HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02 Brian Carlson Variance
"V ARFM"
VARIANCE CHECK LIST
~.~
v ~ GJ.it; -DL PID: l<::,- - D ~ I - CC)l-D
~ lLt1'1 ~ ~ {,~0ov1--
5,] 4L\ (CUAtt:vurn /WLOLt~ tLe ~ t
LOt s \ ~~, I Ll, RU/\l ?lGv'v'\ A/[fL,()l..G1 -/
tv~ /-, L-"~lo ~
FILE #: '
APPLICANT:
SUBJECT SITE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
sTAFF ACTIVITIES:
1. SCHEDuLE HEARING:
DATE:
TTh'IE:
DATE COMPLETED:
1- 21- t~1lL/
/
~
/'
2. PREPARE AREA MAP:
3. PREP.~E NOTICE;
Applicant
Property Owners
Verlyn - Engineering
DNR (if Shoreland)
Others:
1/
MNDOT
Other
Scott County
Watershed District
PLA.J.~G COiYJJ.VIlSSION AGENDA PACKETS:
~ Staff Report
Application Form
Applicable Maps
./ Public Notice
~ Correspondence
Other Information
ST..\FF ACTIVITIES: (After Planning Commission/City Council Action)
1. ~L-\IL COpy OF APPLICATION, A.PPROV.U LETTER ("V.-\.R.-\.PL"), .-\.:.'\rD
REQt."1RED CONDITIONS TO:
DATE COMPLETED:
Applicant
Building Inspector
DNR (if Shoreland)
2. A:.vIEND VARIAi'\TCE StJiYINL<illY SHEET
3. ADD PERMIT TO PROPERTY iYIANAGEMENT
4. CREATE FILE LABEL
FJLE SHOULD CONTAIN:
;/' Application Form
/' Staff Report
v Applicable Maps
~/ Public Notice
,/ Correspondence
L,,/ Planning Commission Minutes
v'" City Council )/linutes
Other Information
- -- ---.-- -------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 22, 1996
T.he January 22, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman
Kuykendall at 7:06 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Loftus
and V oOOof, Planning Director Don Rye and Associate Planner Michael Leek.
ROLL CALL:
Criego
Wuellner
V oOOof
Loftus
Kuykendall
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
Spelling correction on Criego.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 8,
1996 MINUTES.
V ote taken signified ayes by Loftus, V oOOof, Criego and Kuykendall. Wuellner was not
present at the meeting and abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
V A96-02 BRIAN CARLSON - REQUEST FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK
V ARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
10 FEET AND A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R1-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT.
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated January 22, 1996. Staff
concluded reasonable use of the property currently exists. Legal alternatives exist to
accomplish the applicants' objective, thus the Ordinance criteria have not been met.
Recommendation is to deny the application.
Applicant Brian Carlson, distributed pictures of his home and property. Mr. Carlson
withdrew his request for the garage variance. He further explained he and his wife were
dumbfounded on the major process of getting the variances. Mr. Carlson feels all the
requirements are met and further explained the hardship is with the change in the
MNOI2296.DOC
PAGEl
"'-''''~....'~......~,~
'--'~ "",,'._'~ ....~.~ "co..-."'. ..",;~,-,.,;oo;.,_...",~..<~.'.~ ~.
Ordinance since they bought the house. He meets the DNR regulation setback of 50 feet.
Mr. Carlson pointed out previous lakeshore variances granted. The Carl sons feel their
only alternative is to move the house back and that is not economincally viable.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Question regarding DNR regulations.
. Placement parallel to street.
Wuellner:
. No questions, has other options.
. Disagrees with the option to take the house down.
Criego:
. No questions, has a lot of empathy.
. Applicant has a large lot but the hardship has not been met.
Loftus:
. Feels there is a hardship with the 904 foot lake level.
. Should take the porch off.
Kuykendall:
Questions regarding accessory storage and slopes.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY THE
APPLICATION FINDING A LACK OF HARDSHIP.
Discussion:
Lack of hardship and other options.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
Hackett Resolution-96-03PC A RESOLUTION GRANTING V ARIANCES TO
PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 4.5 FEET ON THE WEST AND A SID.E
YARD SETBACK OF 5.5 FEET ON THE EAST INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10
FEET TO PERMIT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R1-URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 3508 SYCAMORE TRAIL.
PAGE2
MNO I 2296.DOC
Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council
February 20, 1996
5. PRESENTATIONS:
A.
Mayor Lee Andren Confirmed Receipt of Key to The City from
Chimbote, Peru. Mayor Andren stated that representatives from
the Rotary Club presented a Proclamation to adopt the City of
Chimbote, Peru as a sister city. This Proclamation was
presented by the Prior Lake Rotarians. As a gesture of good will
Mayor Altamirano sent the City of Prior Lake a key to the city of
Chimbote. The key is on display at City Hall.
Chimbote
Peru
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
7. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-22 Denying Appeal of
Variance for Brian and Marilyn Carlson - Subject Site, Lots 18
and 19, FAlRLAWN SHORES.. Planning Director Rye
presented an overhead of the site and discussed the request for a
2.4 foot side yard variance for a 7.6 foot side yard setback on the
West and a 19 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 56
feet for a lot that is 15,767 square feet and exceeds the area
requirements for lots in the R-l Urban Residential and
Shore land Districts. The Planning Commission concluded that
compliance with the Ordinance would not result in a hardship
and still leave the applicant with reasonable use of the land.
Applicant Brian Carlson, 5544 Fairlawn Shoes SE, addressed
the Council to explain that his request for a variance was
necessary in order to remodel their current home and build an
attached garage. Mr. Carlson gave an extensive history of his
request and how they came to buy the home in Prior Lake. He
also stated that neighbors had no objections to the expansion.
Discussion occurred as to whether not any precedent setting
variances had been granted for lots of 15,000 square feet or
larger. Mayor Andren stated that three such requests were
turned down in the past year for lack of hardship evidence.
Councilmembers concurred that the application does not meet
the hardship criteria in accordance with the ordinance and that
they are in agreement with the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
3
M022096.DOC
, .
Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council
February 20, 1996
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECOND BY MADER, TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-22 DENYING APPEAL OF
BRIAN AND MARILYN CARLSON AND SUPPORTING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE
MATTER OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE CASE NO. VA96-
02.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski and Andren, the
motion carried.
A short recess was called.
The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-21 Approving City of Prior
Lake Public Works Design Manual.
MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY MADER, TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-21 AUTHORIZING THE
PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN MANUAL.
Councilmember Mader questioned City Engineer Anderson with
regard to the revision letters and whether they are tracked by
number to indicate the most current revision. Mr. Anderson
stated that they do track the revisions and records of the latest
revisions are kept which will be sent regularly to all contractors
on the mailing list.
Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski and Mader. The
motion carried.
B.
Consider Approval of Authorization to Conduct a Taxpayer
Service Satisfaction Survey. City Manager Boyles discussed the
proposal to conduct a Citizen Service Satisfaction Survey and
stated that a survey of this nature would reflect a cross section
of the population. Dr. Bill Morris with Decision Resources, LTD
was to conduct the survey. Mr. Boyles reviewed the other
communities who have used Dr. Morris' services. Discussion
occurred regarding the type of survey and the methods used to
conduct the survey. Councilmembers discussed the need for a
M022096.DOC
4
RS 96-22
denying
appeal
of Brian
& Marilyn
Carlson
RS 96-21
Public
Works
design
Manual
RESOLUTION 96-22
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL
ENYING AN APPEAL BY BRIAN AND MARILYN CARLSON
OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN THE MATTER
OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES CASE NO. V A96-02
MOTION BY:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Kedrowski
SECOND BY:
Mader
the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 20th of
February, 1996, to act on an appeal by Brian and Marilyn Carlson of
the Planning Commission's denial of their request for side yard setback
and lake shore setback variances for property legally described as Lots
18 and 19, FAIRLA WN SHORES, Scott County, Minnesota, and
the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in the City's Zoning
Ordinance at Section 7.6(C)(1-4), in that denial of the variances does
not deprive the appellant of a reasonable use of his property, and
the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's
decision denying the request for variance was appropriate and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and
The contents of Planning Case V A96-02 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
The City Council has made the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The subject property was platted as two separate lots in 1923, but
was later combined into one parcel.
2. The subject property is 15,767 square feet in area, which exceeds
the area requirements for lots in the Rl - Urban Residential and SD
- Shoreland districts.
3. The subject property is 77.96 feet wide at the front which is only
approximately 12 feet narrower than required under Section 9.3A,
and approximately 86 feet wide at the Ordinary High Water Mark
which is 11 feet wider than required by Section 9.3A.
4. The applicants have legal alternatives under the City Code for the
construction of the proposed attached garage which would not
require a side yard setback variance, and which would not interfere
with the function of existing house on the property.
5. The applicants have legal alternatives for the construction of a
RES9622.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 421-7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- - -- - - - -- -- - - - -
deck/porch which would not reduce the lake shore setback on the
property .
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Brian and Marilyn
Carlson's request for variance.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of February, 1996.
YES NO
Andren X Andren
Greenfield Absent Greenfield
Kedrowski X Kedrowski
Mader X Mader
Schenck Absent henc
{Seal}
2
RES9622.DOC
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANAL YSIS:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
7A
R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 96-22 DENYING APPEAL OF
VARIANCE FOR BRIAN AND MARILYN CARLSON -
SUBJECT SITE, LOTS 18 AND 19, FAIRLAWN
SHORES, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 20, 1996
Brian O. And Marilyn J. Carlson submitted an application for a 2.4 foot
variance to permit a 7.6 foot side yard setback on the West and a 19
foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 56 feet. A public hearing
was set for January 22, 1996, and the variance request was heard by
the Planning Commission at that time. The staff recommendation was
that the requested variances be denied because the request did not
meet the Ordinance criteria. The Planning Commission agreed with
the staff recommendation and denied the requested variances.
By letter dated January 26, 1996, the Carlsons appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission.
In denying the request the Planning Commission relied on the following
facts
1. The subject property was platted as two separate lots in 1923, but
was later combined into one parcel.
2. The subject property is 15,767 square feet in area, which exceeds
the area requirements for lots in the R1 - Urban Residential and SO
- Shoreland districts.
3. The subject property is 77.96 feet wide at the front which is only
approximately 12 feet narrower than required under Section 9.3A,
and approximately 86 feet wide at the Ordinary High Water Mark
which is 11 feet wider than required by Section 9.3A.
4. The applicants have legal alternatives under the City Code for the
. construction of the proposed attached garage which would not
require a side yard setback variance, and which would not interfere
with the function of existing house on the property.
5. The applicants have legal alternatives for the construction of a
deck/porch which would not reduce the lakeshore setback on the
property.
Because of these facts the Commission concluded that compliance
with the Ordinance would not result in a hardship, and would still leave
the applicant with reasonable use. The staff recommendation was
based on the same or similar factors, which it concluded caused the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
request to fail the Ordinance criteria for granting variances.
1. The City Council could support the Carlson's original request for
variance.
2. The City Council could support the recommendation of the staff
and Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution 96-22.
pt Resolution 96-22 denying the appeal.
2
January 26, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate Planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn Shores
Trail S. E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Leek:
We Would like to appeal plannings denial of our variance to
the city council.
Please put us on the agenda for the February 20, 1996
meeting.
If any question, please advise.
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR
5554 F AIRLA WN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES ---X- NO
JANUARY 22, 1995
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian and Marilyn
Carlson. The Carl sons intend to remodel their existing house. The portions of the
proposed remodeling which are the subject of the variance application are 1) the removal
of the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch in its place and 2) the removal
of the existing, detached 2-car garage and its replacement by an attached, 40 foot garage.
Based on the survey submitted with the application, construction of the proposed porch
addition would result in a lake shore setback of 56 feet instead of the existing 61 feet and
the required 75 feet. Construction of the attached garage would result in a minimum side
yard setback on the East of 7.6 feet instead of the existing 1'2.5 feet and the required 10
feet. The survey indicates that the net existing and the proposed impervious surface
coverage are 22.6%, which would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property was platted in 1923 as Lots 18 and 19, FAIRLA WN SHORES. It is
a large property, containing 15,767 square feet and measuring 77.96 feet wide at the
streetside property line. The existing house was built in 1971. Both the platting of the
subject property and the construction of the existing house occurred while the property
was in the unincorporated area of Scott County. The property was a part of the 1973
annexation from Eagle Creek Township.
The rationale for the request vis-a.-vis the proposed porch is 1) that the existing deck is
dilapidated and requires replacement, and 2) the applicants wish to create more usable
interior space. The City's ordinances would permit maintenance of the deck as a non-
conforming structure. Replacement of the deck at its current size and in its present
configuration would require a variance. The existing deck is not/should not be included
in impervious surface under the Shoreland Ordinance. The proposed porch count toward
impervious surface coverage because of the roof.
16200 ~e~rl;!@KAve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicants wish to add a larger, attached garage for additional storage and,
presumably, convenience. While staff does not have benefit of a floor plan for the
existing house, it appears that the proposed garage could be shifted to the 2.4 feet to the
East to comply with the side yard setback. It does not appear that the shift would conflict
with the entrance to the existing house. The increase in the size of the garage would
result in additional impervious surface. The survey does not show the proposed final
driveway configuration, thus it is not clear whether or not it would add impervious
surface. In the event that the Commission approves the requested variance, staff suggests
that the applicant submit verification of the proposed impervious surface calculations
with the building permit application.
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance
is literally enforced. The property is currently developed with a residence with lake shore
side deck and detached 2-car garage. The house has a building footprint, exclusive of the
deck of 1,288 square feet, and has a walkout level. In staff s opinion these facts
constitute prima facie evidence of reasonable [residential] use of the property. Similarly,
the property currently has a 2-car garage. Moreover, legal alternatives exist which would
allow the construction of the desired garage. Thus literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would not result in undue hardship (i.e. deprivation of reasonable use) with respect to the
subj ect property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in
undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, the size, shape and
configuration of the subject lot does not present unique circumstances.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Because staff has concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance
were literally enforced, this criteria is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where development
opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a property. This does not appear
to staff to be a property where opportunities are so limited. However, because of the
2
96-02V A.DOC
setback from Fairlawn Shores Trail, and because of the additional encroachment toward
the lake is only 4 feet, it does not appear that the proposed additions would have an
adverse, aesthetic impact on the surrounding properties.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicants, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staffhas concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, that legal
alternatives exist to accomplish the applicants' objective, and thus that the Ordinance
criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings consistent with the Planning
Commission's action.
3
96-02V A.DOC
JRVEY PR EPARED FOR:
RIAN CARLSON
;54 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
~ lOR LAKE, MN. 55372
l/'l
N.
-,
E:X,sr'NG
HOUSE:
.::..- '- ';0. <;._,
932.4 -
i'1_____
------
----------.4
,/ -----
r _____
----------
---
SAN. M.H.
RIM 931.56
Fair/ow
_________ n
---
Valley Surveying Co., F?A.
SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570
11t~~ "It
- SO' ~o ~
9-?:~~.o/,Ss, ~,,~
':\ "'\)' Q~ 919. 0,.
~ ">JElQ Jt,. /o....r
II .t /<9
~,() '\ 1t ~/'9
~~~o '... -..... SoS/o .a~1"
~ "0.0'" .......... 9..>.o/, So .a/oJ'
o I .....9s 'S~ Q~ q,..
'" ;.c- v ~ \:l'"
~ .r;C'~ ElQ "'"
0-9~ ~ / '5'.
~~('., ~~ '
I ~ '0,
j
==-- /" r;f! Wcrl/ .,
.--~-=-- ~
;o~osLo /~A-;;
919.0 ?OE:CI<
~=C' r;e__ Wall ~
904
OJ
:1.t.1:
0:: ,
-(\J
.....,.,,-
o _ 0
~t:Ci
'_ 0
'7-0"-
I'>-'-~
:-Z(\J
3: ,
,
I
O'r 9
81'r1.J' o.
Ov~~ l' IVOI.J ""'-
IIV~ s
I '..:S'
/~ 1~1
b-~
-,."
Q,C\i
00
-N
rv -,- f'
, ~ ~ '-)
~
\
E:XISTING
HOUSE:
f;
- -,,--
T.C.El."
931.88
I
I
I
I
n~
o
~~ores
933.16
frail
~
---.
January 15, 1886
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trail S. E.
Dear Sir:
Friday morning, January 12, when you called to tell me that
the planning department had denied my variance and you
wanted to know if I wanted to proceed to go to the
planning commission and then city council my reply was yes.
At that time, I asked for information regarding past
decisions regarding variances and building permits with
regard to lakeshore properties. This information, I felt,
would be useful in my preparation for the upcoming meetings
with the planning commission and city council. You stated
that this is public information and you would talk with me
Tuesday about information you had gathered. You stated that
this is public information and available to me.
This weekend I had some additional thoughts which may help me
in my presentation to the planning commission and city
council and are listed below:
1. A copy of the ordinance that would have applied to the
improvements made to the property when the home was
originally built. I believe the home was built in 1871 or
1872.
2. A copy of all new ordinances, up to and including
the present ordinance, that have been enacted since the home
was built.
3. If there is such a thing, a copy of the ordinance that
applies to substandard lots.
4. A listing of all lakeshore building permits since I
became a homeowner in 1878.
5. A listing of all variances granted for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1878.
6. A listing of all variances denied for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1878.
8. A copy of the DNR requirement concerning lakeshore
setback or confirm that it is 50' or 30' if your home is up
on a bluff.
Please advise If you would have any question or
suggestion concerning those items.
Based on our previous conversation, I assume that the
information requested is public information. In other words,
if I have no legal right to this information do not give me
the information.
If I can be of any assistance in researching the records, I
will take whatever time is necessary to help.
u,
~
PS: You said the planning department denied my request for
variance. Do I get something in writing telling me why?
-----
- - - - -- -~ - - - - - - - --
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET
AND A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 22, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: Brian D. And Marilyn J. Carlson
5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE: Lots 18 and 19, "FAIRLAWN SHORES", Scott County,
Minnesota, also known as 5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
REQUEST: The applicants propose the removal of the existing, detached
garage, and the construction of an attached garage as shown on the
attached site survey. The applicants also propose the removal of
the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch extending
4 feet closer to the lakeshore. The applicants' plans propose a
side yard setback to the West of7.6 feet instead ofthe required 10
feet and a lake shore setback of 56 feet instead of the required 75
feet. Thus, the applicants request that the Planning Commission
approve a 2.4 foot side yard setback variance on the West, and a
19 foot lakeshore setback variance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
- -- - - --- ----- ---- - ---
- -
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: January 12, 1996.
2
-- - - -- -- -- - - -
DNR METRO REGION
TEL:612-772-7977
Jan 22,96
10:29 No.003 P.Ol
(',
Project Review Worksheet
DNR .. Division of Waters I Metro Region
1,
!
o Preliminary Plat
DPUD
fl(~JI.''1 - ~elJ_~ J,.. MA4etL..'i ~ ~ .
l..b't$ Iii- lq I FA-UZ(~ 9l01!( $" i I 9.! I
.... .,;It
;- ~
J;l
~i
r i
II
~
o Final Plat
o Subdivision
Project Name ~M IAN a;:'
Project Type (check all that apply):
.,(ari*DCC
o Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No
Floodplain CJ CI
~ , (M.S.I03F.I01)
,
Yes No
Protected Waters 0 0
(M.S.I03G.24S)
SboroIand
(M,S.10JP.20l)
iY~o
i'
-
, .
~-
w.tct Appropriation
(M.S. I 030.255)
Yes No
o []
Comments
w.t!-~I
e~-Wi
i~ :7-.(,.
~~ AJ.e.~ ~~.t:.(
7~' ~--~ ....-- .
Jlc&
Itt,Js'V' i~~~~
j.~ -~ uL- ~~ -4r
~"4f- e,.~ It"1.
~~ -, -.LfJ- ~fJ4.
pf~~ .~~- ~
~~~~~ ~~ t2nf7~
I,
NOIe"!
:c.
SCAli...
nFP
53' To
'niL. ft) V I ~'" 'fDtllL .
"
R.ecommendations and Proposed Conditions ~M...,.. JJ de.JJ t L4ltc... seIJH.."t.
~~, ~..r:tl~: ~~~..I~-i-.f:~':n -i/.f 1.~~;~::1!-;,
lM.i":\
-A~J.b~ f:
~ ~+- + ......,4".--.1.:.
=::FJD~~-
R.eviewer P.... L.."I....lAo4.
Title Ar~ ~~t~ Phone "11 'l. -., tIC> Date ,~ l-'L~'9'
\
... " "
.f U .1" !. .
)
DNR METRO REGION
TEL:612-772-7977
Jan 22,96
10:29 No.003 P.Ol
\',
Project Review Worksheet
DNR ~ Division of Waters I Metro Region
'I
!
o Preliminary Pial
DPUD
fl(i>J/~'" - lS~A~ ~ MMt.LL..'I)') ~ .
l..~ IB+- lq I FA-"u..~ $J.lQLtS" [J S;! I
~' a
j;~
~~
i i
Ii
~
..
!l
~ ~
~-
o Final Plat
o Subdivision
Project Name --.JjM-IAN a;:'
Project Type (check all that apply):
ll1'ariance
o Other
DNR Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No
Floodplain Cl Cl
'I (M.S.I03F.IOl)
,
Yes No
Protected Waters CJ CJ
(M.S.I03G.24S)
Shoroland
(M,S, 103P.201)
iY~o
i'
..
Wafl:t Appropriation
(M.S. I 03G.255)
Yes
o
No
CJ
Comments
w~~1
~~-:.11
l~ J~
~~~ A J.e.~
7f;' ~,a_~ ~-- .
~~..~
I,
:t~~~'::1 ~~ ~::-t7)~~Z ~~~~3~:1t ~~
#4A
j,~s'~
6u-
~..... -~ u'-- ~-I
-4r
D,ri~
,
&~~- ~
N01C!
:c.
SCAt,. t.
nf= P.
S 3' To
rHL
9() 4/ I C,c III 'I'D lJlL .
:1
~~
\t~:
de..:J t L~ ~..J=..
.~'~t?-:'1. r.~~,./<~~-::- /7 -7 I.~~~~::t:;.
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions _14..t.()W\..... .J) ,
~.L\jJ-
lM.A:\
-R....J.,.~ c
6f ~#-~ +- J.-.,.L.....~.__."',
,
Reviewer P,cr L"i,.J Uo4.
Title Ar!A... ~Mbt~ Phone ,.., 1.. -., ~'C) Date I~ 'l-'L~'9'
I
I ,\ "
!!I .1" :
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR
5554 F AIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
R. MICHAEL LEEK,CITV PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES .x.. NO
JANUARY 22, 1995
INTRODVCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian and Marilyn
Carlson. The Carlsons intend to remodel their existing house. The portions ofthe
proposed remodeling which are the subject of the variance application are 1) the removal
of the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch in its place and 2) the. removal
of the existing, detached 2-car garage and its replacement by an attached, 40 foot garage.
Based on the survey submitted with the application, construction of the proposed porch
addition would result in a lakeshore setback of 56 feet instead of the existing 61 feet and
the required 75 feet. Construction ofthe attached garage would result ina minimum side
yard setback on the East of7.6 feet insteadoftheexistiQg .12.5 feet andthe requiredlO
feet. The survey indicates that the net existing and the proposed impervious surface
coverage are 22.6%, which would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance.
DJSCUSSION:
The subject property was platted in 1923 as Lots 18 and 19,FAlRLA WN SHORES. It is
a large property, containing 15,767 square feet and measuring 77.96 feet wide at the
streetside property line. The existing house was built in 1971. Both the platting of the
subject property and the construction of the existing house occurred while the property
was in the unincorporated area of Scott County. The property was a part ofthe 1973
annexation from Eagle Creek Township.
The rationale for the request vis-a-vis the proposed porch is 1) that the existing deck. is
dilapidated and requires replacement, and 2) the applicants wish to create more usable
interior space. The City's ordinances would permit maintenance of the deck as a non-
conforming structure. Replacement of the deck at its current size and in its present
configuration would require a variance. The existing deck is not/should not be included
in impervious surface under the Shoreland Ordinance. The proposed porch count toward
impervious surface coverage because of the roof.
16200 ~e\0&@K: Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicants wish to add a larger, attached garage for additional storage and,
presumably, convenience. While staff does not have benefit of a floor plan for the
existing house, it appears that the proposed garage could be shifted to the 2.4 feet to the
East to comply with the side yard setback. It does not appear that the shift would conflict
with the entrance to the existing house. The increase in the size of the garage would
result in additional impervious surface. The survey does not show the proposed final
driveway configuration, thus it is not clear whether or not it would add impervious
surface. In the event that the Commission approves the requested variance, staff suggests
that the applicant submit verification of the proposed impervious surface calculations
with the building permit application.
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance
is literally enforced. The property is currently developed with a residence with lakeshore
side deck and detached 2-car garage. The house has a building footprint, exclusive of the
deck of 1,288 square feet, and has a walkout level. In staffs opinion these facts
constitute prima facie evidence of reasonable [residential] use of the property. Similarly,
the property currently has a 2-car garage. Moreover, legal alternatives exist which would
allow the construction of the desired garage. Thus literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would not result in undue hardship (i.e. deprivation of reasonable use) with respect to the
subject property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in
undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, the size, shape and
configuration of the subject lot does not present unique circumstances.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Because staff has concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance
were literally enforced, this criteria is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where development
opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a property. This does not appear
to staff to be a property where opportunities are so limited. However, because of the
96-02VA.DOC
2
setback from Fairlawn Shores Trail, and because of the additional encroachment toward
the lake is only 4 feet, it does not appear that the proposed additions would have an
adverse, aesthetic impact on the surrounding properties.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicants, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, that legal
alternatives exist to accomplish the applicants' objective, and thus that the Ordinance
criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with fmdings consistent with the Planning
Commission's action.
96-02V A.DOC
3
w/--1& -Od.-
pm#: 25'- (} -? /.m "7b
,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
,~Applicant: J:,1C1.4~ LJ~ ""V ~Ate)~Yrl te C.4~.JS,u./
Address: :f:: ~ /' /f-.I~J.. _i.I./n/ ~i!..~.t or ~ A.lL .....I!' iE._
Property Owner: ..,dI;u"~ Ai" J4t11dVk'
Address: ~.r .# dt>vt!'
Type of Ownership: Fee Contract
Consultant/Contractor:
Home Phone: ;.c ~ 7- 9' J// I
Work Phone:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Purchase Agreement
Phone:
Existing Use
of Property: tJ t/~
Legal Description
of Variance Site:
Variance Requested:
If'EJ/,o&#t.'E
Present Zoning:
fCq-rr CQ~V
.
L q/J ./ /...; /9 ~.I?I"e.i4&vtN' ..r )-/o,('ef
-.5,E".d''''4'K //fJ~n? "{'A4~
...f~""7".dACK a/Fi"r J"n::J& :??
Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone,
use permit on the subject site or any part of it?
What was requested:
When: Disposition:
obtain a variance or conditional
Yes )(' ~
Describe the type of improvements proposed:
/fffm8~E~ ~PJ~
SJBMISSION REOUIREMENI'S:
CA)Completed application form. (B)Filing fee. (C)Property SUrvey indicating the
proposed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-higl'rwater mark;
proposed building elevations and drainage plan. CD)Certified from abstract firm,
names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification Number
(pm). (F)Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap
at P -20 '-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading,
access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service.
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNIN; <n1MISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requirements for variance procedures. I agree to ide ~rma . follow the
procedures as outl ined in the Ordinance. 6/
Sll:mitted thise da~";W""'( 199?
DATE OF HEARIN;
MTE OF HEARI~
PLANNING CDMMISSION
CITY COm'OL APPEAL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
CDNDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director
Date
JRVEY PR EPARED FOR:
RIAN CARLSON
.54 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
IIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
II>
'"
-,
~x'sr/IVG
HOUS~
..::..- '- 40. 4._,
932.4 - - - - _
--t_________
---------4
;/ ------
-----
----
--.--
T.e. EL.
931.88
SAN. M.H.
RIM 931.56
Fair/ow
______ n
----
m
: UJ ,f
0;: I
-f\l_
'0 _~ 0
'JJ f\.. ~
c:: - -.
'_ 0
'7-0f\..
; I >, - ~
=-Zf\I
~ ,
,
,
~){lsr/IVG
Hous~
f;
I
I
I
I
R~
o
.~~ores
..~_'~_ IrafI
933.16
----
January 15, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trail S. E.
Dear Sir:
Friday morning, January 12, when you called to tell me that
the planning department had denied my variance and you
wanted to know if I wanted to proceed to go to the
planning commission and then city council my reply was yes.
At that time, I asked for information regarding past
decisions regarding variances and building permits with
regard to lakeshore properties. This information. I felt,
would be useful in my preparation for the upcoming meetings
with the planning commission and city council. You stated
that this is public information and you would talk with me
Tuesday about information you had gathered. You stated that
this is public information and available to me.
This weekend I had some additional thoughts which may help me
in my presentation to the planning commission and city
council and are listed below:
.
1. A copy of the ordinance that would have applied to the
improvements made to the property when the home was
originally built. I believe the home was built in 1971 or
1972.
2. A copy of all new ordinances, up to and including
the present ordinance, that have been enacted since the home
was built.
3. If there is such a thing, a copy of the ordinance that
applies to substandard lots.
4. A listing of all lakeshore building permits since I
became a homeowner in 1978.
5. A listing of all variances granted for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
6. A listing of all variances denied for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
8. A copy of the DNR requirement concerning lakeshore
setback or confirm that it is 50' or 30' if your home is up
on a bluff.
Please advise If you would have any question or
suggestion concerning those items.
Based on our previous conversation, I assume that the
information requested is public information. In other words,
if I have no legal right to this information do not give me
the information.
If I can be of any assistance in researching the records, I
will take whatever time is necessary to help.
u,
~
PS: You said the planning department denied my request for
variance. Do I get something in writing telling me why?
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET
AND A LAKE SHORE SETBACK V ARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 22, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: Brian D. And Marilyn J. Carlson
5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE: Lots 18 and 19, "F AIRLA WN SHORES", Scott County,
.
Minnesota, also known as 5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
REQUEST: The applicants propose the removal of the existing, detached
garage, and the construction of an attached garage as shown on the
attached site survey. The applicants also propose the removal of
the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch extending
4 feet closer to the lakeshore. The applicants' plans propose a
side yard setback to the West of 7.6 feet instead of the required 10
feet and a lake shore setback of 56 feet instead of the required 75
feet. Thus, the applicants request that the Planning Commission
approve a 2.4 foot side yard setback variance on the West, and a
19 foot lake shore setback variance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: January 12, 1996.
2
)
February 22, 1996
Brian D. And Marilyn 1. Carlson
5444 Fairlawn Shores Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Carlson:
Enclosed with this letter is your check no. 4278 in the amount of $50.00, which is being
returned because your variance request was not approved and will not, therefore, need to
be filed with the County Recorder's Office. Also enclosed is a receipt for the $100.00
review fee which you submitted.
Very~ours,<>
// A1ddL~
R. Michael Leek
Associate Planner
cc. File No. V A96-02
16200 It~ItB~\JK/~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
January 22, 1996
To:Members of the Planning
Commission
Subject:Request for
Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trail S. E.
We would sincerely appreciate your careful consideration with
our request for a variance.
FORGET ABOUT THE VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE. The only reason
we asked for that variance, is that our plan is to attach a
new garage to the existing home. By asking for a 2.4 foot
variance I would not block an existing bathroom window. I
talked to my neighbor Ken Storm and because the new garage
would still be 48 feet from his home, he had no problem with
me doing that.
Hindsight always being crystal clear, I'm sorry I even
brought up the garage setback. I had no idea this would be a
major problem.
We purchased our home in 1978. It is a modest home,
28'X46'or 1288 sq.ft. The home also has a 8'X28' deck at the
back of the home. The home has a detached garage. The
basement is finished nicely, complete with a masonry
fireplace. While it is a modest home, what we have is well
constructed and maintained.
Why then would we want to remodel the existing home? To give
you an answer to that I will provide a little history.
We had been looking for a home on a lake for sometime. My
father just loved to fish. When I was a boy my dad and I did
a lot fishing together. We would also talk about how great
it would be to live on a lake. I guess it became one of my
dreams to live on a lake. I guess it may have been my
fathers dream to, he never realized his dream.
My wife and I quickly found out finding something
in our price range was not going to be easy. Everything we
liked was just way out of our price range, everything in our
price range was junk.
Then one Sunday, which turned out be one of the best days
of our lives, I saw an ad "FOR SALE BY OWNER" for this home
in Prior Lake. We had looked in Prior Lake before with a
realtor without success.
;2
Well, I called the owner of the home and met a wonderful
family. This family were the original owners of the home.
The home was very modest (AS A MATTER OF FACT AS I DROVE BY I
TOLD MY WIFE, LETS NOT STOP, THIS HOME DOESN'T APPEAL TO ME.
SHE SAID WE DROVE ALL THE WAY OUT HERE WHATS WRONG WITH
LOOKING, I AM GLAD I LISTENED) and has not changed with the
exception of a full wall masonry/brick fireplace in the
basement. We also made some cosmetic changes to an already
finished basement. As I have said previously the home was
modest, but if you wanted to live on lakeshore all we could
afford was modest. What really sold us on the home was the
property the home was on. The survey I am shown indicates
that I had two lots. I had 78' on the street and 100' of
lakeshore, the lot was 247' deep on one side and 210' on the
other. At the time I bought the house the lake level was way
down. The beach went way beyond the property corners. I
still remember after I had bought the house, the lake was so
low, I had heard a rumor that the lake was leaking and in
danger of drying up. I see an ad, I believe in the Prior
lake American about a meeting concerning lake elevation. I
go to the meeting assuming they are going to talk about how
to get the lake elevation up, what they were talking about
were concerns about the lake elevation getting to high in the
future and what actions could be taken to control it. I
thought they were NUTS! As it turned they knew what they
were talking about. GETTING BACK TO THE HOME what we are
saying is, we bought the home for the property it was on.
The home was modest, but well constructed and all we could
afford. But we had the american dream as a young couple.
Work hard, save your money, and maybe someday we can afford
to upgrade the home. That has been the plan since 1978, to
someday upgrade our modest home.
It is now the 1995. My wife and I think that now we can
possibly afford upgrading our home.
I start working on some rough sketches on how I would like to
upgrade my home. I then say to myself, maybe I better go
down to city hall and get their input, they might have some
suggestions to help me along. So I grab myoId 1971 survey
the previous owner had given to me and drove down to city
hall. I talk to this guy in the building department, tell my
whole story about what I have in mind and then he starts
asking me questions. The primary question once he determines
I live on the lake is, where is the 904' elevation, I say, I
have no idea where the 904 elevation is, my house is situated
up on top of a steep bank, I'm not concerned about getting
flooded. I'll bet the water would run across the top of
highway 13 before the water will get to my home. Then he
explained that the 904 had nothing to do with flooding the
home, but how far your home is from the lake I said well
thats no problem, there are homes all around the lake that
are much closer to the lake than I am, I am sure to be okay
J
in that regard. He said that those homes might have been
built prior to the latest ordinance taking effect. I said
that may true, but there are newer homes built closer to the
lake than I am too. Again, he said that may be true but they
probably got a variance. Well after the 75 feet from 904
thing was explained to me, I drive home, when I get there it
didn't take long for my wife to notice the subdued look on my
face. I explain what happened. My wife can't understand how
what we want to do should be any problem. I assure her that
this is just a paperwork thing. The the city needs to make
sure they have accurate information indicating what is to be
done. What I had to do is get a new survey. I am sure
everything will be alright.
Next step. Place the order to get the survey.
Surprise, survey indicates the existing house/deck at its
closest point is only 61 feet from the magic 904. Yes I tell
the surveyor, but the lakeshore is not parallel to the home.
If you measure from the other property corner, I am
approximately 90 feet from 904. Trust me, the surveyor says,
the city operates on the worst case. So here I am looking at
my survey showing my property as 210 feet deep on the east
side and 247 feet deep on the west side. Enough land to
easily build most anything, but no longer counts due to the
904.
Well this shouldn't be a problem I tell my wife. All I am
asking for is to extend my 8 foot deck to 12 feet and
partially enclosed to use as a porch. Certainly we can
explain that in order to make it (would be nice to have room
for some furniture) functional we need the four additional
feet. That would not have a negative impact on anyone.
Well, I filed for the variance on January 10th and got a
phone call on January 12th, telling us planning would
recommend denial of the variance. Naturally we were
disappointed or a better word might be crushed.
On Thursday, January 18th I decide to go down to city hall
to look at some history regarding previous ordinances. Also
wanted to see what variances had been approved in the
past.
In looking at that information I concluded that:
1. That until they established the 75 foot rule from 904 I
would not have a problem doing what I propose to do. Not
only had the rules changed, but the city elected to make the
rules more stringent than the DNR. I meet DNR regulations
for what I propose.
2. Variances have been granted in the past for numerous
items that violate city ordinance. Those variances were much
~
~
more severe than what I am asking for and in many cases
violated DNR regulations.
In other words, in my opinion there is no comparison in what
I am asking for and what has been granted in the past.
Now, I want you to understand, I am not being critical for
what has been granted in the past. Thank GOD there is a
planning commission and city council to review variances.
Writing a one size fits all rule, just is not practical.
With regard to the planning report, I would like to clear
up one point. That point being that the existing deck
is dilapidated and requires replacement. That is not true.
Like most decks, it requires periodic maintenance but
does not need complete replacement.
Also there is a question regarding verification of impervious
surface calculations. We will certainly give you whatever
information you need with the building permit.
With regard to hardship I offer the following for your
consideration:
1. As I stated before our plan was someday to build
an addition on the home. When I bought the home I checked
building requirements to insure I could build an
addition in the future. There were no easements to
be concerned with and basically I was told they are
building homes on much smaller lots so we cannot
foresee any problem with a building addition in the
future. In other words, I had no control over the rules
changing that have put me in this predicament.
2. My home was built, as most homes are, parallel to the
street. However, the lake is not parallel to the home. That
is why the existing home is 61 feet from 904 worst case and
90 feet best case. I hope consideration can be given due to
this factor.
3. The home was built using the best information available to
the builder at the time. The home is approximately 90' from
the lakeshore worst case and approximately 130 feet best
case, based on the original plat. The home was built up on a
high elevation. In other words the home was built where it
made sense, based on the information of the time. The
builder or owner did not try to take advantage of a situation
and build closer to the lake. They did not put a boathouse
on the lake as many have done..
4. Variances far more severe than what I am asking for have
been granted in the past. A variance was recently granted
for a home at 5714 Fairlawn Shores Trail S. E. They
received a variance to install a large deck that projects
much closer to 904 than what I am asking for. They also
!;
received a 6.15 foot side yard variance.
5. What I propose to do is not in conflict with any DNR
regulation.
6. We believe what we are asking for is reasonable. We
have a very modest home in comparison to other homes in the
neighborhood. Our new improvement is only 12 feet in
depth or 4 feet more that what we have now. 12 feet is
certainly not excessive for that type of improvement.
The planning reports itself states "because of the setback
from Fairlawn Shores Trail, and because additional
encroachment toward the lake is only 4 feet, it does not
appear that the proposed additions would have an adverse.
aesthetic impact on the surrounding properties"
7. As I understand it, under current regulation, my home can
stay where it is forever. So what we are talking about is an
improvement 4 feet closer to the lake than today. The
existing home is well constructed and maintained, in other
words there is nothing wrong with it.
If this variance is not approved my only alternative to going
4 feet forward would be to move the home 19 feet backwards.
In other words, destroy the home that I have made mortgage
payments on for years and start over. I hope you understand
that this is not realistic and is not an option for me.
We appreciate your patience in listening and hope you i
understand the position we are In ~
. ~ l1M1"lt'~
Brian and Marilyn Carlson
PS: Would it be helPfU~bring in a petition with residents
supporting my request. If this is a critical factor in the
decision process, maybe I should table this until the next
meeting.
January 15, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate Planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trl. S.H.
Dear Sir:
As I believe you are aware, applying for a variance here in
Prior Lake is another first in my life. I apologize if the
subject of this letter is nothing to be concerned about.
In reading the notice for public hearing, it appears that all
I am doing is building a new garage and a porch addition.
What my intentions are is remodel the home which would
include a new garage and porch addition. In my cover letter
attached to the application I thought I was clear in that
regard. I was specific in with the deck/porch and garage
because it is my understanding that this is where a variance
would be required. With regard to remodeling the existing
home, the plan is to modify the interior of the main floor
and add a new 2nd floor to the existing structure of
the home. The basement or lower level would stay as is. The
lower level is currently finished very nicely.
Again I apologize
not significant.
those issues that
notice.
if what I am calling to your attention is
My guess is that your probably address only
would require a variance in your hearing
My only reason for pointing this out is, if my request for
variance proves to be a success, I don't want to have go
through this process again due to something being
presented improperly.
y,C;;;~
January 10, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate Planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Tr. S.E.
Attached are the following:
1. Application for variance
2. Survey indicating existing and proposed conditions
3. Checks in the amount of $50 and $100.
4. A list of homes from Kohlrusch Scott County Abstract
listing property owners within 100' from my residence
With regard to the variance, I offer the following for your
information and consideration.
I purchased my home in 1978. Other than installing a
fireplace in the lower level no other significant
improvements have been made to the property.
In 1996 I would like to remodel my home. This would include
building a new combination deck and four season porch at the
back of the home off the main floor. In order to make the
four season porch functional, I have extended the porch/deck
four feet beyond the existing deck. As I understand it, the
distance from lake elevation 904' is the determining factor
and that is why I need a variance.
The surveyor told me they had to use worst case for the 904
elevation distance to the proposed improvement. I would like
to point out, however, that best case distance would be
approximately 85' from the proposed improvement. As you can
see by the survey, my lakeshore is not parallel to the
property. I have attached a lakeside photo. I don't see
how four feet would have a negative impact on anyone.
Part of the remodel project also calls for the demolition of
the existing garage and installing a new garage which would
now be attached to the home. It was unclear when I spoke to
you, if a variance would be required, as you thought the
ordinance may have been amended. I would like to point out,
however, that the new garage would be 48' from the adjacent
home.
In conclusion, we are dealing with a property with an
existing home already in place. As I understand it, if a
variance is not granted for what I propose, my only
alternative would be to completely demolish what I have and
start over. Requiring a 17 year homeowner to comply with all
the new city requirements over a few feet would certainly be
a hardship on me.
Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.
#~C;;:!L
Brian D. Carlson
KOHLRUSCH
SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
( 128 West 3rd Avenue
P.O. Box 355
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
REPRESENTING:
ria Commonwealth
~ Land Title Insurance Company
~9gi~f:\~ff!::I!$)HP,iP,::::::::::::::::::I
:.:.;.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:
.......................
..................... ,-
.................
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::J;~i;::::~gJ*)':]!iBmi~1
According to the records of the BRC Tax System in the Office of the County Treasurer, Scott
County, Minnesota, the following is a list of primary tax payers of property lying within 100
feet of the following described property:
Lots 18 and 19, FAIRLAWN SHORES, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the Office of the County Recorder, SCOTT County, Minnesota.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. & Lorraine M. Strom
5520 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Stephen J. & Sharon Montreuil
14960 Storms Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Brian D. & Marilyn Carlson
5544 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Daniel T. & Deann J. Morley
14976 Storms Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Frieda H. Beutler
5560 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Scott E. & Diane M. Barriball
5533 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Karen N. & Richard W. N au
5580 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
James R. & Susan J. Duning
5553 Fairlawn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
J)}J 12-.
DATED:
January 9, 1996 at 8:00 a.m.
KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC.
~4-~~
ade Kohlrusch, Licensed Abstracter
NOTE:
This search was prepared with due diligence and every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this
search, however, Kohlrusch Scott/Carver Abstract Co., Inc. accepts no liability for errors and/or
omissions herein.
SURVEY PR EPARED FOR:
BRIAN CARLSON
5554 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
lfl
rv,
-,
I
I
<b
:Lu:
0:: ,
-(\}.....
'0 _tr) 0
~ t:: Ci
'_ 0
-7- 0 f\..
I I >, - ~
=-z(\}
~ I
I
I
Valley Surveying CO., F? A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
4' s;:" tV~
9,> ..o/,S'S, ~.,~
\ 'S'S O~ 9&. 0,..
~ ">)(90 ~ /O.f.r
II ~ /<9
\1.,1'() "\ 1- ~ /,9
~\~~. - .... .s. 05> .o~
'\~l- Or I~_ 9 0 0 "1'.0
~o,o ~~_ ~..o/. So' :10)'
~ 0..... I .Ils Ss o~ 'i{9"
~ $;;~ / ">)(90 If"
'9(: ~" .s:
~~ <,~< 'O"~;(-61
=~ Wall ,;
---~((j
PROPO~D~'Y::J"'"
PORCH ..... ,",,c
919.0 DeCk
~=C:.!:!.: Wall ~
--.-o::~-.,;:--.;;
"- "!c.4._~
f
!
i
,
I
I
----J
I
, ~Lu
,.~
....~
0-
-tr)
Q.C'\/
00
-OJ
(\} -/- (....
,~c..\..)
(~
r
eXISTING
HOUSE:
eXISTING
HOUSE:
932.4
929.5
~------
-----
-----------.1
j/ --------
---.-------
------
.--.....-
I
I
I
I
Lor fil('EI'9
/lLJ,o/7/e.#S
T.C.EL.
931.88
SAN, M.H.
RIM 931.56
/
~
~air'aw
---------- n Sh
--------.-_ Ore
'. - S n
- ~ .
-----_.0 ai' S
_______ . r-
______ c;:.
----------
o
933.16
DESCRIP'fION:
Lots 18 and 19, "FAIRLAWN SHORES", Scott County, l'linnesota. Also showing all
visible Imp~ovements and enc~oachments onto and off f~om said pcopecty if any.
NOTES' Benchma~k elevation 923.25 Basement floo~ of the existing house
922.7 Denotes existing g~ade elevation
~
l~~~~) Denotes p~oposed finished g~ade elevations
~ Denotes p~oposed di~ection of finished su~face dcainage
Set the p~oposed ga~age slab to match existing house g~ade
The lowest floo~ elevation is at elevation 923.25
Net lot a~ea above elevation 904 = 15,767 sq. ft.
o
I
SCALE
30
I
IN
60
1
Net existing and p~oposed impe~vious cove~ = 22.6 %
I hereby certify that thIs survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
IJ1m-q duly licensed Land Surveyor under the
.. Taws 'of the Stat~ Minnesota.
.f'; '1/". /
," ., ". ,.-,; .1/"., ""/1
~'. '<4 ,~-' ,~../.. ..{
-~'..,.. "':;' ';". .'
ate _1-0<... - /e; License No. 10183
~.. ,,~-(.
. .~~~ .k~~. ..I .
FEET
o Denotes 1/2 inch )( 14 inch iron
monument s"t and marked by
License fIIo 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K. Nail set
FILE No.
8047
BOOK
213
PAGE
57