
but the hardship criteria need to be adhered to.
. The project improved the aesthetics of the home, but there is no hardship.
. In favor of the covering over the stoop, but the overhang of the garage does not
meet the hardship.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN090902.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 2002
Stamson:
. Agreed with Commissioner Criego that the parking issue can be addressed
without a variance, and there is a safety issue for the front stoop.
. Would support a covering not to exceed 4 feet over the stoop, and re-design the
overhang of the garage.
Ringstad:
. Suggest tabling the issue to the next meeting.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION WITH STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes by Stamson, Lemke, Criego, Ringstad and Atwood, the motion carried.
6. Old Business: NONE.
7. New Business:
A. Case File #02-94 Wensmann Homes is requesting a Preliminary pun Plan
and Preliminary Plat (Jeffers South) for a mixed development consisting of 22 single
family homes, 31 attached townhouse units and 28 attached condominium uses on
34.05 acres ofland zoned R-l.
Kansier reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
Wensmann Realty, Inc., has applied for approval ofa development to be known as Jeffers
South on the property located west of CSAH 21, approximately 12 mile north of CSAH
82 and directly north of Wensmann 1st Addition and Regal Crest. The proposal calls for
a mixed use development consisting of a total of 81 dwelling units on 23.69 net acres, for
a total density of 3.42 units per acre. The proposed development includes 22 single
family dwellings and 59 townhouse units in 45, three and four-unit buildings. The
development also includes parkland and private open space.
The Final PUD Plan is generally consistent with the approved preliminary plan. There
are, however, some changes are required to the plan before final approval. These
changes are required in order to be consistent with the approved preliminary plan, and to
meet the conditions included as part of the preliminary plan approval. These include the
following:
1. The developer must provide an access to the park on the west side of the site from
Jeffers Pass.
2. The name of the cul-de-sac must be changed to a name more consistent with the street
naming policy.
3. The developer must provide sign elevations for the monument signs.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN090902.doc 10
.,--",.~-
0M- V keeA:JJCfC CCS:SOGtA Tfo t-j
8'(~@ scot+Co, ~
Scott County Customer Service
(952) 496-8150
# 222586 25-0CT -2002
CUSTOMER
A Filing
Abstract
Total for Fee
1@
20.00ea
20.00
FILE NUMBER OR NAME:
GAU, RICHARD
Receipt Total
20.00
Cash
2000
Payment Total
20.00
0.00
Change
~.~
; ,L~~~"';U\.J..
~j ,.1-'-.-'- -.:.
:(! ~T 24 312;1 :
J\ll jlJ)
J
J
RESOLUTION 02-016PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 24
FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction 27 foot wide driveway on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,2002, and reviewed the application
again on September 23,2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variances will result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably rlimiflish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variances are the result of the property owner's actions. The applicant has
control over the property, and as such, the applicant created the hardship.
6. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and are not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 denied the following
variance to allow the driveway expansion as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1. A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways to allow a
27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 1..4 , 2002. ~
/" I
~
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
~J
Donald R. Rye, ~nin
I: \02files \02variances \02-088\deny resolution,doc
2
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RIC~ a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE J MN. 55372
\J\\\\J\1\\\\\ PROPOSED ADDITION
:.;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:-:
.......................
A L L.E Y
~
936.8 _
.~-
,"
I
I
I
D.ck
W >II
ul
: L~~.
10 6.0
1 :...;-.~ ... 0
I-c. ',: ",:' 0 t
,. Slab \ ' z: :!
,~':'~;':' I
.'~ ':,' ./?: I~I.:.~
. . 93!.6
HOUSE
ii'
" Ci. '
N'
<t'
"
o
~
.
> .
- ..
0"
..
e
-:~~Ili.:"
93 '.3 f()
N
<t
~
5: I
~ \
m \
\
9~f2"" _
"-l
929 46
,
DESCRIPTION:
Volley Surveying CO., P. A.
SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
ATTACHMENT 1
50 plat
50.04 mea..
-_937.0
~
\
\
\
I
TC El.. 933.17
933.07 '
;
l;
DECK
lLJ
::>
<::
lLJ
>
<:x:
~
24
:~36.3
19.9
HOUSE
01
10
I
,S1001'
Q'I~l'.C:> *tlG
~l'.OI'OS:~ l'.~f O'l~l'1 ~
&GI>l'.1' :
11.7
.
o
III
o
...
I.'"
~~
r!\J
l'J~ G'O."
)it," ...0'1
:;:!~:. ~ 01'"
~
/~.:..., 14.1
~:3..~
~ ~---
5.S
T/U GARAGE
Slab EL.
933.31
24
ii
Ci.
N
936.6
..
"
..
E
<0
N
N
<t
lLJ
o
~
<::
o
:E
50.01 mea.
50 plat
I
I
J
I
/
'-'934.0
-~
60
ROAD
93051
,
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or olY from
said property as of Ihis 91h day of August, 2002.
,I 1,1
,-7 ;-:-.
'I.
I,
i';
I I
i:
! :1
j,
.i-"
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
o
r
zo
40
I
FEET
SCALE
IN
o Denot.s ll2 inch _ 14 Inen "on
mD"""".n' s.t end marked bY'
Ltc.n.. No. 10/83
. O.no"S .,on monun'I'l'It fOl,Jnd
oil
Odnot,s P K, Na,' set
,"4...^_-"..~_.~"...""'~,'_..
AliG , S :rof
J \1..._
i
9331 Denotes el'isting grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed linished grade elevation
.
I ne(~by C,,''''1 tho' ,tVI fAK'vey wos prepared
by m. or und.r my direct supet'..,lllon ond thot
10m a dUly Ilcensld Lond SutV'Yor tJltder the
~r;?~;});7'Q. -
9-' 1. -,,"C- ~ic.n.. No. IOlS3
~
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
The el'isting garage slab is at elevation 933.31
The lowest tloor elevation is 933.31
Dot.
u*COlllr:actor 10 verify dimensions Ilrior to construction*'"
FILE NO. 9566
8001< 236
PAGE ~
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The undersigned, duly qualified and City Clerk of the City of Prior Lake, hereby certifies
the attached hereto is the original true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION 02-11PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE
#02-088 Richard Gau
"~
Kelly !V1eyer
City of Prior ake
I
Dated this 24th day of October, 2002
(City Seal)
J: I02fiJesl02variancesltruccopy.doc
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction of a 5 foot stoop and a 5 foot eave addition to an existing single family
dwelling on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density. Residential) and SD (Shoreland
District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variance will not result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variance is not the result of the property owner's actions. The
nonconforming lot width is a pre-existing condition in which the property owner does not
control.
6. By constructing the stoop and eave addition, the applicant will be improving the safety of
the entrance.
7. The granting of the variance, as determined by the Planning Commission, is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but IS necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 approved the
following variance to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling:
1. A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to allow a 14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section
1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
The following conditions of approval shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. A revised survey shall be submitted that identifies the approved front yard setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October t J ~~
Adtlll~ny t Stamson, Commission Chair
~EST: ~
\. t.J~A~
Donald R. Rye, aIm' g Director
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution .doc
2
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION Ar J:'KOVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction of a 5 foot stoop and a 5 foot eave addition to an existing single family
dwelling on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland
District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variance will not result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variance is not the result of the property owner's actions. The
nonconforming lot width is a pre-existing condition in which the property owner does not
control.
6. By constructing the stoop and eave addition, the applicant will be improving the safety of
the entrance.
7. The granting of the variance, as determined by the Planning Commission, is necessary for
the preservation and enjoym~nt of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 approved the
following variance to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling:
1. A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to allow a 14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section
1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
The following conditions of approval shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. A revised survey shall be submitted that identifies the approved front yard setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 14,2002. (____
M~
Arith"-ony r Stamson, Commission Chair
rT:TEST: '"' /) f.
~ ~iMAl)UA/
Donald R. Rye, PlannU g Director
..
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution .doc
2
RESOLUTION 02-016PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM 24
FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction 27 foot wide driveway on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,2002, and reviewed the application
again on September 23,2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variances will result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variances are the result of the property owner's actions. The applicant has
control over the property, and as such, the applicant created the hardship.
6. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, IS not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and are not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
..
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 denied the following
variance to allow the driveway expansion as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1. A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways to allow a
27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on Octobet 1..~' 2002. /.
4J~
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
MEST: ~
~~..
Donald R. Rye, PI nin
I: \02files \02variances \02-088\deny resolution. doc
2
SLOG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK e. JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AvE. SW
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Valley Surveying CO.. P. A.
SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONOOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TEl.EPHONE (612) +47.. 2570
AI-IACHMENT 1
\~\\\\I\II\\\\\ PROPOSED ADDITION
.......................
ALL.EY
~
50 plat
50.04 mea..
-_937.0
'f~
\
I
,
I
rc E~ 933.17
,933.07 ·
938. e _
,....-
"
I
I
I
UJ >ll
.;
(lI ~
-4
N \
en 6.0
rtl
OECK
~
Lll
:::>
z
Lll
::>
<t
24
..938.3
19.9
I.'.
11.7
(lI
rtl
.
(5
III
S100i'
CCI'l~lt~..o/b.t<G
. :~ Oi'Ostl:l ~.r'If Q'I~"'~
_, . 911 ~..IIl>Gt "w- ,
&"" i
O.ck
,; ........ .
.... .
I" '. ~ ...
/. SlOb j .
0,.. .\01
,. . -,'
,'.. . ,,'.~' 18.1 -.
. . 93!l.5 - I
.] I
~I
<r
<5
z:
HOUSE
o
...
rEff
~ 1iJ~:' I
~~~~i~;- ~.\
T/U GARAGE ~f::::: G10 ..0"1
SlQO EL. ':'~I~~' . or\~.
933.31 . ~
24 r~-:,,'i 14,1
~3.1
;;
Q.
N
:!.u
HOUSE
5.S
,
9386
I 1>
I ~
I ~ .
a ~
01'
, e
,,;:l~21ti:'
93~.3! If)
N
<r
..
2
e \
=
cii \
\
..
"
01
e
<D
N
N
<r
I.t.J
o
a:
z
o
~
60
I
I
/
~ ___ ./'"'930.,
'" SPRI NG- - - - LAKE ---.... ROA D
.......
931.~"'" _
5001 mea.
50 plat
I
I
I
,,"934.0
929 46
,
93051
,
DESCRIPTION
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on 10 or olT from
sail! property as of lhis 9th day of August, 2002.
,.
~7~1
~ I
NOTES: BendJlnark Elevation 9333 I Top of the existing garage slab
AlJG I )
J!1~ i.
':.11
.h.~~i
IN
40
.J
FEET
933.1 Denotes existing gmde elevation
x
( 9 33. a) Denotes proposed linished gmde ele'ialion
.
J _\__
!
The: lowest lloor elevation is 933.3 \
Il'ter'fby certify 'hat ,r.. fUt'v.'1 was pr,poted
It't tn' Of unGer my direct SUQerv"IQn and th'U
I om (J ooly "c,nnd Land Survr,Of under m.
laM tn. 510:;1 Mmn.,oIO.
ie ~4Y c:P ~- .--
9_11. - ClI 't- Lic.ns. No. 10lS.3
-.-
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
o
r
2'0
SCALE
The: existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31
o Oeno,"' /2 inch l( 141ncn "on
monum.nt t.t cJr'Id morlCed by
Llc..'. No. 'a's 3
. O.notes "on motlum,nr found
<Ii Oltnotet PI<. Nfl" I.t
Dot.
~ ""Coutractor to verifv ,limensions nrior 10 clll)slruclilll......
!.JI.LJJI" 9566
..aaa.~ 236
(7
October 9,2002
Richard F. Gau
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the October 14,
2002, Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected
to attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity tO,speak regarding your
proposal and the staff report. The meeting begins at e:ae1ttm. and is held at the
Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side
of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be
deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Connie Carfson
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING
VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5
FOOT EAVE AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
16994 MONROE AVENUE SW
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 14, 2002
02-088
On September 9,2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item
and unanimously voted to table the requests so that the applicant and staff could
discuss other alternatives. The Commission reviewed the item again on September 23,
2002, and by a vote of 4 to 1 directed staff to prepare a resolution approving a front
yard setback variance to allow the property owner to construct a stoop to cover the
existing concrete slab and a variance to allow a 27 foot wide driveway.
The attached Resolution 02-011PC approves the following variances:
1) A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for
the construction of an 5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to permit a
14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional
Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways to permit a 27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1107.205. Driveways).
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction for the
approval of the variances for the construction of a covered stoop and eave and 27 foot
wide driveway.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Gau Variances
October 14, 2002
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the attached Resolution 02-011PC approving the variances because the
Planning Commission finds a demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance
criteria.
2. T able or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-011PC approving variances to allow a
14.9 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way abutting Monroe Avenue and
a 27 foot wide driveway.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-088\PC Report,doc
RESOLUTION 02-011PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE
AND A 27 FOOT W luE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the
construction of a 5 foot stoop and a 5 foot eave addition to an existing single family
dwelling and a 27 foot wide driveway on the property located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 12,
Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variances will not result in the
impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the
public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any
other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variances are not the result of the property owner's actions. The
nonconforming lot width and prohibition of on street parking on Monroe Avenue SW are
pre-existing conditions in which the property owner does not control.
6. By constructing the stoop and eave addition, the applicant will be improving the safety of
the entrance. The additional width of driveway will increase the amount of off-street
parking available to the subject property.
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variances will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 approved the
following variances to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling and driveway
expanSlOn:
1. A 5.1 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
5 foot stoop and 5 foot overhang to allow a 14.9 foot setback (Zoning Ordinance Section
1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2. A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential driveways to allow a
27 foot wide driveway (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
The following conditions of approval shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a
building permit for the proposed addition:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. A revised survey shall be submitted that identifies the approved front yard setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 14, 2002.
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\appr resolution .doc
2
September 19, 2002
Richard Gau
16994 Monroe Ave SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the September 23,
2002, Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to
attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal
and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station
located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you
cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next
Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-
9810.
Sincerely,
Connie Carfson
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr,doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT
STOOP TO BE LOCATED 11.7 FEET FROM THE
FRONT LOT LINE, A 6 FOOT EAVE/OVERHANG TO
BE LOCATED 14.1 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT
LINE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
16994 MONROE AVENUE SW
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
02-088
Richard Gau is requesting variances to permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to
encroach into a required front yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe
Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard
setback. The steps ofthe stoop are proposed to be 11. 7 feet from the front property line
and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line
abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the applicant
is also increasing the width ofthe driveway to 27 feet (see Attachment 1). The project
was started without a building permit.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
BACKGROUND:
On September 9,2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and
unanimously voted to table the requests so that the applicant and staff could discuss other
alternatives. On September 16, 2002, staff met with the applicant to present another
alternative. The applicant feels the proposed design is the most appropriate for the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 2
home's east facing elevation and would like to proceed with the original request. The
staff asked Mr. Gau to elaborate these reasons in writing, but as of the date of this report
(September 18, 2002) we have not received any additional information.
The subject property was platted as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, in the 1850s,
which was one ofthe first plats in Prior Lake. The site is zoned R-l (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland District). The platted dimensions ofthe lot are
approximately 50 feet wide by 142 feet in depth for a total lot area of approximately
7, I 00 square feet.
In 1983, a 5 foot variance was granted from
the 25 foot required front yard setback and a
4 foot variance was granted from the 10 foot
required side yard setback to allow for the
construction of a single family dwelling with
attached garage.
DISCUSSION:
According to the attached survey, the existing dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot setback
from the property line abutting Monroe Avenue SW. An 8 foot stoop and 6 foot
overhang/eave are proposed along the front ofthe home. The proposed front yard
setback, as measured from the step of the stoop is 11.7 feet. The minimum front yard
setback from Monroe Avenue for this property is 20 feet (because of the variance granted
in 1983), thus the request for an 8.3 foot variance.
According to the survey, other applicable bulk
standards, such as maximum impervious
surface coverage, minimum setback from 170th
Street SW, and minimum rear yard setback,
are met. The zoning ordinance permits eaves to encroach 2 feet into a required yard, and
In conjunction with other home improvements,
the applicant is proposing to increase the width
of the driveway to 27 feet. The zoning
ordinance permits residential driveways to be a
maximum of 24 feet in width at the public
right-of-way.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 3
awnings and platform decks to encroach 5 feet into a required front yard. However, the
proposed features are larger than the encroachments pennitted by the zoning ordinance.
The Spring Lake Townsite lots were platted 50 feet in width, thus many of the lots have
been combined to provide a larger buildable area for modern year round dwellings;
however, some of the single lots have received relief from zoning ordinance provisions to
allow a reasonable use to be constructed. Records on file at City Hall indicate that three
properties within 350 feet received setback variances for the construction of residential
structures.
The applicant has indicated that the reason for the setback variance request is to
"eliminate the potential of physical harm to anyone that uses the existing stairs.. .when
leaving [the] residence in the winter when said stairs are iced over. .. and ... add a touch
of character to this 20 year old house." (See Attachment 2.)
VAJtlANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said
lot is located.
The subject lot is only 50 feet in width and approximately 7,100 square feet in area.
This lot does exhibit exceptional conditions that result in practical difficulties upon
the owner in constructing a single family dwelling, as permitted in the R-l zoning
district, however, variances have already been granted to allow for the construction of
a reasonable use.
The lot is relatively flat and rectangular in shape, so the topography and shape of the
lot does not impact driveway width or location, so the property owner does not have a
practical difficulty to warrant relief from the maximum driveway width permitted by
the zoning ordinance.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The 50 foot wide lot is a unique condition of the property, but is not exclusive to this
subject lot or neighborhood. There are several subdivisions within the City of Prior
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9, 2002
Page 4
Lake that were platted with narrow lots. Furthermore, the property owner received
relief to construct the existing single family dwelling.
As mentioned previously, the conditions of the property do not impact the driveway
width or location.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A single family dwelling with an attached two stall garage is present on the site, so the
owner enjoys a reasonable use of the property. The inability to construct an 8 foot
stoop is not impacting the overall enjoyment of the property. A smaller eave and
stoop could provide the same protection from the elements and add interest to the
architectural style ofthe home, without such a large variance.
A 24 foot wide driveway offers ample area to park to vehicles side by side.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the setback variance will neither impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property nor increase congestion of public streets, but it will
establish a precedent for an 11.7 foot front yard setback within the Spring Lake
neighborhood, when a 25 foot front yard setback is required.
Also, the driveway width variance will establish a precedent for other residential
properties and may impact snow storage in the boulevard.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the setback variance does not appear to impair health and safety ofthe
immediate area, but it will impact the character and development of the neighborhood
by establishing a new front yard setback for the Spring Lake neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent the overcrowding ofland and
undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 5
buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." The
proposed 11.7 foot front yard setback is significantly less than the minimum 25 feet
required, but the property is only required to maintain a 20 foot setback due to a
previous variance, and appears to be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance
provision.
The purpose ofthe maximum driveway width is to limit vehicular access to a public
street, allow for adequate on-street parking availability, and provide an area for snow
storage. A 24 foot wide driveway also allows parking for two vehicles. An
additional 3 feet of driveway width appears inconsistent with the intent of the
ordinance.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The existing single family dwelling is approximately 20 feet from the property line,
so any architectural feature that intends to provide protection from the elements and
add interest on the front ofthe home would require a variance. However, the
proposed features could be reduced in depth as to limit the amount of encroachment.
Since the encroachment could be reduced, the setback variance would appear to serve
as a convemence.
Also, the increased driveway width serves as a convenience to the property owner. A
driveway that complies with maximum zoning ordinance standards would still allow
for ample ingress and egress to the property, as well as vehicle storage.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to
the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The subject site is 50 feet in width. The zoning ordinance requires lots within the R-l
zoning district to be 86 feet in width, so this lot is nonconforming. However, the fact
that the property owner has proposed the addition that extends into the setback
approved in 1983 and driveway width greater than permitted by ordinance makes the
hardship self-created.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Although the addition will likely increase the value ofthe home, staff does not
believe that it is the sole purpose ofthe request.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9, 2002
Page 6
CONCLUSION:
The applicant was granted relief from the zoning ordinance in 1983 to construct a
reasonable use on the property. The dwelling was placed at the approved front and side
yard setbacks, therefore any additions to the front or rear of the home would require an
additional variance. The purpose of the current variance is to provide a safe entrance and
interest to the home. Staff appreciates that the property owner wants to improve the
entrance to the home. However, by granting the proposed setback variance the property
owner would receive a greater benefit than other properties within the Spring Lake
Townsite plat and the R-I zoning district.
Also, since a 24 foot wide driveway provides reasonable ingress/egress, the driveway
width variance would establish a precedent for all residential properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that all nine-hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the
requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide
driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the
driveway. Staff could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety
of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommends denial of
the requested variances as proposed by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion ofthe item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3. This requires the following motion:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-011PC denying the variances to allow a
11.7 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way abutting Monroe Avenue and a
27 foot wide driveway.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-088\PC Report.doc
RESOLUTION 02-011 PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FORAN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an 8 foot stoop and a 6 foot eave addition to an
existing single family dwelling and a 27 foot wide driveway on the property
located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Districts) at
the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
follows: Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, Scott County,
Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,
2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variance will
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to
the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variance request is a result of the property owner's actions by
designing the proposed addition within the required front yard setback and
1:\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the proposed driveway wider than permitted by ordinance. The applicant has
control over the property, and as such, the applicant has created the
hardship.
6. There is an existing structure on the lot, so there is not a justifiable hardship
caused, and that reasonable use of the property does exist without the
granting of the variances.
7. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is
not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to
the applicant, and are not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 variances to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling
and driveway expansion as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback
for the construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards)
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 23, 2002.
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc
2
_ocation V1a)
4<
GF'~lNG LAKE RD SV" /~ /
~--~------
/
/ /
/ /
,~, / II
<"I '
"y,
~/
~
I Gau Property .
Spring Lake
20
I
o
20
W
?{
WI
o
a:
z
o
:2
40 Feet
KENT ST
I~ / /---
I~ / /
m / I
)> / /
< /
m/
I KENT ST
W
?{
W
t:
~'
W
o
I
VALE CIR VALE CIR
1(0~M ~ I SW
o
~
=1
I~
m
1 tU I H ST SW
N\ST
/~1~O/
(J)
c
z
en
m
-l
I ~ I
---;------;---1_
N
+
W
>
-<('
w-
en
0::
z-
::>
en
ATTACHMENT 2
17 July 2002 Proposal to the City of Prior Lake Mn.
This proposal, to the City of Prior Lake, is for a variance to
the property located on the N.W. corner of Monroe Ave. S.W. and
170th St. W. Proper address for the variance will be 16994
Monroe Ave. S.W.
Property owners are Richard F. Gau, and June L. Gau.
Reason for requesting a variance is to eliminate the potential of
physical harm to anyone that uses the existing stairs. We have
had two people who injured themselves using our stairs when
leaving our residence in the winter when said stairs are iced
over.
By turning our stairs to face the east, or Monroe Ave. S. W.,
instead of now facing south,or 170th St. W., and placing an "A"
frame structure over the stairs and "eye brow" over the garage
door car entrance, protruding off of the Monroe Ave. side, east,
or front of the house, would add much safer entrance and exit
during the winter and spring seasons.
An "A" frame and "eye brow" would also add a touch of
character to this 20 year old house. We are presently in the
middle of residing this house, widening the driveway, and adding
a utility door entrance on the 170th St. W. or south side, of
garage.
All of the above said projects are now "on hold", until a decision
on this variance is made.
I must add that the way things are with these projects, posses
an extremely high risk for injury. There is a hole that has been
dug to put in the frost footings and it is covered by plywood. The
retaining walls need to be back filled and the asphalt needs to be
laid. The house is all sided except for the front of the house.
As you can see -this leaves our front yard a "Danger Zone"!
Thank You
Rick And June Gau
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE I MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P. A.
SUITE 120-C. 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE t 6/2) 447 - 2570
Alo.ACHMENT 1
:\~?[{%\% PROPOSED ADDITION
:;:::::;:::;:::::;:;:::
A LL.EY
~
50 plat
50.04 mea..
- _ 937.0
~
\
I
I
I
I
I
iTC El.
1933.07
II
933.17
.
936.8 _
y-
I
1
,
Oeck
ILl -e.
0\ ~...
~ --j
10 6.0
(,; -:.~;' .:~ 6
,. Sla'b' .\'.... Z I
0,.. .0
" . 4-. .
.',,"' ",' .,.r' I~I.:.- ,
. . 93~ . 6 ;; 1
. Ci. I:
N "
~ I ~
- 1'5.8
DECK
3
UJ
=>
2:
lLJ
:::::-
<(
24
.936.3
19.9
HOUSE
0\
10
'.It
11.7
.
o
VI
,S100\>
Cl'l~R~ ~1'IG
_. i sf-O C. o"f.R'<'
---1\$pl'0f'0 Gf. ROOf .:
II \?>GP-l''' ;
I:
HOUSE
T/U GARAGE
Slab fl.
933.31
24
o~
'lt~-
:::~., .~
::i......::;; ..\
.~ ::: ~ GfO ..0'1
.::. ::: .. iV,,,.
~-v
f~.::.:, .4.1
~.3~.~
;;
Ci.
N
o
.
'"
o
~
>
- ..
5 I>
..
E
-:-~~ICi:".
93 ;,3 ('f)
N
<r
9~';.6
-...--
..
I>
..
e
(j)
N
N
<r
UJ
o
0::
2:
o
:E
I I
) ~
90 t2' _ ~,t;' 934 0 )'
5001 meal.
:d 50 plat /1
/' "'930. I
--SPRING---- LAKE----- ROAD
~
~
g I
~ \
<Ii \
\
60
929.4E.
<
930.51
<
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or otT from
said property as of this 9\h day of August, 2002.
: I I:;
. ~7T71
- . "1
I'
)J
ji-"
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
I; ~ ,
"I A J' -
lii,\ Ibl)2ffi?
jUll"_. .
I
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31
I hereby cerhly fhot 'N. survey was pr,pared
by me or unde' m'l direct superyjllon and thot
'om 0 duly ',cfn.ed Land SlWVlYOr lItlder tM
~~ the s;" Minnesota.
fl. I Z. - ,,--c:.. Licen.. No. 10183
IN
40
J
FEET
-+
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage
o
L
SCALE
20
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31
o Denote, 1/2 inch. 14 inch iron
monument ,.t and mortced by
LIC."U No. JOI8.3
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K. Nail set
Date
".Colllractor to verify dimensions Ilrior to construction."
FILE No. 9566
BOOK 23E.
PAGE
17
September 4, 2002
Richard Gau
16994 Monroe Ave SW
Prior lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the September 9, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Connie Carlson
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
.-\N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:VIPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT
STOOP TO BE LOCATED 11.7 FEET FROM THE
FRONT LOT LINE, A 6 FOOT EA VE/OVERHANG TO
BE LOCATED 14.1 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT
LINE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
16994 MONROE AVENUE SW
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
02-088
The Planning Department received a variance application from Richard Gau to
permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to encroach into a required front
yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW. The existing
single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard setback. The steps of the
stoop are proposed to be 11.7 feet from the front property line and the
eave/overhand over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line
abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the
applicant is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet. (See Attachment
1.) The project was started without a building permit.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback
for the construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards).
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property was platted as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, in the
1850s,. which was one of the first plats in Prior Lake. The site is zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland District). The platted dimensions of the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 2
lot are approximately 50 feet wide by 142 feet in depth for a total lot area of
approximately 7,100 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
In 1983, a 5 foot variance was granted
from the 25 foot required front yard
setback and a 4 foot variance was
granted from the 10 foot required side
yard setback to allow for the
construction of a single family dwelling
with attached garage.
According to the attached survey, the existing dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot
setback from the property line abutting Monroe Avenue SW. An 8 foot stoop and
6 foot overhang/eave are proposed along the front of the home. The proposed
front yard setback, as measured from the step of the stoop is 11.7 feet. The
minimum front yard setback from Monroe Avenue for this property is 20 feet
(because of the variance granted in 1983), thus the request for an 8.3 foot
variance.
In conjunction with other home
improvements, the applicant is proposing
to increase the width of the driveway to
27 feet. The zoning ordinance permits
residential driveways to be a maximum of
24 feet in width at the public right-of-way.
According to the survey, other applicable
bulk standards, such as maximum
impervious surface coverage, minimum
setback from 170th Street SW, and
minimum rear yard setback, are met. The zoning ordinance permits eaves to
encroach 2 feet into a required yard, and awnings and platform decks to
encroach 5 feet into a required front yard. However, the proposed features are
larger than the encroachments permitted by the zoning ordinance.
The Spring Lake Townsite lots were platted 50 feet in width, thus many of the
lots have been combined to provide a larger buildable area for modern year
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 3
round dwellings, however, some of the single lots have received relief from
zoning ordinance provisions to allow a reasonable use to be constructed.
Records on file at City Hall indicate that three properties within 350 feet received
setback variances for the construction of residential structures.
The applicant has indicated that the reason for the setback variance request is to
"eliminate the potential of physical harm to anyone that uses the existing
stairs.. .when leaving [the] residence in the winter when said stairs are iced
over... .and ... add a touch of character to this 20 year old house." (See
Attachment 2.)
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The subject lot is only 50 feet in width and approximately 7,100 square feet in
area. This lot does exhibit exceptional conditions that result in practical
difficulties upon the owner in constructing a single family dwelling, as
permitted in the R-1 zoning district, however, variances have already been
granted to allow for the construction of a reasonable use.
The lot is relatively flat and rectangular in shape, so the topography and
shape of the lot does not impact driveway width or location, so the property
owner does not have a practical difficulty to warrant relief from the maximum
driveway width permitted by the zoning ordinance.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The 50 foot wide lot is a unique condition of the property, but is not exclusive
to this subject lot or neighborhood. There are several subdivisions within the
City of Prior Lake that were platted with narrow lots. Furthermore, the
property owner received relief to construct the existing single family dwelling.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 4
As mentioned previously, the conditions of the property do not impact the
driveway width or location.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A single family dwelling with an attached two stall garage is present on the
site, so the owner enjoys a reasonable use of the property. The inability to
construct an 8 foot stoop is not impacting the overall enjoyment of the
property. A smaller eave and stoop could provide the same protection from
the elements and add interest to the architectural style of the home, without
such a large variance.
A 24 foot wide driveway offers ample area to park to vehicles side by side.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the setback variance will neither impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property nor increase congestion of public streets,
but it will establish a precedent for an 11.7 foot front yard setback within the
Spring Lake neighborhood, when a 25 foot front yard setback is required.
Also, the driveway width variance will establish a precedent for other
residential properties and may impact snow storage in the boulevard.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the setback variance does not appear to impair health and
safety of the immediate area, but it will impact the character and development
of the neighborhood by establishing a new front yard setback for the Spring
Lake neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "prevent the overcrowding of land
and undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 5
land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding
them." The proposed 11.7 foot front yard setback is significantly less than the
minimum 25 feet required, but the property is only required to maintain a 20
foot setback due to a previous variance, and appears to be inconsistent with
the intent of the ordinance provision.
The purpose of the maximum driveway width is to limit vehicular access to a
public street, allow for adequate on-street parking availability, and provide an
area for snow storage. A 24 foot wide driveway also allows parking for two
vehicles. An additional 3 feet of driveway width appears inconsistent with the
intent of the ordinance.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The existing single family dwelling is approximately 20 feet from the property
line, so any architectural feature that intends to provide protection from the
elements and add interest on the front of the home would require a variance.
However, the proposed features could be reduced in depth as to limit the
amount of encroachment. Since the encroachment could be reduced, the
setback variance would appear to serve as a convenience.
Also, the increased driveway width serves as a convenience to the property
owner. A driveway that complies with maximum zoning ordinance standards
would still allow for ample ingress and egress to the property, as well as
vehicle storage.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
The subject site is 50 feet in width. The zoning ordinance requires lots within
the R-1 zoning district to be 86 feet in width, so this lot is nonconforming.
However, the fact that the property owner has proposed the addition that
extends into the setback approved in 1983 and driveway width greater than
permitted by ordinance makes the hardship self-created.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Although the addition will likely increase the value of the home, staff does not
believe that it is the sole purpose of the request.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 6
CONCLUSION:
The applicant was granted relief from the zoning ordinance in 1983 to construct
a reasonable use on the property. The dwelling was placed at the approved
front and side yard setbacks, therefore any additions to the front or rear of the
home would require an additional variance. The purpose of the current variance
is to provide a safe entrance and interest to the home. Staff appreciates that the
property owner wants to improve the entrance to the home. However, by
granting the proposed setback variance the property owner would receive a
greater benefit than other properties within the Spring Lake Townsite plat and
the R-1 zoning district.
Also, since a 24 foot wide driveway provides reasonable ingress/egress, the
driveway width variance would establish a precedent for all residential properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that all nine-hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the
requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27
foot wide driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the
addition and the driveway. Staff could support a smaller front yard setback
variance to improve the safety of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal.
The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variances as proposed
by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
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.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 7
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends Alternative #3.
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-011 PC denying the variances to
allow a 11.7 foot front yard setback from the public right-of-way abutting Monroe
Avenue and a 27 foot wide driveway.
Planning Report - Gau Variances
September 9,2002
Page 8
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-088\PC Report.doc
RESOLUTION 02-011 PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR AN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Richard Gau has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an 8 foot stoop and a 6 foot eave addition to an
existing single family dwelling and a 27 foot wide driveway on the property
located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Districts) at
the following location, to wit;
16994 Monroe Avenue SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
follows: Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Village, Scott County,
Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-088PC and held a hearing thereon on September 9,
2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, the proposed variance will
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to
the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed variance request is a result of the property owner's actions by
designing the proposed addition within the required front yard setback and
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution .doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the proposed driveway wider than permitted by ordinance. The applicant has
control over the property, and as such, the applicant has created the
hardship.
6. There is an existing structure on the lot, so there is not a justifiable hardship
caused, and that reasonable use of the property does exist without the
granting of the variances.
7. The granting of the variances, as determined by the Planning Commission, is
not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant. The variances will serve merely as a convenience to
the applicant, and are not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #02-088PC 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 variances to allow the addition to the existing single family dwelling
and driveway expansion as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback
for the construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang (Zoning
Ordinance Section 1102.402: Dimensional Standards)
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways (Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.205. Driveways).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9,2002.
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I :\02files\02variances\02-088\deny resolution.doc
2
/5;;~ PR~IO
or; .~
c,,"'ii~,~
-, -
\'.'.1'
~NE~
October 24,2002
Richard F. Gau
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Case File No.: 02-088, Front yard setback. variance for the construction of an addition
16994 Monroe Avenue SW
Dear Mr. Gau:
This letter is to officially inform you that on October 14,2002, the pl?nning Commission approved a
5.1 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback. for the construction of an addition, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building pennit.
2. The building pennit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations.
3. A revised survey shall be submitted that identifies the approved front yard setback..
Enclosed is a certified copy of the original Resolution approving the aforementioned variances to be
recorded at Scott County and a copy for your records. I have also enclosed a copy of the resolution
denying the variance for the 27 foot wide driveway for your records. Additionally, the enclosed
Assent Form must be signed by all property owners and returned to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of any necessary pennits.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (952) 447-9813,
Sincerely,
-~crn--mi '~r7~
Cynthia R Kirchdff, kf,
Planner
Enclosures
"
16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning 9ommission Minutes
September 23. 2002
. This should be a very nice proj ect.
Stamson:
· The developers have done a great job of addressing all issues.
. It is a nice design - an asset to the City.
· The pavers will work. It is a unique situation. All the risk has been mitigated.
. The trees will be protected on site.
. All other issues have been addressed to satisfaction.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY SUBJECT TO THE 5
CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF. ADD #6, THAT THE DRIVEWAYS BE
IMPLEMENTED WITH THE PROPOSED SUBSTANCE PRESENTED. CONDITION
#7 - ADD STATEMENTS IN THE CONVENANTS THAT THERE WILL BE
MAINTENANCE TO THE PAVERS. CONDITION #8, RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE DNR CONSIDER THE REQUEST THAT THE DOCKS ARE AS CLOSE TO
THE SHORELINE AS POSSIBLE AND STILL OPERATE. CONDITION #9, ALLOW
THE 30.2% IMPERVIOUS SERFACE IN TIER 2, NOTING SUBSTANTIAL
REDUCTION DUE TO THE P AVERS PRESENTED. RECOMMEND THE DESIGN
OF THE P AVERS BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION
DEPARTMENTS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY, SUBJECT TO THE
ABOVE CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on October 7, 2002.
B. Case File #02-88 Richard Gau is requesting a 13.3 variance from the
required minimum 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of entry addition
to an existing single family dwelling and a three foot variance from the maximum 24
feet of driveway width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated September 23,2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Richard Gau is requesting variances to permit a 6 foot eave/overhang and 8 foot stoop to
encroach into a required front yard setback on the property located at 16994 Monroe
Avenue SW. The existing single family dwelling maintains a 19.9 foot front yard
setback. The steps of the stoop are proposed to be 11.7 feet from the front property line
and the eave/overhang over the garage is proposed to be 14.1 feet from the property line
abutting Monroe Avenue. In conjunction with the stoop and eave addition, the applicant
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN092302.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 2002
is also increasing the width of the driveway to 27 feet. The project was started without a
building permit.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) An 8.3 foot variance from the permitted 20 foot front yard setback for the
construction of an 8 foot stoop and 6 foot overhang.
2) A 3 foot variance from the maximum width of 24 feet for residential
driveways.
Staff believed that all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
requested variances to permit the 8 foot stoop, 6 foot eave/overhang, and 27 foot wide
driveway. The applicant created the hardship by the design of the addition and the
driveway. Staff could support a smaller front yard setback variance to improve the safety
of the dwelling entrance, but not the proposal. The staff therefore recommends denial of
the requested variances as proposed by the applicant.
Lemke questioned if a 2 foot variance is permitted. Kirchoff said the house already has a
2 foot eave.
Applicant Richard Gau, 16994 Monroe, questioned the difference between an awning and
eave. Kansier explained the awning is attached to the building. His covering is a
structure. Gau presented pictures of his driveway indicating there was no ample parking.
He would like to fit into the neighborhood and felt there were no other options. Gau
explained the procedure and invited the Commissioners to come to his home and view the
situation.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Agreed the applicant's intentions are pure.
. Agreed with staff that he could have the same amount of safety to the entrance
with a different design.
Ringstad:
. Suggested tabling this two weeks ago to work out something between staff and
the applicant. However, there was no compromise.
. There are 9 hardship criteria and all 9 must be met for a variance. This meets
very few hardships. Cannot go along with any of it, including the driveway
extension of 3 feet.
. Support staffs recommendation to deny.
Criego:
. As it relates to the driveway entrance - it was discussed at the last meeting to
reduce the width of the driveway. Not sure why that was not taken as input. It
still allows the applicant extra space.
L:\02FILES\02p1anning comm\02pcminutes\MN092302.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23. 2002
· It does not meet the hardship and would not recommend approval of the 3 foot
vanance.
. As it relates to the overhangs - awnings clearly indicate a temporary light
structure without being substantially put together will pillars and 2x8's. This
clearly not an awning. Cannot approve. No hardship.
. One area it does meet the hardship is overhang over the stoop and stairway. There
is a safety issue and should allow the applicant some structure covering.
Lemke:
. Questioned staff on the intent of the 24 foot width driveway ordinance. Kansier
explained the ordinance requirements. There are a number of public safety
aspects as well.
. Limit the driveway to 24 foot is for people to park along the street. That is not the
case here. The reason to hold it to the standard does not work. The lot is narrow.
. There is hardship along the property - it is a comer lot with two front yards.
. The applicant is not asking for a bigger house or increase of impervious surface.
The overhang does not increase anything.
. Could fine 9 hardships in this request.
Stamson:
. As far as the overhangs and stoops. It comes down to what the intention of a
variance. It is when someone is denied use of their property when there is no
alternative. In this case, what the applicant is trying to accomplish makes sense.
But this could be accomplished within the ordinance or with a reduced variance.
. Kirchoff stated a 5 foot awning would be permitted over the stoop.
. This does not qualify for a variance. He has other options.
. The driveway - in general there is an opportunity to go from a 3 car driveway
down to a 2 car driveway. In this case, the property line is so short.
. There is no public parking on his street. Leaning towards a variance being
warranted in the driveway case.
Open Discussion:
. Ringstad felt if the Commission grants Mr. Gau the variance, then they have to be
prepared for others in the City.
. Stamson agreed but felt there was a number of unique circumstances on this
property qualifying for a variance. The slope issue, lack of on-street parking. It is
unique. It is an existing home, not new construction.
. Criego pointed out the applicant could have a hammerhead driveway. This is not
umque.
. Lemke felt the intent of the ordinance is to have reasonable use ofthe property.
There is enough room for snow storage.
. Criego said there are alternative ways to solve the problem. The applicant can
park 4 cars right now. Nothing different from anyone else.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN092302.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 23. 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
011PC DENYING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 11.7 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR AN 8 FOOT STOOP, A 14.1 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR
A 6 FOOT EAVE, AND A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Criego questioned if the applicant could build something over the stoop for safety
without a variance. Ringstad agreed. Kirchoff said he could have an awning without a
variance. Criego felt an awning is temporary.
Ringstad withdrew the Motion.
Gau stated with the two foot overhang, water freezes in the winter and spring. He felt the
proposal would be the most efficient way to keep people safe.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO COVER THE EXISTING STOOP AND STAIRWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Atwood and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kirchoff explained the appeal process.
7. New Business:
A. Discussion on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning fences on
corner and riparian lots.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 23,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of regulations pertaining to
residential fences on comer and riparian lots.
The most recent discussion about fences is the result of a discussion at the City Council
forum. A City resident with a comer lot would like to place a 6' high fence along
Carriage Hills Parkway. Since this street is not classified as an arterial, the front yard
fence provisions apply. The City Council directed staff to review an amendment to the
ordinance addressing these situations.
The subject offences in the area between houses and the lakeshore is not new. In 1996,
the Council considered an amendment to the fence ordinance to restrict the placement of
fences in the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Staff made no recommendation on the draft
ordinance that limited fence height to 5 feet and opacity to no more than that of a chain-
link fence. After a great deal of discussion, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the proposed ordinance. One of the reasons given was that it did not appear to
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN092302.doc 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 14,2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Correction in the September 23rd, Minutes - Page 10, Criego: relates to driveway entrance
should be "to reduce the width of the driveway". The Minutes were approved as
amended.
4. Consent:
A. Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ringstad did not remember the committee approving the driveway variance. After
looking at the Minutes, they agreed the variances approving the setbacks for the stoop
and eave.
Criego believed there were other requests for variances that the Commission did not vote
on.
Kansier said there was another Resolution denying the requests. The Commissioners can
make another motion denying the requests.
Criego recalled a third request. Lemke pointed out it was not a separate request, it was
part ofthe front yard setback. Kirchoff stated there were only 2 requests. She also
confirmed there were 2 Resolutions attached to the original report.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI01402.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-
011PC APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE AND DENY A VARIANCE
FOR A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from
the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential)
zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum setback
from a tributary river for the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 13,
Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 14,2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Mark Liesner is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 4525 Jackson Trail (Lot
13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The site is a vacant, riparian lot, as it abuts an unnamed tributary watercourse connected
with Pike Lake. Trees are scattered throughout the property. Municipal water and sewer
is currently unavailable to the site. The applicant requests the following variances:
1. A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in
the R-S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot.
2. A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed
tributary watercourse.
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property
zoned R-S and SD. The subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot area
established by the zoning ordinance, because it was platted in 1974, prior to the current
ordinance being adopted in 1999. Moreover, the proposed dwelling does not comply
with the minimum setback from the tributary watercourse that extends along the east
portion of the site.
Since the property is a legal, nonconforming lot of record and the required watercourse
setback significantly constrains the site's buildable area, variances are warranted. The
property owner cannot construct a reasonable use without relief from the zoning
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNIOI402,doc 2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST
I. OPEN FILE- Date Received:
~ASSign file number
C~open and label file folder
CcYcreate file directory under variances
7/Pz/m-
II.
CHECK APPLICATION FOR COMPLETENESS
717i/[)2.-~
1:-- C) Completed application, including the appropriate signatures
~Filing Fee
k () Necessary attachments (survey, house plans, contours, etc.)
*~C)
List and labels of property owners within 350' (verify map and
radius)
~Written description of specific variances requested
C) Are all the requested variances included?
III. WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS:
A. Incomplete application (I:\template\variance\incomplt.doc)
../"
C-Y Notify applicant by mail of incomplete application and list
necessary submittals in order to make application complete
7/W&2-- ~
B.
Complete Application (I:\template\variance\complete.doc)
6.01
CL
~ Notify applicant by mail that application is complete. Letter
includes:
~ Tentative meeting date, time and location
~ Applicant is expected to attend meeting
~ Extension of 60 day action date to 120 days
I:\template\variance\varcheck,doc
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST
PREPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION
(I :\template\variance\hearnote.doc)
~
(f
IV.
cr
()
()
()
V.
PREPARE REFERRALS (I:\template\variance\referral.doc)
g.{J1
6V' .
Send referral notice of application to list of agencies and
departments.
Include DNR if located in a Shoreland or Flood Plain District
Include County Highway Dept. if adjacent to a County Road
Include other agencies as appropriate
~ ..')-0
U2+:-
Notice includes:
~ Correct meeting date
~ Legal description of property
~ Property Address
~ Description of variance requests
~r Send notice to Prior Lake American by 12:00 NOON on
Wednesday 3 weeks prior to meeting date
VI. PREPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR MAILING
(I:\template\variance\mailnote.doc)
( ) Notice includes:
~ Correct meeting date
~ Legal description of property
~ Property Address
~ Description of variance requests
() Verify map and radius again!
( ) Label or type envelopes
( ) Mail notices at least 10 days before hearing date
Notice must be mailed to:
~ Property Owner's List
~ Applicant
~ Property Owner (if other than applicant)
~ DNR (Shoreland or Flood Plain applications)
I:\template\variance\varcheck.doc
2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST
VII. PREPARE PLANNING REPORT
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
A. Report includes: (I:\template\variance\varrpt.doc)
Relevant Facts (including any previous actions or variances)
Suggested Findings
Staff Recommendation (including any conditions)
Resolution for Planning Commission adoption ( see
I:\template\variance\appres.doc or I :\template\variance\denyres.doc)
Location Map
Survey/Site Plan
Copy of hearing notice and/or application
Other Exhibits
B. Submit report to supervisor by Tuesday before
hearing date
C. Mail a copy of the staff report and agenda to the
applicant (and to the property owner, if different than
the applicant)
( ) The cover letter should include the meeting date, time and
location, and the fact that the applicant is expected to be present.
VIII. FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
A. If APPROVED:
()
()
()
()
()
Prepare Assent Form (I:\template\variance\assent.doc)
Resolution signed by Planning Commission Chair
Resolution signed by Planning Director
Signed and certified resolution and assent form sent to applicant
for recording (see I:\template\variance\truecopy.doc for certification form)
Applicant returns recorded copy of resolution and assent form or
other proof of recording
I:\template\variance\varcheck,doc
3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST
B. If DENIED:
( ) Resolution signed by Planning Commission Chair
( ) Resolution signed by Planning Director
C. In SHORELAND or FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT:
( ) Send copy of resolution to DNR within 10 days of Planning
Commission decision
IX. CLOSE FILE
( ) Add header to file folder
( ) Signed and recorded copy of resolution
( ) Signed and recorded copy of assent form
( ) Planning Commission Minutes
( ) Enter in Property Management
I:\template\variance\varcheck.doc
4
V 7?!') /
"1"'LICAT1~N t ,;~ '''''''l,'NC~ rR..:x-t THt; IU...:UIIU.;'41:NTS Of THE %CNIN\; ORDINANCE
,/
Name ot Applicant or Aqo!nt _)( ~" t ,-'':;.\ (\~'"'' ;..', <f "T j.-. 1(...
Addre.. of AprUc.1nt / /J/'~(., I'?" "...". '-'r!
;-
Street omd Nwaber of "!roct.cd Preaai.aos ./. / 7 /: ,/ /.-j";/'
P...--- .';/11' ,i/ L
r......, c/""fL'l., ~".
Leqal Deacription
Natu~e and Si:~ of I~prov~oent~ Now Exi.tinq
Pr~sen~ Zoninq Cl~ssi!ication kI. /
Oet..tiled o..,5cript.10:l of the: Varl..,ncc I\pplied For
Ii
/ / / ,-J I ,.,; ~ J "'-7-
C 1~1l' D i/.:<. r /r'U" -
I
Stutcr:cnt of P.~a~on!> 1.:-.)' Variance 15 De"nq i\pplicd Fot
~.,.-~ I
. ~J
~~l tl (".);) l
./
// .~'~. ~t
'7/'';..f-1 /)a r I"''',~
Fifteen CtS) :oplcs of a plat plan, 5howi~9 t~e lccation of all exi.stin9 and proposed
;-tt"-~t.u~es l!\~ be"tilc'd with-this .r'phcat1on.
__ _a_.___ . ___.. _ _. ~ _. _..
;.;,uttinq ?ropert., C-...ncrs wi 11 hC' noti fled hv C1 ty.
Co~plctc The Followlnq:
o 1.
Llt.crill caforcc::Ic:'lt o! ":~,c Ordinar,cc would rc&ult in ur,c!JEt h4Cc!sh~p wit!'\ respect. to
"':':1'1 prop~ rt.:;.
m 2.
Such ~~necossary ~4~cShip results tc~ause o! circ~~tancea uniquo to ~I prope~ty.
("".
.~1, ~) <:-J-I~<.-, c.t. / d ,.t, 7'
(9 3.
Tho hardship i. caused by provisions or the Ordinance and 1s not the result of
actions of persons p~.ently havin9 an interest 1n ~I parcel.
S ..-~ /f4~/c
o 4.
The variance o~5er~~s the spirit and intent ot this Ordinance and produces
s~stanclal jUltice, and 1. not contrary to the public inter..t.
Variance aay be p<!rr.u.tte:1 .1.! all four requir~ntl ~~.'.!!Iet.. .
Date S III ,/if~ S19natu~e ....,..::;, krY~1' UOlt.;,.,v.",.
"lbb 10 to cortl',' that' ,1S-.C':QW.' r.c...... th10 II.J "y It .:.:.LJ&. 'j' . 19 8 ~
tor a ....ariance APt-Beation Fee. P.eedved by J);:;;sJ- ~//7I"'./I~"'7
-----------------------------------------------------------..-----.~---------t---..-----_.-.-----
nus SPAcr TO BE FILLED xu DY PLANNUac co.v:.nSSIOu
Application ~or Varianco Granted
X Mav 19. 1983
Denied
granted with the requirement that the hou~e be 50' from 170th street rather
than the proposed 30' because it is not settinR any new precedent for substandard
(.. .L'- W\JU.1.U U"'.I"" lH.' u~"-LilllL'll\..dl \.ll L,II'-.. lil.:dJ\..11 0 Wl'.J.ldlL' \}l 1,.1ll; LlJIIUlllHI.lLY
Rclfto1 ri< s :
o~ Pl..nn~n? COll"ll"l.:.ss.rJr..........,J1""t> R!]q(>th,-_..
Overheads
Presentation
~aterials
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
----
Spring Lake
20
I
_ocajon \I1a-)
KENT ST
/
!fi
!S! I KENT ST
<(
w
~
-,
~
w
o
VALE CIR VALE CIR
w
~
w
o
~
'- z
/0
/ ~
or '1ING lAKE RD 8'.'" ,/
17GTf'"I ;:) J ~w
\
\
\
j-
\
\ ~
~~1 ~
I -::0
r-
-\
o
20
40 Feet
I I
\
o
m
:E
~
-t
m
~
m
lfUIM;:,TSW
~ST
~-
------
N
+
~
~
<(
w-
oo
ii
z-
:=l
00
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE. MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE IZO-C. 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
.PROPOSED ADDITION
A LL.EY
~
50 plat
50.04 meal.
-,937.0
'."t
\
I
I
I
TC El-
933.07
933.17
.
936.8
1"--
I
I
I
I
ILl
f,.
~
-'
\
6.0
DECK
~
la.J
::>
;z
la.J
:>
c:(
01
N
(J)
otl
01
otl
Oeck
-:.. .:-.~.-~
Ib . ( "
.. ..,;
to Slab \ .
1> I '. .. C>
.~"..r: :f'7.;'. 16.1 --,
. .93:(6-'
6
z
11.7
o I
6 siOO'?
VI Cl'ILI'-EP I"G
_-I La C NLI'-I""Il>
_I~:::"""" I
~._.I
::. I
,
I
,
I
,
~
I
I
\
J
I
J
la.J
o
a::
;Z
o
~
";~,,z,~
HOUSE
"
Ci.
N
<t
5.8
936.6
,..
o
~
- ..
a"
..
e
,.- 15.7 iii: .
9~.~3---'" .
N
<t
~
~
g I
E \
;
Iii \
\
..
"
..
e
1O
N
N
<T
9' f':!,_
50.01 meal.
50 plat
I
I
I
1
....,.934.0
60
/
/
,,__. /"'930.1
'....j SPRI NG- - - - LAKE ---- ROAD
9Z9.46
,
930.51
,
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott Counly, Minnesola. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or DIY from
said property as of this 91h day of August, 2002.
: I \ :'j , '-7 ;-:-.-
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
i I ~
I," AI}' ~
I" '\ b' J '"N\')
U' . ~.."
I I,.
, U'-_,
! .
I
I;'
)j
..JL/
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top oCthe existing garage slab.
O.
I
Z'O
40
I
I hereby cerfl'~ that thi, survey wos prepared
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage I1y me a, _or my direcl suporvi,io.n and Ihot
10m 0 duly I,censed Land SUlVeyo.r _or the
Ian the s,o~ M,nn.,otO.
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31 iC ~.d/ c::P ~ _
The lowest 1100r elevation is 933.31 Dol. 51-II. -" -c... Licen.. No. 10183
SCALE
IN
FEET
o Denot.. 1/2 inch .II: 14 inch iron
monument J.t and marked by
Licen5a No. 1018.3
. Denotes iron monument found
c>> Denotes P. K. Na" set
""Colllractor 10 verify dimensions Iniar to construction"....
FILe: No. 9566
BOOK 236
PAGe:
17
-.."'""..... ....~~-'"-~.~.....,--~. -~-"...