The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-015 Schiffman Variance April 28, 1996 Donald Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Dear Mr. Rye, 1"''\ F\ 'f to ~ I am writing to request that you please put me on the City Council meeting agenda on ~pril 15 to exercise my right to appeal my variance denial by the Planning Commission on Monday, March 25. Sincerely, 4L-of~ John Schiffman 15220 Howard Lake Road N.W. Shakopee, Mn. 55379 445-0770 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ANAL YSIS: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 7E R. Michael leek Associate Planner/Acting Assistant Planner Consider Approval of Resolution 96-42 Denying a Variance Appeal by John Schiffman of Planning Commission Decision in Case 96-015 May 6, 1996 On March 25, 1996, by Resolution 9608PC (a copy of which is attached) the Planning Commission denied the request of John Schiffman for an 80 foot lakeshore variance to permit a setback of 70 feet instead of the required 150 feet on property located in the A 1-Agricultural and SO-Shoreland districts. Mr. Schiffman sought the variance to allow the construction of an additional garage measuring 22' x 26'. Mr. Schiffman appealed the denial by the Planning Commission. Mr. Schiffman's rationale for the proposed garage location is set forth in his one-page statement submitted with the original application, and included in the attached report. Essentially, he argues that the proposed site is the only feasible one because of additional costs which might result if other, legal sites were utilized. He further states that the proposed site is the best aesthetic choice. The Commission concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, and thus that there is no undue hardship to this property owner. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may uphold Mr. Schiffman's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of his request for variance. 2. The City Council may uphold the denial by the Planning Commission of Mr. Schiffman's request for variance. RECOMMENDA TION Alternative 2, support of the Planning Commission's denial of the requested va. nee. ACTION REQUIRED: '--" 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A ~ A recess was called at 9:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:42 p.m. 4.F 96-015 _ V ARlANCE REQUEST BY JOHN SCHIFFMAN OF 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD; REQUEST FOR A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 150 FEET TO CONSTRUCT A 26' x 22' GARAGE. Michael Leek presented the March 25, 1996 Staff Report with a recommendation of denial based on the lack of demonstrated hardship. There are other alternative locations for an additional garage structure which would meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. John Schiffman, 15220 Howard Lake Road, Shakopee, explained his rationale of meeting the four hardship criteria as stated in his letter attached to his application. Comments from Commissioners: Wuellner: . The DNR had indicated a certain area for constructing a new garage. . Mr. Schiffman pointed out the topographic elements on the overhead. He feels the requested area is the only appropriate area to construct an additional garage. Criego: . Leek explained the setbacks on Howard Lake are the same as a general developed lake. . Rye stated the setback from a wetland is 30 feet. . Leek pointed out on the overhead the 1 SO foot setback. . Does not meet hardship criteria. Loftus: . Mr. Schiffman stated he already has a 3 car garage but does not have enough room for his families' vehicles and the yard and snow equipment. . Leek said Schiffman would need variances on either adding to the existing garage or constructing a new one. . Would be more supportive to adding to existing garage. . The setbacks with a natural lake does shrink down the building envelop. Kuykendall: . Cannot accept applicant's hardship rationale. You are either in the area or not. This is an environmental impact. It is a negative impact either way. . Sewage treatment brought up by the DNR. . Does not see a true hardship based on the information. Applicant has space to build it. It is the applicant's choice - tennis court or garage. . Will not support. PAGEI2 MN032596.DOC \ ~ MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CREIGO, TO DENY THE VARIANCE OF AN 80 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK REQUESTED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD. RATIONALE: There are other reasonable alternatives for the property owner to utilize and build an additional garage. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. Loftus abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. 4.G 96-022 - JOHN SCHOELLER/CAROL'S FURNITURE, 16511 ANNA TRAIL, VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated March 25, 1996. Staff concluded the applicant had legal alternatives which would allow reasonable use ofthe property, and thus the Ordinance criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial. John Schoeller, 3570 Basswood Circle, presented a draft of the existing building and the proposed addition. Mr. Schoeller bought the property in 1986 with an existing steel building on the property. At the time the staff indicated he rebuilt for aesthetic reasons but he did not. The building was not where he would have liked it. Mr. Schoeller explained the need to get semi-tractors into the building. The City's proposed addition would end up blocking the road and driving up over the curb. Mr. Schoeller feels the hardship is the building existed on the property when he bought it. If he shifts it to the north there is not enough room with the building's 4 foot overhang. He feels there is a hardship where he can not get delivery with Staff's proposed change. The previous Planning Commission was happy he was rebuilding. It was in the public's interest to eliminate the metal building and this is the natural place to put the building. Mr. Schoeller presented a case law with the Board of Adjustment. His feelings were it is not only expensive to relocate but it is not practical. It is unreasonable to change his warehouse and showroom, redo the parking lot to get the merchandise in the building. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: . Remembers the history of the property and metal building. The ordinance now states the building has to be aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Schoeller took the eyesore and improved the building. . This is a situation where there is an existing building and needs to expand and has a restrained building envelop. . The ordinance now requires 50' right-of-way. It did not require a setback at the time. MN032596.00c PAGE13 RESOLUTION 96-42 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A VARIANCE APPEAL BY JOHN SCHIFFMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, CASE NO. 96-015V A MOTION BY: Kedrowski WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: Mader the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 6th day of May, 1996, to act on an appeal by John Schiffman of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for lakeshore setback variance for property legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, HOWARD LAKE ESTATES, 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), and that the appellant has failed to set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the request of John Schiffinan for variance. Passed and adopted this 6th day of May, 1996. {Seal } YES Andren X Andren Greenfield X Greenfield Kedrowski Kedrowski Mader X Mader Schenck Schenc NO X.... / .I / IX h RES9642.00c 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council May 6, 1996 MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECONDED BY MADER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-46 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $935,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1996 Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader and Schenck, the motion carried. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-50 Requesting Advanced Encumbrance of Minnesota State Aid (MSA) Funds for 1997. - The Mayor introduced the item and the City Manager explained the request per the Staff Agenda Report. A brief discussion ensued. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY SCHENCK, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-50 APPROVING REQUEST FOR ADVANCED ENCUMBRANCE OF GENERAL STATE AID FUNDS FOR 1997. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader and Schenck, the motion carried. D. Consider Approval of Easement Agreement with Property Owners with Respect to Northwood Road Construction Project #94-02. - The Mayor introduced the item and the City Manager explained, noting that a dispute over a property line had been addressed and a way was found to proceed without impeding the project. MOTION BY GREENFIELD, SECONDED BY KEDROWSKI, TO APPROVE THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE NORTHWOOD ROAD PROJECT NO. 94-02 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader and Schenck, the motion carried. The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at 9:50 p.m. E. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-42 Denying a Variance Appeal by John Schiffman of Planning Commission Decision in Case 96-015. - The item was introduced by the Mayor. Acting Assistant Planner Leek reviewed the Staff Agenda Report and explained the recommendation. The Mayor recognized Mr. Schiffman, 15220 Howard Lake Road. He thanked City staff and councilmembers for their time and interest. He M050600X-OOC 6 Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council May 6, 1996 cited the character and topography of his parcel. He said there were various bases for hardship, including the size, steep slopes, the estimate that about 85% of the site is unbuildable, and the impact of the professional landscaping by a previous owner. He does not want to urbanize the parcel since mowing about 4 acres is a difficult chore and requires substantial investment in equipment, as would snow plowing of a long driveway. He said that there is an increased number of licensed drivers in his household, and thus a need to protect more cars. He disagreed with the staff suggestions, including possible use of a tennis court, use of fill, and a new freestanding garage. He said the suggested use of a nearby site was unacceptable because it would be too far from the house, would require removal of trees and a new drive, and the neighbor would lose privacy. He said he has reasons to build the addition as proposed and there is a reasonable basis for the request within context of legal standards for a variance. Councilmember Kedrowski said he appreciates points made by the petitioner, and there appears to be a uniqueness and a hardship imposed by ordinance standards. The Mayor asked whether any Planning Commissioners visited the site since the discussion in the minutes is not clear on that point. Councilmember Greenfield agreed and noted that one of the duties of a commissioner is to visit sites. Councilmember Schenck asked the petitioner whether he would pave the area in front or leave it in grass. Mr. Schiffinan said he would pave the area. Councilmember Mader said that he visited the site but he has difficulty supporting the request in that the ordinance was adopted for a purpose and would apply here. The petitioner's garage has four stalls now and approving the request could set an undesirable precedent. Councilmember Greenfield said he appreciated the opportunity to meet with Mr. Schiffinan on site, but the ordinance standards deal with owner- created circumstances and needs which are not a sound basis for granting a variance. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI, SECONDED BY MADER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-42 DENYING A VARIANCE APPEAL BY JOHN SCHIFFMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION M050696lC.DOC 7 Minutes of the Prior Lake City Council May 6, 1996 DECISION IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, CASE NO. 96-015V A. Upon a vote taken, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, and Mader; nays by Kedrowski and Schenck, the motion carried. F. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-43 Denying a Variance Appeal by Muriel Rounavar of Planning Commission Decision in Case 96-026. - The item was introduced by the Mayor, and Planner Leek explained the request and recommendation per the Staff Agenda Report. The Mayor recognized the petitioner, Ms. Muriel Rounavar, who noted the characteristics of the lot, her desire to not have a narrow dwelling, and the need for a single level living area She said site and building aesthetics are important. She does not want to put up retaining walls. She introduced Mr. Bud Waund who presented photos and graphic information about the site and the proposed home. He questioned comments by Department of Natural Resources staff regarding the variance, and terminology in City staff report, which were referenced by the Planning Commission. He offered a "reality check" on the ordinance variance hardship standard. He referred to the buildable areas on lots in several newer subdivisions. He said the petitioner is seeking permission to build on a smaller area or "envelope." Also, he cited the typical size of lots in the Sand Point area. He summarized the bases for the two variances, and stated the proposed home would significantly enhance the area. Councilmember Schenck questioned whether the graphic information presented by Mr. Waund was the same as in the agenda packet. Mr. Waund said the material presented was different, and staff just received the survey because the petitioner just got it. The City Attorney inquired whether the deck shown on the graphics presented to the Council was involved with the variance. Planner Leek said it was not evaluated since it was not part of the original submittal. Mr. Waund said the deck is proposed and was designed to comply with ordinance standards. A brief discussion ensued about the deck which would be required to comply with ordinance minimum standards or a separate variance would be required before a permit would be issued. The Mayor asked if "setback averaging" were used, would variances be required? Planner Leek referred to red lines on a site drawing shown by M050696X.DOC 8 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 4F CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR JOHN SCHIFFMAN 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD NW. R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES -X- NO MARCH 25, 1996 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from John Schiffman. Mr. Schiffman wishes to construct a 26' x 22' garage on the subject property to house a couple of cars which he has inherited. The notice that was originally sent incorrectly stated that the requested variance would result in a setback of 14 feet; the request would in fact result in a setback of 70 feet instead of the required 150 feet for Howard Lake, which is a Natural Environment Lake. A corrected notice was mailed on March 18, 1996. DISCUSSION: The subject property is zoned Al - Agricultural, and is located in the SD - Shoreland District. The existing house was constructed in 1962, prior to the annexation of this area in 1973 from Eagle Creek Township. The subject site is a part of Howard Lake Estates, which was platted in 1982. The subject property is "L" or "flag" shaped with a relatively narrow (85.94' wide) access from County Road 82. Howard Lake forms the southern boundary of the property; a large pond to the North partially covers the property on the North. The driveway loops past the existing garage and house, and surrounds a low area which is occupied by a tennis court. Mr. Schiffman was granted a variance in 1992 from the then-200' lake shore setback requirement (the current setback requirement is 150 feet) to permit a lakeshore setback of 63 feet in order to allow the construction of an addition to the then-existing garage. The setback established by that variance is not used in the present case because the language of the Commission's approval motion specifically limited the variance to the addition proposed at that time. Copies of the application, staff report and minutes relating to that variance are attached to this report for the Commission's information. In granting the previous variance the Commission's rationale included; · "...the requested site would not require removal of trees...", 16200 J!lli~e'~fe~9\ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER · "...it would limit the amount of excavation...", · "... it meets the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the community." None of the stated reasons for granting the previous variance are contained in criteria 1 _ 3 for granting variances. 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. It also goes to whether the applicant has legal alternatives to accomplish to the requested variance. Arguably, Mr. Schiffman already has reasonable residential use of this property insofar as it is developed with a house and 3-car garage. In addition, while it is understandable why Mr. Schiffman has chosen the proposed location, it appears that there are other, legal alternatives which he could consider. This same point is raised in the letter from Pat Lynch of the DNR. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. Because staffhas concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. 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 staffhas concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance were literally enforced, this criterion is not met. The property does have many unique characteristics which have been described above and can be inferred from the attached survey. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. AL TERNA TlVES: 1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 9615VAPC.DOC 2 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 adopting Resolution 9608PC. 9615VAPC.DOC 3 RESOLUTION 9608PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 80 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 22' X 26', DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SD- SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD NW. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. John Schiffman has applied for a variance from Section 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 22' x 26', detached garage on property located in the AI-Agricultural zorung district and the SD-Shoreland District at the following location, to wit; 15220 Howard Lake Road NW., legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case 96-0I5V A and held a hearing thereon on March 25, 1996. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that reasonable use of the property currently exists and legal alternatives exist for placing a garage on the property. 5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 16200 ~8~~~AW~s.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 7. The contents of Planning Case 96-015V A 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 requested variance. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 1996. Richard Kuykendall, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 9608PC-B.DOC/RML 2 TO: City of Prior Lake FROM: John Schiffman SUBJECT: Property owners rationale of meeting the 4 standards of variance granting. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to property. A. Property consists of large 4.6 acre parcel. Storage and auto garage space is needed because of additional licensed drivers in family. Harsh winters are not condusive to keep vehicles outside. Lot lines or adjacent neighbors homes would not be encroached with new garage. Garage would not even be visible to neighbors. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circum- stances unique to the property. A. Requested site for new garage is the only feasible area on the 4.6 acres to build structure due to land- scape, trees, current house location, marsh and pond areas. Also, requested site is only area that is esthetically proper for new structure to be built. 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. A. Variance applicant is 3rd owner of property and had no input of the original site development, landscape or existing structures. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. A. Adjacent homes have received variances for new construction. Normally, large parcels such as this (4.6 acres) would have multiple areas to construct needed buildings. This parcel only has one, through no fault of the owner. No harm to the environment would result, neighbors would not be negatively affected, and trees or landscape would no be significantly altered on proposed site. Set', f (~ (Ii'v U'-U.. ( - Donald Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. 55372-1714 FAX Date: JULY 29,1996 Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 To: ROGER KNUTSON From: Don Rye Phone: 452-5000 Phone: (612) 447-4230 (612) 447-4245 Fax phone: CC: Fax phone: REMARKS: o Urgent t8I For your review t8I Reply ASAP o Please comment The attached letter deals with a situation on a small lake within the City. The owners attorney believes Rowell will allow him to build his garage addition without a variance. Please call if you need more information. HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKUN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, M1NNESOT^ 55372 D &@&UWJ&/D ..u. 2 4 1900 U JM4ES D. B^TES BRYCE D. HUEMOEllER July 23, 1996 Telephone (612) 447-2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 Donald R. Rye Planning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: John Schiffman Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is intended to briefly recap the matters John Schiffman and I discussed with you in your office on July 12. Mr. Schiffman would prefer to build his additional garage space as an attachment to the existing garage, rather than in the more remote location for which a building permit was issued following denial of his variance application earlier this year. We believe Mr. Schiffman's situation is analogous to that of John Craig, whose project you and I discussed this past June. There is a garage predating the ordinance prescribing setbacks from Howard Lake; if an addition to it is built on the west side, no closer to the lake shore than the original garage, this would seem to fall with the Rowell case as did Mr. Craig's house addition. Regarding the question whether the 1993 variance granted to Mr. Schiffman somehow limited further additions, you will recall it is my thought that the 1993 variance actually should not have been necessary in the first place and thus should not limit Mr. Schiffman's ability to create additional space to the west. As we discussed, Mr. Schiffman's contractor would like to begin as soon as possible, so anything you can do to expedite the matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Yours truly, ~~~ James D. Bates JDB:ab cc: John Schiffman CITY OF PRIOR lAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE, PRIOR lAKE, MN 55372 Date: July 22, 1996 Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 To: Jim Bates From: Jane Kansier Planning Coordi City of Prior lake Phone: Fax phone: CC: 447-2131 447-5628 Phone: Fax phone: (612) 447-4230 (612) 447-4245 REMARKS: o Urgent ~ For your review 0 Reply ASAP o Please comment Attached is a copy of the approved site plan for the Schiffman garage. The approved location is shaded in. I hope this is what you are looking for. If not, please give me a call and we figure out what to do next. f'l..i f:.. .. I( I "" -~, 1. I Jf ' ... /\ f.' , ~ '~ftl:"I~:'~:' ::,,,:: " tht'. 'h.,.. I'/f)t~ II [;(1)-' rlS t "II,,,".. ,-,j 2.! "'!,I ;. t'1 'ij., In' P _ "(,. '",,1., d- lilT" fI :,.. ....', atj 'I '.....r 1 )"~ p 'I?t r-'/", '<e th.." , 'j;-;t'l" :/11 .-\ " ,.-::--:;:'- .1 '<: Jr.:',I' f! ~ . 'if f1H~ 4[11. ') { 1/"....1\. 'I , rp~:. (P..' I. ....,., , I\~ t T '1 ,', If r). f 01 d,rlq I. (I , Uw , M', dr,,;(. ~'jh""(l ns ''';(,..,:", L" "n OCC",>pd 1 rI;s t'1n\ ~ ("I' /_~:.'llj ';:'f'"t. '" " I :.', :<t:l1j p,' t "11(1:-' , '\. I q j ! '.' ,_ (,r rll. o! t I ,.' ~ , ,I (('((('W', ~'''''o''';'lq thenl'" :;, j ~f\n(: e /! h ,'f:-. f,J....t I,n r j'~. q"j " t " , '-~. \ - b~ APPf!-t>\J 6,b {pCJPnb~ II ,~ ,If. if:-. IU:' ~ ')1- ''''''',! .1 , t. :0. r,. : ',', l . f(~ '! .. ... (. c,'~ 1 'j' , ~\,;, :, ': r !. J I, r 1 . ... ~ ' . _, r , , .. 1 . I ~ "_ I " "r I " f r '. 'j' ~, " ,( -Ii. ! l "-'nr I~ lH' 1\' . .; t , (1:-'1-.'1.. "lid '-I" ''', ';('F U,,=,,-,: r,I',qp ;,". tonep tr' H,. '.r:l.rlf,:' ''''1'-'':1 -,f .";F -. ....)r/ I.-I V' " V SURVEY0RS INC. V1INNESOTA ALLEY MtJ ~,s:tJ] "r:~ 1 /J_-' /" . ....,7f-1. "" i' ! l. ';r.", Ii PO ROX l'f>q . nUI1NSVllI r 2210F "7IhSf, 612-890-7750 n or reporl was prepared ~~ l~: I n,v ,h., 'hos survey. pl.. d Ulnd Su,veyo' und I hereby ce I har I am a duly Reglstere Superv'''on and, . .~ Minneso'a. >,. '._ "_~'_ -'-.- Dale _ '_ PHONE N912-791O ~[i':!Jrn~@u~ t\:Jt.LNDE~:T;T:ENT OF NATURAL RES Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, 81. Paul, MN 55106 ~ FILE NO. March 13, 1996 Mr. Michael Leek City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Mr. Leek: RE: VARIANCE REQUESTS, HOWARD LAKE (SCHIFFMAN) AND PRIOR LAKE (TREMAINE) --7 I have reviewed the materials sent to me relative to the two subject variance requests which will be considered at the March 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. I offer the following comments for consideration at that meeting. SCHIFFMA N V ARIAN~F.- HOWARD LAKE This property looks vaguely familiar to me. Did the applicant (or a previous owner of the property) not apply for a lake setback variance a few years ago? According to the SUIVey, there is currently a three stall detached garage on this parcel. Is there reasonable hardship for the variance to be issued? Is the proposed use of the additional garage for commercial purposes? There is little information to base a recommendation on. From what I reviewed, I must recommend denial of the variance. It appears, however, if the survey is accurate, that the proposed lake setback would be closer to 75 feet, rather than the 14 feet stated in the hearing notice. You may want to double check that Whether it is 75 or 14 feet has no bearing on my recommendation, however. It would appear the best place for additional development on this lot would be where the tennis court is situated. This would maximize the setback :from the lake, and assure virtually no vegetation would have to be removed. Lastly, the ordinary high water elevation for Howard Lake is identified as 958.0 on the SUIVey. My records indicate that the OHWL for Howard Lake is 957.3'. In areas with steep banks (like this one), the difference of 0.7 feet would not result in a significant difference when measuring setbacks. Should the city grant the variance, please ensure the on-site sewage treatment system is in conformance with current standards. If it is not, an upgrade of the system should be a condition of approval. TREMAlNF. VARIA NCE- PRIOR LAKF. I have discussed this proposal with the applicant, and inspected the site. The dimensions of this lot of record make development or redevelopment within the current standards difficult, if not impossible, without variances. Is there a garage planned on the proposed new structure? The plan I reviewed did not indicate so. If no~, is it reasonable to expect a future variance request for front yard and impervious swface coverage to accommodate a garage? I suggest this be discussed with the applicant at the hearing. I do not object to four of the five requested variances. If the association land is included in the computation of impervious swface, the result is approximately 26%. It is reasonable, in this situation, to consider the association land in the impervious equation. Although not technica1ly proper, one could also consider the association land in the lot size determination. If so, the square footage is very close to the minimum 7500 square feet. The lakeshore setback variance could be eliminated with a slight modification to the design of the deck On the enclosed copy of the survey, I have depicted a modification which slightly reduces the square footage to approximately 230 square feet, or roughly 25% smaller than proposed by the applicant. Please request the Planning Commission consider the modification, as it still provides a useable deck swface, and eliminates one offive variances. The DNR would not oppose the granting of the variances for lot size, impervious swface, front yard, and side yard, provided the lakeshore setback variance can be eliminated. Please call me at 772-7910 if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please provide me with the record of decision on both vmance requests. Sincerely, ~~I""~ Area HYdrOIO;~~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER March 4, 1996 Mr. John C. Schiffman 15220 Howard Lake Road Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Mr. Schiffman: This letter is to inform you that your February 26, 1996, application for a variance to construct a garage addition on your property located at 15220 Howard Lake Road in Prior Lake has been reviewed by the City's Planning office, and has been found to be complete. The request will be scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on March 25, 1996. A notice regarding the hearing will be sent out. You will be receiving a copy of this notice. You will also receive a copy of the staff report which will be prepared during the week of March 18, 1996. Should lor other Planning staffhave additional questions or concerns we will be in touch with you as soon as possible. Should you have any questions feel free to call me at any time. Ve~IY y~s, /)~//$;~L4~~ R. Michael Leek Associate Planner cc. File 96-015V A 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 136 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 26' X 22" GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John Schiffman 15220 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, Minnesota SUBJECT SITE: Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 15220 Howard Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 26' x 22' garage. The proposed garage would result in a lakeshore setback of 70 feet instead of the required 150 feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 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 9615PN2.DOC 1 16200 ltlilWe Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 18, 1996. 9615PN2.DOC RML 2 ------ ..... ..'---- I SCALE: 1" · 100' "-- : ~ DRIVEWAY LOCATION APPROXIMATE AND ~RAWN <& . ~ MERELY FOR ILLUSTRATION ~ ~.. ~ r1v: . "" ~ , CI) ~ I ! \ ----- ~ y ~-~ POND .~ '-,. '2' s SCALi 8 ~...~ .C:l ~ 0 DENOTE: "'l c:::; . "" . oeVOTE: i - ~ ;> .,~ .~ ~ l~'21 1\1 ". ' , ""/S" , .D' <'2" , -... d.? /"l.-. "1' ' ~ -.:...~ .V'?Qo"......... ~.. .......... _ /03 ~~ <5'" ~ .....-: ..E .6 N 87"~4'45"W ~ ~ -....;," 2279/ ,'11 ";'01".36'" a ~ ---,-----___'" 69~~JV16,6 "'/J ~~ V'" -..... ':J331 ~ SURVeY LfNe ~:,. S 6~ 1-/0/ A //7 . ~ .f;....' /;//--.;R/) ~ {) I(f. ...-" ~ - ." -~. . ./849 5 f3"52'27"W ~ .........~.n ..................'............-~I.. ......................... .~ > OROINARf HIGItI WATER EL E" . : 9~ 8. 0 . ;(IPTION 1..411;:" ..lARD LAKE ESTATES, nccording to the plnt thereof on file order Scott County Mn. described ns follows' "!" of snid lot 2: thence on nn n<;sul"led bearing of Sovth '. ::: ~ '-;'.,"',,\""'''' ,..,f' 8'5 CJt. :''''E't, tnencf>South 16" 96..015VA NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A 136 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 14 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 150 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 26' X 22" GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AI-AGRICULTURAL 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, March 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: John Schiffman 15220 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, Minnesota SUBJECT SITE: Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 15220 Howard Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a 26' x 22' garage. The proposed garage would result in a lakeshore setback of 14 feet instead of the required 150 feet. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 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 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: March 7, 1996. 2 KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC. 128 West 3rd Avenue P.O. Box 355 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 REPRESENTING: friiI Commonwealth ~ Land Title Insurance Company !9.R~ij::;:tf:~!!;:H!t::~~m':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::::::::::':':;::::1:::::;;if:;:;;::::;:;:;;::::::;::;:;:::::::::;:::::::::::::::;:::::;:::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::1:1::::::::::;;;:::::::;:::;::::::1:1:::::::::;:::::::::;::'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::;::i.!&::::~j:!JXil~.~~ 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: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Howard Lake Estates, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder Scott County, Mn., described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 700 50' 18" East along the North line of Lot 2 a distance of 85.94 feet; thence South 160 01' 17" West a distance of 277.84 feet; thence South 90 41' 24" East a distance of 93.63 feet; thence South 630 57' 26" East a distance of 566.86 feet; thence South 26002' 51" West a distance of 100.00 feet; thence South 330 46' 02" East a distance of 41.87 feet; thence South 130 52' 27" West a distance of 18.49 feet; thence South 660 38' 31" West a distance of 78.68 feet; thence South 250 49' 34" West a distance of 63 feet more or less to the Northerly shore line of Howard Lake; thence Northwesterly along said shoreline a distance of 460 feet more or less to the West line of Lot 2; thence Northerly along said West line a distance of 740 feet more or less to the point of beginning. James G. & Kelly L. Heitz 15215 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, MN 55379 Duwade N. & Nancy J. Harris 6574 Harbor Beach N.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Alan R. & Margaret M. Garrison 15219 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, MN 55379 John C. & Kathleen Schiffman L .Jl...K.... IJ..II IV l.(} 15220 Harbor Beaeft N.H. How1l-~O 'T ~ q Shakopee, MN 55379 John E. & Kimberlyn K. Oys 15321 Howard Lake Road NW Shakopee, MN 55379 Mark L. & Laurel J. Manthey cI 15210 Har9gf :Beaeh N.B~ ttDl.I/1~d (,q.K~,( IV..v. Shakopee, MN 55379 DJU ~ DATED: February 9, 1996 at 8:00 a.m. KOHLRUSCH SCOTT/CARVER ABSTRACT CO., INC. ~~--V ~ File No. S-3707 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. / A ~ .. VA 4.l -..1:L. .firx P!DI ~ oS - ~ 04- (')o~-e> ern (p PRIOR ~ APPLICATJaf fOR VARWa: Appl1cant:~&~ :s ~ Addre88: () &4.. .LA~F ~L Palperty Qmer: SA- m r::: Address: .5. FHJ1t ~"of .Qmership: F~ ~wNe~ 0xIt~ . Consultant/Contractor: DNc,Den '7$,,'-J)rE!,( IhBA Phone: ~I/S - 077/) IIbdt Phone: JIoIIIe PIKlne: IIbEk Phone: ~lh~J Bxist1Dg. t7ae . . I ct. Pmperty: d..~'\..G A (A~c. / rft5 ?Cl~ (J ( Present ZOning: A I S f) PRpll81ClUse .... ...... .' . l /# j of~: .g .~..tE~/'t/~/'dt'6( . jll( Legal.De8cript1on.... ...... ..' ..; .... ....!.. ......... . of VarianceSite:LAT .."-.... gl.~ '. ~.f-IOfAJA-e.o~A' J!GES rlt- re- " VarlanoeRequestedr'.~''ser&A~t~t'\ 'flJdTJ;A:1I0.J IN$~/M ~FA 2/X/ .~c,j; .' <tj>~~~~1J.~:.~~~~"'~!~::~ o{~~~-I VG~..~; . UBeP"'l*ff ,CIl;th8)$rbject site or; My.. pIIrtOfit?Yes ...x..-..lb >Wbltvas~:." ....... ,.' '. . When: . '. ;Disposition: " , " ., " < , . , - " . ~ibe,thetypeofDPMlTamt.s ~: , "'- " ' . " , '. ',' !Dm'Rmr1III"'Im.~ '. (A)01Ip1.etI!lJapplicat1cri.foaL (B)Fi11ngfee.;(C)property 8Jrvey. .' (D)Certified fIall abJtmctf~D2IIIeSandadckesses of property ownersvithin 100 feet Of the >ater1OrbodraariesOf '..tbI,:lIitjectproperty. JE)~ete legal . cJescdpticn , Pmperty. Id!nt1ficat1cn......1tilIber CP!D).CP)Deed. re8trict1cns' or...private.covenants, if applJcab1.e.(G)A,. .pm:el.. -.patfl~-20'..SO' .8bcJlling:.The site d!9e1oP_dl plan, .baildfDgs: . puktrig,. '1oI!Id1ng,':aoC"!88,.lurface dra1n8gle,landsalping and utility '.seNice. '.' . " i' . ~.-" ...:'1", ,,"; .>. , :_' .,,' ,_'~ <R.Y <XIIPLerBAPfLIatrIai;.&u'i' BB..M~ Br 'l'BE. PLARmC a:ImssIoR. '1b the best:of .: 1mow1ear;,;~.,~;:2ri~Pres!nt<<t on.-:Ws;:{foill::,"Jsr,correct:. In ac1cU.t:lal, ; I. Jave.reed .BectiCrl':7~6: of~"the, Prior. LIke :zGnJ.ri!J,01d!nance, Vh1cti apecifies reqai~"'cforVarfance~;~II~~iiJret!{&~:prOYJd&~iDfo" m'J '''', ..' OW' the ptoc~.nresascutliDed in the ~; >,:.,'. >'';'''.'''t',J 0' ,~~ '. ,...~/ ,~',. "-"'J '.~' ." ,.' t:' " . ;'':'''t\ I \. , c' -, .' ~.r .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 The June 18, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order J;>>y Chainaan Loftus at 7:30 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Loftus, Wells, Roseth, Director of Planninq Horst Gra.er, ..Associate Planner Sam Tollcast, and Secretary Rita Schewe. Co.missioner. Arnold and Wuellner were absent. ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MOTION BY ROSETR, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN . Vote taken signified are. by .:Loftus,W. ells, and Ro.eth. MOTION CARRIED. NOT!:: COlla s.ioner Wells was not pre.ent at the previous .eating but voted on the minutes to fill the quorum. "SrraII-.JOD'sbHD'FMAIf-VARIANCE ' Katbl..nSchiffJUln,15220 Howard . Lake Road, stated they are requestift9 .'. avaria~toconstructa15'6" X 22' addition to the vest side of an exiKing aetachedgarage. Sam Lucast,presentecJ.theinformatlol1.asper...o ..' of June 18, 1992. Thepruent hoH^.wasbuilt in 1962 but the subdivision was notplattad 'untU ....,1982. . The applicant is requesting a continuation of thebuildinq line . which . would be considerecl a legal nonconfonl1ng. setback. '. However ,because the shoreline curves bacJttowardthe.'garagethe distance of the O-H-W becomes l.s. and. requires aJI,iDcreasecl variance thereby losing the continuation of '. alaga.l,......nonc.onfonaing setback. Thelocation planned for.construction. ,i.'tbeIlO8tloqicalarea a. it i. nearly ~latl treel... and mre:a..t.hetically.pleasing. There have . been preY ousYariances ,grantecltootherlot.in thearea.DNR waa aore'concemed.vit.herosioft'into the lake than with the requeatecl .etback. Staffrecm.endsapproval as requested. eo..ent-... frOJl the ec.ai.sioners were. on: shape of lot, tree location, and use oftheproposecl construction. Commissioner Loftu. wanted. t.o put on recorcl that Mr. Schiffman is a former client butvould votiaonthe variance clue to the ab..nce of two coal..ioners. · / \. ., ...." .J',...', ""'~"""'~r~-'<;..-,l>. ... I. ..* Te NUn.inger, 15229 Fairbanks Trail, .tated he is re .sting var nc.s to construct a 22 X 24 toot attached garag a d.ck .xpan on tor primary house ace... and stairs tor ck yard acc.... :>~ ;I~:' ~ " ~-,~ _.\ 'I:~ ..> -;; ~ ,;t (. '-'. , , < " 'I I ..~. i' ,~ i.~. "I"? . .'. -~. .;, "',,,,.' j"'r " :";', :,: '!". .'. ''''. ,..~ ,,' ". ~. ;~ '~ ,,!ti,. .~" ~~" ~l:~~- .!j; ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 1992 PAGE 2 MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE A ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN (137) FOOT LAKESHORE VARIANCE FOR 15220 HOWARD LAKE ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 15' 6" X 22' ADDITION. RATIONALE BEING "THAT THE REQUESTED SITE WOULD NOT REQUIRE REMOVJ.L OF TREES, IT WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EXCAVATION, IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COJOmNITY. Vote taken signitied aye. by Well., Roseth and Lottus. MOTION CARRIED. JThl III - U:.KKl I'lU1't~J.1'f"l.l\ -.-lcRlldlR-- / \ -VA17PC- SUBJECT: APPLICANT: S1:TE ADDRESS: PRESlW".l-JSK: PUBLl:C BEAlUHG: DATE: PLANNDfG REPORT JOHN SIIl:PFIIAH . LADSHORE VARl:ANCE JOHN SIIl:FPJIAH 15220 . HOWARD LAKE ROAD SAM WCAST, ASSOCl:ATE PLANNER YES X NO JuHB 18, 1992 SITE ANALYSIS ^ ~ IIl:S'l'ORYLBACltGROUHD: John ShiffJlan is requestinq a one hundred thirty-seven (137) foot lakeshore variance to construct a 15'6- x 22' addition to the vest . side of an existinq detached garage. The subject site is an irregularl! shaped.. 4.6 acre parcel on Howard Lake Road. '!'he building. s te is a level area adjacent to the driveway between Howard. Lake and a low area in the center of the lot. PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: Theex1st1nqhouse was constructed in 1962 and Howard Lake Estates .vas not platted until 1982. The City of Prior Lake approved the subdivIsion per the ordinances effective in 1982. 1:n1987 with the adoption ot Shore1an4Kanageaent Ordinances, the plat, without any new. hcmes built upon it, beca1ae a legal noncontonaity.'1'herefore, the pre existing garage on the subject site has a leqalnonconfo~.setbacJt.Thelots are lots of record,. subject to .. a . building pendt, <but also subject to the new Shoreland .lIanag-.J1t.Ordinaiice. which requires a two hundred foot ::~~~=?rd~i~I~-:at~o;:;wLu~iJtonOfota1 :~=at Boward Lake Estateawhich<.required a. one hundred (100) toot ~~~~~ ~~c;~d~I~=rJ~~~~!ngl~~r ~~~'Bl~~ I HowardLaJte Esta'tesaDdhas been .. granted an one hundred fifteen ..... (115) foot.lakeshorevariance for the SaJle reasons. '!'he previoushoae owner;.andideveloper. .of.. .the plat tried unsuccessfully on<t1t'O."bccasions ... ..... to raise the density of the subdivision both before aDd after plat approval. The applicant. isreCJU8Stf.nq.acOlltinuation. of the ....building line vh1chvouldbe .consideredalegalnonconforainq setback. However, becausecthe, shoreline curves back toward... the~ge the .... ... distance ==i.rO:i:q=--~~=~=r:ri~~~cre::::o:;~~~; <i} .~' ' ";,S,', 4629J>eIIotaSt. 5.E., Prior LMe, t.trr-.aeso,ta~2.1 . Ph. (~12) 4474230 I Fax (612) 4474245 ....AH EQlMLOPfCIRJUI1'V 94IPlaYER . ~ -/ PHYSIOGRAPHY: The l.ot contains level areas, lowlands, slopes, marsh areas, and a pond. The driveway makes a loop in the level area between the existing house and garage, and around the sunken tennis court in the center of the lot. Adjacent to the driveway the land either slopes down toward the tennis court or the water body, or rises in the southeast portion of the lot by the house. In some areas the slopes are steep. ADJACENT USES: Residential. developlent, open space/agriculture, and water bodies surround the subject site. I-.diately adjacent to the parcel. on the north and south sides are bodies of water. Howard. Lake is located south. of the subject site. It is a Natural Environment Lake to.wbich the DNR assigns the mo.t re.trictive setbacks because these lakes are .the. Ilost sensitive to development. Development is setback two bundred (200) feet from the .O-H-W in an effort /toreduce itseffeets. To the east and west are residential and open space/agricultural uses. On the north side .............of Howard Lake. Road is also. residential open . space/agriculture. ./...EXISTDfG /CORDITIONS: currently, ......... a.bouse, deta. ched qarage,and tennis court. occupy the mainusable.portion of the lot.. A driveway circles the tennis court, ..paa....s.in . fro. nt of.. the qarage and bou.e! and p.asses between. the.<court and the pond on the northern port on of the lot. See attached Jlap. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES/IMPACT/CONCERNS: Adjacent. houses .. bave received variance. for new construction due to the topoqraphy, setbacks, and shape of the lots. The addition could conceiVably be placed on the east side of the qaraqe and meet the legal nonconfo~.etback. However, bardship exists in the reaoval. of a significant oak traeand the excavation of six (6) toeigbt (8) feet of billside to provide a level building surface. The western side is nearly flat, treeless, and more aesthetically appealing. Pat Lynch of tbeKinneaota DHR visited the site and did not object to . the ~est.. He vas concerned with tree removal and disturbing soil which. _y . create erosion probl_ if the addition were placed on the east side of .the garage. The proposed addition . viII . reJlOVe . brush or volunteer tree growth if any at all, and the ground is< already. disturbed. froa the . placement of a doq kennel. Assuainq(.~r ...leaf on conditions, the addition vill be v'2ll screenedfroa. the lake and Boward Lake Road. PROBLEMS/OPPOR'1VIfrnBS: Without a <vis:i.t to tbe..11:8or . detailed . ..... information about the =~m:.~iii~~~~~~:r-=~~a~~f~t O~sth: leqltiUte hardship.. < COIl8trQctionon. the east . side of the qarage ~the.r8IKWal..of.< . significant oak tree and much excavation.....Locating.th...qaraqe. _t< of the bousevould require =~lIt;h=a:t1:t!V;~:'d.~~~=~ticallY pleasinq or \,< ,~....,;,..." " #, ,,-""r:-." . , ,', ' .j. ; . .:.....................-_,_..,"".~_.;:-.._'r.~~i('(~~..~"l!!.-~~~~~~~~~-:>;;~,-cn~~J..-......~" '1'he opporbmit'".l exi.t:a1:o oona1:ruc1: an addition 1:0 tl'..exi.tinq garaqe ~or 1101"8 ..1:oraq." ~ce."" It ia a .,reasonable requeat:when COIUIlderinq "1:Jle alternative .locationa., ,'!'be ~raPhY and plaC4m8Dt: or strac::t:are8 ,..u' _ t:he ...propotled locat: on' 'the .08t iluit:able. ',,' Past: ~ent: .Cit:ea. 1rregU1.ar l.ot:a ahape and lDit:inq t:ODOCJr8I)hy _ a'" J:dabip.", .Al80 t:ho 1"4mOV8l or trees and a larqe voluMor- soil. iDc:reas8tba c:bancea or ,erosion near a Natural BDY1romIeIlt1aU..!!Ieratlonal.~orapproval i.that: t:ha City of Prior " I.aJca ,aPPt'Wed t:be ,aubcUviaionacc:ordlDg ,1:0 ita 1982 ataDdaJ:daardt:&.lldUl~t:h. ,'ataDdaJ:da t:ollOJ:e restrictive on.. ill 1, ",51" .,",',V1. ,t:h, '.'.',tu., adODU, ',.".". on" ,.,,0., r. t:ha, . &bore, l.and Jlana9".-nt, Ordinance. '~',haJ:'dahip. ia.,dUe;'to...t:be .cmU.n-no. ~ and not to actions, of i:hepr~owner."'itt'be..applicant: i. cont:inuina't:ha buildinc;r line'aDel,,' '.' .'applyrora,larqer varianc. because t:6e o-B-W mark carv..<bacJt,tiJInmS ,t:be., garage,. " _ ',;,' ';'/> -.~,' ..- ':/'~' ,:j- :,', ':;._\:,iJ ~._~~,-' ~::><:' ';':- :';,!' _ ~.:-'_/; :/::,: ftAPP,~o1f: s~ri;"irec..~,' ......xIa;.,.DDroval.'" ,',. o~'t:be "varlalace _requested. The cr1teria';i'1DclUdel.t~_" a.l~ricant: oak tree, lDits the " 81IoaDt:or.,excavaticmc1.oae ~tytoa Natural Bnviromaent lake, .it:;,Me1:IJ , t:ha, spirit imcl int:eilt or t:he OrdiDancca, and it: doesnot'di1llhlish t:be healt:h, sarety, or welfare ot the co..muty . 87-19 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE VARIANCE - DtlWADE HARRIS lOlEMBER 19, 1987 SUbject: . To consider a variance fran Section 4.1N or the ZOning Ordinance to allow applicant to increase the agricultural density of 4 units per quarter/quarter section by one unit. St:aff Analysis. '!be app1.icant is the owner of all lots in Howard Lake Estates, a plat consisting of five lots of which Lot 2 is developed with Mr. Barris's hane. '!be property was platted in 1978 during which time the Zoning Ordinance allowed snall lot platting in the agricultural areas. '!be zoning Ordinance was later revised to the 4 units per 40 acre density fOmula. However, these lots are of record and each one is subject: to abuilding permit. Due to the grandfather si t.uation in Howard Lake Estates, the density in the &W 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 32 will be 11 units when all permite are issued. '!be applicant wants to increase the potential density of 11 mu.ts to 12. First, staff fails to see the need to vary this. section of the code. Any reason or rational used to grant such a request will surely be arbitrary and capricious and will result in future incor.s1stent app1.ications. Second, this is a section that should not be deviated using the variance a vehicle. If this section is to severe or does not adequately address the needs of the consaner or the intent of the CalIprehensive Plan than an amenauent is in order. . '!be variance should only be used tCl deviate fran setback.. requirements due to unusual features or dimensions of the land. aJt standards should nfNer be deviated because it will usually give saueone an econanic windfall that is created for a specific situation or person. In this case Mr. Barris has no hardship and his motivation is purely econanic. This application should be denied. (812) 447-4230 4829 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 358 PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 51372 O! 1 Oi D C = o :I: .-. ., ! I I , I 1 1 I I, ;, "i J:' , , , 1 I I I I l / ....,i_;i;t<.:.,;>',',>, S,'. ;"$;":,',;,' "",0,; ~,':'f" ~-...LL PIDf '; 1- d'C)(/ - {1J.J. -0 87-IY Bame Phone: 445-7680 Ibrk Phone:-8iO-7851 ~ Phone: Ibrk Phone: Purehase Agreement Phclne: Present Zoning: Agri Bas tbeapplicant previously sought to plat, rezone, ~ a variance or conditional use perm!. t on the subject site C?rany. part of it? --=.Jes --Jo What was requested: ~.5 acre utes '. Nlen: .....1980 . . Disposition: dt;,....",d Describe the type of iJrprOlrements proposed: Building of one home SUBMISSI(B ~: (A)CaIpletedapplication tom. (B)Filing fee (C) Certified fran abstract tim, names and addresse& of property. owners within 100. feet of. the .exteriorbotftJariesofithe .subject.property~ . (D)CaIplete 1egaldeserlption.... (B)DeeCI restdctlons,lf_lcab1e~ .', ..>(P)Anareamapat 1-.200' available < tran.the .City,. &\gineering Section:shcw1ng: ' existing ",topography, .. utilities, ,'.101:.. boundaries, building easements andsoll.test, data if pertinent within 300 feet. (G)A parcel map at 1--20'-50'.' showing: ibe, site developnent; plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage, lamscaping and utility, service. (H,y CDMPLETE APPLlCATIOOS SIW.L BE RE.VmtED BY mE PIJ\NNIOO OHD:SSICN. To the best of my krDIledge the infoDlll!ltion presented on . this tom. is correct. In addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the PrJl)tLake Zoning <Ordinancewbich specifies ~..~~~~.-1E.~~~ om &Jbnitted this -2....dzrJ of Nov. 1987 Sd-tOlB=:-. Property Owners Signature 'IBIS SPACE IS 'ro BE FII.Lm 001' BY 'mE l!.ANNIlG D~ PLANNllIUDI4ISSICN _ APPIOlm -X-Ii:Nxm/#-19-f7DNmOl. BFRmrJ CI'lY <XXH::IL: APPFAL _' APPIOlm ___ IENDD tWl'E, C1P 'BP.ARIlC Q)tI)mCR3: .. .,iJIJ,,-p. 'i1~ t ~~D4_ {#-dO-n Date. '--"". 'l , . '-., " , , FOR VARIANCE t'ROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PIUOR 'LAKE t:lt.AmiIiG~:1U)VISORYCOMMISSION ," '.' . " i!h~Hi~~A:'>~:_, ., i!meOfAPPlicant or Agent DuWade N. Harris 'd-> ,:',,_' ~dress of Applicant Routet2, Box 796 Shakopee, MN 55379 ';;,:':i': .1 " ~reetand Number of Affected Premises Same' as attached !gal Description Same as attached ltureand Size of Improvements Now Existing Single Family Dwelling and Singular ~Bui :esentZoning Classification A~l !tailed Description of the Variance Applied For 2 ~2 Acre~ Parcels Phone ll~/Statementof ,Reasons Why Variance is Being Applieu For Because of the hills, mm!~ b:ees"slopes,banks, and water frontage it isinpossible to use said property for arty; ~ ;~~~tin9to agr1cultura~.i.rx1ustria1business etc. location of ,. ,":"Athitting propc;rty Owners Must ease: ComPlete The Following: , , ' "'1.'''';~\::;'''' :,,' " ,,;-''''~\,;,c; Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in unduehardship.with'r ,: ' "t "'" " , .,,'o;c., ,'""" "'~tP~~ffle of purchase present ordinances werenot in effect and it '~;Y" "', .;:. ,,~,,' ",',', ", , ,," . ~. ~'. "',::0;' , _'.{' Unders, that all ultimate, :residential b1}ilding would be aJ.1a...ied:,in: Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique' to' m:y;pril; It is literally inpossible to realize market value of this pX'q;)erty without 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the actions of persons presently having an interest in my parcel. Co%:ceet ,,".-, ' ';~/;:, \'c ~;t;:<, ',i: ,; . ;iicaHon k-i~" for Variance Granted t1T~~'^:~~>> <~ ~?> ~':.. '.,:' ;~~,,":'<;- ~'.~' t^ ;.~' -: ~ ~ " '"' ~ ). ~ ~ ~"i " ~ I ~ - :::! ia ~ ~ .. <li ~ oc ~ F> :<: !'> ia ~ WEsr LINE OF Gov-r Lor 2 <<.... , l -, "'~'?-, '\, r-> \' t_~:.<::" '\, ) \'~ ," '\. I :~:)" t3~ '7-.,'-:-_~ "- <:_) .... .' , ":\ --;--, "'" I I ' ":i:~i_ '<:,\ "7,') /''> I I \\-- __ ---- ~ -L__~____- ..." ,,. ~ i ~ :::- o. I:' r) : : ..... ,z,--- -- /496.7 NORrH CQ RQ Ng"lrr;w . :\;~\; I~ \\ OI~'J '" ~ ~. "'f., ~ \ ~ N ]I~ .. I ~~'O C :...( ~ ~ ~fl '/~! N-U, l:l <ll r "'i'J ()).. Cti~ ~ .... .. ... Ot III l( ~ ~ !i1 ~ "\ ... E; ... .. ~ 0' 84.04 ~EOS' line of the "'#$1 337.67 fee/ of Gov', 2 -- $go""a-t- $;/050-"0;5.35 22.$/.16 346.71 5 ,o;'O'OO"E - 43075 - II /d/1 d ~(~; 7~l ), I., ~ ~I 11/ I..:' ia ~ ( ~~q -f ~ // \ I / ~ tr'J j/i 1ft.! ~/ fa ! ~ M /!J _~oBtJ l;jVj I~~. / /~_J!~) .. It", / ~ -1,:: + 'l /)(1 ~ /v(,~\,. .<.'~/ ~ / ~ci' ....r.:-/ ..' ~""~~I ( t t' / (i:., ~ I J.~ ~ /A7>> IJ .'~/ Z"~.$. ~ r 10 _~;;~~~w_ 1/4$1 ....0.. -- ~ I -- ./ ~-,~~~ \ ~ , - \ ..\... /' /'" t.,&' ""'11.,' '. ,'~, , "~f-. ~/ ,D' \*~"-' : .' , .' '-~ 't...,\ /,,r ,. \\ \"q.P~ ~ -' ~~ / ~.. ~~/ /' .._" ~ \ ..... ..... ' '-~ ""~ i~~ ~" \"'/~" \ ;~~,.... - ~ \ \ ~~~ ' ! \' ....~In.~ r..' V '~ \. l' \l~ ~'" .lj; ~ \ -co f 3!J9./3./ -{ ~q.\. -" (f ~ r ~ s ~!!l2~~ "i;, 'V ;"/~~"'. ~ ( ~ ~<< ~. \ ~ ~ s~ "". ~~ ~ t~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ... t ..... I\) "'- # I)} ~ ;~ ,;::;'0 lG '.... ~~' ~ . 0 ~ \ i;j'~ ~f~ .. ui ~ it ! <> ~ , --$--~ ;>p :s- ~. ~ k a ~ ~.. ;:;. ~ ., ~ ,.~ ~~(S a s~ i I () .. - ~~~ l' .. ' ~!:; il ~, ~.. ;:: ~ ~ " ~ i ~ I' ~ ~ ~ b! !II CIS ---~,---- ~ ---------- ~ ------------ ------- ~~ ---------- .~ -------. ------- -----.. ..--~ " -~ L/ ""("- ,." ~. :? -------- -------- -----.. ~...... . . ,"'" ,,' ", - ---------- ----.. ----- ------.. ------- ---- ,Jf -------------- ----- ,,' / ~~ ~ (~ o I'<) - ...... o . PROPERTY ~ \~ . ~;J~~:~" ..W" , ~~ ~ --:..0(,,::> ! ~i11 '>0. " 11 0 ~:--- ---- t' Ii J-;l2 " '<_-::-... . _0..30 :5 ~ . -..:;:"'0 N 87"c4'45"W AI., -....;::: . -::'-~2'') 'V ~<;l /849 ~ - -- ,"",.5...79/_ - - _ _ -0- '6';~~~W1666 ...,/'5 i3"52'27" ~ ~. - . 7'7' ..,831 V' ~ . SURVEY LINE ~-, S 6ft ~ ~"S.~, ~ $~ ~~,~, ----.;: ---= - ~ ~ ~ ) ORDINAR'( HIG/fi W, EL Ell. = 958.0 41. 87 533"46'02 /( ), l/l " /' _ ~ v I//'/hh DESCRIPTION / ~41\E Tho.t po.rt of [.ot 2, Block 1, HO'WARD LAKE ESTATES, o.ccording to the plo.t thereof on file In the office of the county recorder Scott County Mn. described o.s foLlowsl Beginning 0. t the Northwest corner of so.id lot 21 thence on o.n o.ssuMed beo.rlng of South 70') 50' 18' Eo.st o.long the North Une of lot 2 0. disto.nce of 85.94 feetl thence$quth 160 01' 17' 'West 0. disto.nce of 277 .84 feet; thence South 9 v 41' 24' [o.st 0. disto.nce 'pf 93,63 feet; thence South 63057' 26' Eo.st 0. dlsto.nce of 566.86 feet; thence South 26c 02' 51' 'West 0. disto.nCE' of 100.00 feet; thence South 33046' 02' Eo.st 0. disto.nce of 41.87 fe.et;. thence South 13052' 27' 'West 0. disto.nce of 18.49 feet; thence South 66038' 31' \.lestQ.cHsto.nce of 78.68 feet; thence South 25049' 34' 'West 0. disto.nce of 63 feet More or less to the Northerly shore line of Howo.rd Lo.ke; thence Northwesterly o.long so.id shoreline 0.' dlsto.nce of 46C. feet More or less to the 'West line of Lot 2; thence Northerly o.longSo.id \Jest Une 0. disto.nce of 740 feet More or less to the point of beginning. AREA = -I.o'!: ocres RE IIISED REV I SED ADDEO ADDED ORCIN PROPC 2210 E. 117th ST., P.O. BOX 1169 . BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 612-890-7750 , hereby certify that this survey, pia supervision and that I am a duly Re Z;f. :: ': MINNESOTA V ALLEY SURVEYORS INC.