HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-068 Variance Denied
November 12, 1996
Mr. Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55421
RE: Variance for 5395 Shore Trail NE
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution 96-108 denying your request for a variance by City
Council. Also enclosed is a draft of the November 4, 1996 Minutes of the Council
meeting.
Sincerely,
&htlUC ~dlifljcJM--
Connie Carlson ~ -Y:.
Planning Dept. Secretary
enc.
16200 ~~nttreek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, MinnesotcYES5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTl:NITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-108
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A VARIANCE
APPEAL BY MARIS STOLCERS, CASE NO. 96-068
MOTION BY: Greenfield
SECOND BY: Kedrowski
WHEREAS,
the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 4th day of November,
1996, to act on an appeal by Maris Stolcers of the Planning Commission's
denial of a request for a Shore land setback variance for property legally
described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest Addition; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City
Code, and that the appellant has failed to set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
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 RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the request of Maris Stolcers for a
variance to the Shore land setback.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of November, 1996.
YES
Andren X Andren
Greenfield X Greenfield
Kedrowski X Kedrowski
Mader Mader
Schenck X Schenck
NO
{ Seal}
RES96 1 08.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
. The City Manager introduced the issue of Minute-Taking Revisions. He
said that the Council may wish to consider adopting a more complete set of
minutes.
. Councilmember Greenfield concurred that the minutes need to be detailed
in the interests of record-keeping.
MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND SCHENCK TO HAVE CITY
COUNCIL MINUTES REFLECT A MORE DETAILED SUMMARY OF
THE MEETING.
Upon a vote, ayes Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, and Schenck, the
motion carried.
. There was discussion on publishing the minutes. The City no longer
publishes minutes because they are available by request.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
~
~
II r I~ (q (, >
r; )..;.
: !J ~ 1-\ \ ',; .,j
I::' '; "
"_;...1 j_
MNI1496,DOC
A. Consider Approval of Resolution 96-106 Adopting Standardized Water
Tower Antennae Agreement.
. City Manager Boyles reviewed the agenda report, explaining that there will
be a standardized agreement for different companies' uses of public
property.
MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND SCHENCK TO ADOPT 96-106,
STANDARDIZED W ATERTOWER / ANTENNAE AGREEMENT.
. Councilmember Greenfield asked about, page 3, section F, that says
"...company should take all steps necessary to prevent liens."
. City Attorney Pace explained the indemnification provision, that protects
the City and vendors. She said the City owns the property, and no one can
put a lien on it.
.
Mayor Andren called the question.
Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Kedrowski, Mader and Schenck, the motion
carried.
B.
Consider Approval of Resolution 96-108 Denying an Appeal by Maris
Stolcers of the Decision 0 fthe Planning Commission to Deny a Variance.
.
Planning Director Rye explained that in August the Planning Commission
held a Public Hearing on a variance request to allow construction of a 10 x
20 foot proposed addition. The Planning Commission considered the item,
and prepared 9626 PC, a resolution of denial, because reasonable use of the
Q
i
, 1
j 1
;..j
property could be obtained, there was no demonstrable hardship, and legal
alternatives were available. Staff recommendation is that the City Council
uphold the findings of the Planning Commission and adopt Resolution 96-
108 denying the requested variance.
. Mayor Andren recognized Maris Sto1cers. He felt that the terms were very
subjective, and that in a previous hearing, he submitted numerous photos of
those decks which were not in noncompliance with the 75 foot setback. He
wanted to know where he could go from here in the appeal process.
. Councilmember Kedrowski said that he would not support a zero setback
from the lake.
. Councilmember Schenck concurred.
. City Attorney Pace explained that there was no hardship because there was
already reasonable use of the property.
. Councilmember Greenfield said he would not support the appeal, since he
thought it was not safe.
. Mayor Andren said she agreed with the DNR, that this was counter to the
intent of shoreland zoning.
f\\ r::J c-.J
16 ' I l \
! ,~ \ I::J i i
U l'i
L:~ W
MOTION GREENFIELD SECOND KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 96-108 DENYING A VARIANCE APPEAL BY MARIS
STOLCERS.
Upon a vote, ayes Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck,
the motion carried.
C. Consider Approval of Ordinance 96-26, Rezoning 27 Acres from the A-I
and C-l Districts to the R -1 District.
. Planning Director Rye reviewed the agenda report. He explained the
purpose of the zone change to R-l would be to provide for future plans for
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
Ordinance 96-26.
. Councilmembers Kedrowski, Greenfield, and Schenck concurred support
of the ordinance.
. Mayor mentioned a noise concern of a resident evidenced in the minutes of
the Public Hearing.
. Planning Director Rye explained that the resident wanted to know if as part
of this area development, the noise issue in the resident's area could be
dealt with. He said they couldn't really tie the two issues together (the
zoning change and the noise issue). The road concerned is 82, a County
MN11496.DOC
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANALYSIS:
f C0f1
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
~ ~tPLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-108 DENYING
AN APPEAL BY MARIS STOLCERS OF THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE
NOVEMBER 4, 1996
On August 12, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and considered a variance request by Maris Stolcers to
allow the construction of a 10' by 20'7" deck addition to the
lakeside of the existing seasonal dwelling located at 5395
Shore Trail. This property is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential)
and SO (Shoreland District), which require a lake shore
setback of 75' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The
proposed deck addition has a setback of 0', thus requiring a
variance to the minimum 75' setback. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 96-26PC, denying the
requested variance.
The Commission's denial of the requested variance was based
on the following factors;
1. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria in that
reasonable use of the property can be obtained if the
ordinance is literally applied, and legal alternatives exist for
the placement of a deck without a variance. A deck
meeting the setback requirements may be added to the
side of the dwelling without a variance.
2. 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.
The Commission concluded that the variance is not required to
allow reasonable use of the property, nor is it necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The proposed variance would serve merely as a convenience
to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate a hardship.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may adopt Resolution 96-108, denying
Mr. Stolcers' appeal and upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny this variance.
2. The City Council may approve Mr. Stolcers' appeal by
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and
approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council
should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings
of fact supporting the variance.
3. The Council may defer this item to a date specific for
additional information.
RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to approve Resolution 96-108.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Appeal from Maris Stolcers
2. Planning Report dated August 12, 1996
3. Minutes of 8/12/96 PI ning Commission Meeting
4. Re lution 108
96068cc.doc PAGE 2
August 30, 1 996
C\iY MGR'S. OFF1CE
erN OF PRIOR LAXE
f5) SEP 6 1996 \ru
\ffi f,~~IW~ W
NOTICE OF APPEAL
City Manager:
This letter wi II serve as my appeal of the Board of Adjustment
decision denying me a variance to bui Id a deck at 5395 Shore Trai I
NE, Prior Lake, Mn. (Resolution 96-26PC)
My reasons are as follows:
1. I showed through overheads, pictures and graphics that
reasonab I e use of the property cannot be made without the
var i ance. The board never def i ned what is "reasonab I ell to
them.
2. A hardship is created in the sense that I cannot enjoy my
property the same as others on the I ake who have decks just
as close to the lake as mine would be. Another additional
hardship is that my elderly mother-in-law would not have
access to the deck at a I ocat i on elsewhere on the property.
She is d i sab I ed and cannot get around we II. Have you seen
the hi II that she would have to climb to get to a deck elsewhere
on the property??
3. The board of adjustment gave absolutely no consideration to my
arguements and had their mind made up before I even approached
the pod i um.
4. No one to th i s day has given me an answer in terms of why I
canlt bu i I d a deck there. I have been put on the spot to come up
with "reasonable use of the property", "having a hardship
createdll without having these terms defined. These terms are
a bunch of subject ive phrases that shou I d be cons i dered in the
most favorable I ight to the applicant. Obviously they have not
been.
5. I feel that I have been discriminated against because I am a cabin
owner (the I ittle "guy) One of the members asked me if it is a
seasonal or a year around dwell ing.
6. The grant i ng of the var i ance wou I d be in the best pub Ii c interest
as it would enhance the appearance of the property and add value
to the property (higher taxes).
~S~
Maris Stolcers
RESOLUTION 9626PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKE SHORE
SETBACK OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Maris Stolcer has applied for a variance from Section 9.2 (B, 3) and 9.3 (A,2) of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a 10' by 20' 7" deck addition
to an existing dwelling on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lots 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-068 and held hearings thereon on August 12, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria in that reasonable use ofthe property
can be obtained if the ordinance is literally applied, and legal alternatives exist for the
placement of a deck without a variance.
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.
6. The contents of Planning Case 96-068 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
16200 ~8gl~~\r;~EJW~OS.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) t47-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a deck addition to be located 0' from the ordinary high water
level.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 12, 1996.
~. ,TEST: //
, .~.-
! \ .
\ ,
Doimld R. Rye, PI
/)
\;;' 1//
? Ie CCL,,_, /11
William Criego, Cha'
96-068va\res9626.doc
2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR \
MARIS STOLCERS
5395 SHORE TRAIL NE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES -.lL NO
AUGUST 12, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Maris Stolcer,
who is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing cabin. The proposed
deck addition is located on the south side of the cabin, resulting in a lake shore
setback of 0 feet. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the 75' lake
shore setback.
DISCUSSION:
This property was platted in 1950 as a part of North Shore Crest Addition, prior
to its being annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area
the site was developed with a seasonal cabin in 1956. At this time, the applicant
is proposing to add a 10' by 20' 7" deck to the existing cabin.
This lot is 280' long on the long side, 50' wide on the north end, and 36' wide
along the lake shore. The existing cabin is located at the south end of the lot,
just 10' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The width of the lot and the
cabin's location make this a substandard use, defined by Section 9.2 (8,3) of the
Zoning Ordinance as "any use of shorelands in existence prior to the date of this
ordinance which are permitted within the applicable zoning district, but do not
meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or other dimensional requirements of this
ordinance". This section goes on to state the following regulations for deck
additions to substandard uses:
a) Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting
the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following
criteria and standards are met:
96068pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1. The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. A thorough evaluation of the property and the structure reveals no
reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary
high water level setback of the structure;
3. The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not
exceed fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure form
the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than thirty (30)
feet, whichever is more restrictive; and
4. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
Since the proposed deck does not meet all of these criteria, a variance is
required.
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 existing use of the property will
continue without this variance. Furthermore, a deck meeting the criteria in
Section 9.2 (B,3) could be placed along the west side of the cabin.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship
this criterion is 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.
Any hardship results from design decisions made by the applicant, not from
the application of the provisions of the Ordinance. Thus, this criterion 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.
- 2 -
The proximity of the proposed deck to the lake shore is inconsistent with the
intent of the Shoreland District to preserve the natural environmental values
of the existing lake shore.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that the applicant has legal alternatives which
would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria
are not met, staff recommends Alternative NO.3.
If the Board of Adjustment finds that this request meets the applicable criteria,
approval of this variance should be subject to the condition that the deck addition
be drawn on the certificate of survey by a registered land surveyor, along with
the dimensions of the deck, as well as distances from the lot lines.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9626PC.
-3-
SENT BY: DNR;
8- 7-96 7:41AM; 6127727573 =>
6124474245;
#1 /1
Minnesota Dep~:lrtm{;nt. of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 WamerRoad. St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
Au/:,'USL 6, 1996
7671
c'::o.
Post-it" Fax Nole
To Co
Co.lOopl.
Phone II
Dl1hl
I
..tlon... u 7 7 Z. . -, 1.-'
F<lX II
Mr. Dtm Rye
Director ofPianning
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue sn
Prior Lake, MinnesoLa 55372-1714
FUJI tt
RE: DA vm SMITH lMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE V ARJANCll REQUEST (SPRING LAKE).
AND MARlS STOT .eRRS SEIDACK V ARIANCn REQUEST (pRIOR LAKE)
Dear Mr. Rye:
Please inC:OllJOrall: Lhc: fullowing DNR comments into the record of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject variance
requcsls.
DA VID SMITH IMPEl<. VIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE VARIANCE RliQUEST
I did nuL rL"CCive a site pllUl or survey fur the Smith imperviOU.1 surfilce llOverage varianc;c reqw:st. However, I know the lob in !he
13uttel11ut Beach Subdivision were platted many years ago, and contain many existing substandacd lots.
Is the lli7,c of the proposed gQl'age addition and the width of the propoIICd driveway the minimum required to alleviate the hardship
the applicant must demonstl"ate? Is il a three-stall garage on a lot more suited for a single or double: garage?
Without \he bcru:lit of a site plan. it is difficult to provide any recommended aUemativc to tW: proposal ""hich may reduce the
variance. Il should abo be noted that, allhough the applicant is requesting a 4% variance from tW: city's required 30% maximum
impervious covl..-ragc, Minnesota Rules 611 S. 3300, subpart 1 J. limits impervious Sl.ltfac:e to 25'"," of. Jat in the: shoreland district,
This is to minimize the impl1Ct..'l of slarmwat'-T runoff on surface water features.
All thaI tJcillg said, I do not have adequale information on which to provide a DNR n::commendation on the proposal. I trUst the
Plaxuling Commission will cunsidc:r adlthc: fscts, including the hardship which the applicant is required to demonstra~. PlcllSC
consider the questions I raised with respect to the garage/driveway dimensions as Ull.\'Y IVtale lu the ovcraU constraints of. small lot.
M.AR..lS STOLCERS SETBACK VARIANCE
h appears there is ample spoce to locate a detm;hed ~k meeting the required SlNClUTe setback. If it must be attached. it could be
attached to the rear (north side) of the existing cabin. That, too. would require a scl.b~k variance, aUhough significantly less than
the zero setback requested. I would be most interested in hearing the hardship argument on this one. The DNR is vcry m\U;h
opposed to the granting ofthi~ vanij,nce. Bnd Ufgell the Planning Commi!l~inn in deny the reque:d. before lhcm. Several nption!l
exist which either eliminate or greatly reduce the need for a sethack variance, This one seems so blatantly counter to the intent of
shol'eland zoning, T need SlIY no more.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and commcnt on the two variance requests. Please forward II copy of the da::ision madc= on
lh.c1lC mailers. Call mc at 772-7910 ifhavc any qlJ~"::iliuns regarding the DNR comments submitted.
Sim::l.:rdy,
'l ~~ 1'""fj',
~=~;~~~'I~~----'--- ..
~a llydl'ologist
L>NR (IIrlll'lllalillfl: Ii I l-ll)(i-h 1.'i7. l-lWO.7(1(1'('OOO . Try: (lil.2c,Jh 54X4. 1 l'il.lO (,57 .\921.1
;\11 1~.LfU,11 C)PVI'III.'l"lil} ',:".llIplll~..'1
Who Vi\ll...... flih'f,il\'
.... ."rillll'c1C\:1 HI"'jd~.I! l'iJIWr ('PIII.lilllll~' il
c.., \1illinlll~1' Ill' IW:1 Pll'.1 l:OIl.\UIII....' W~I..I'-'
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
q,b=- Dfo(
-F~~
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zoning) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) A J') 1\ Iv I )t d-.O I 7 'f OC:-Ck... TO
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance lEV/Sf/^,&' CI4 /.3 oJ
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~V ariance I Applicable Ordinance Section(s): 9.3 (/-},;L 1
MAi<.rs I
Applicant(s): a To L CGtZ.~
Address: 4L G -5"Lf- /=7: LLrn d'~ E' .-5/ /V t:../
Home Phone: ~/~- s7/-~"lrO Work Phone: ~/ d- - 7 ~-~ tT9,s-
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ----'-
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
~OT .;L.) A L-C/cK. ~ Note47.f S~~--6 (' ...v Gri
;'~./jl . /- --
\ ~ ' .-1.1:.", ---~ '\-''- -- , . , -
.. .' ,.. ~'-' J ..... ;-' _ ,,-
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
7I7'.aA~ S~ 7-/~- 9 (.,.
I Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DA TE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCE:
A 75 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY lOCATED IN THE R-1
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 5395 SHORE TRAil NE.
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, August 12,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421
SUBJECT SITE:
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing
dwelling in the Shoreland District along Prior Lake. The proposed deck will
have a 0' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 904' instead of
the required 75' setback.
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 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: July 31,1996
96-068va\96068pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
/ .~.~~
--=roo
:=(K
~
-
'-
5
~r
~1
~
.~
.. oS>
~
o
5570
53"5
CD
I/")
C\l
1~/5c.
6
1<4170
7
10
,I./lIO
II
II{ Zll!
/4ZJf:I
12
1l/1..5 2.
13
11I1.b4
14
lIlZ.',
15
141."Ib.
16
5'\:'\ 51\1.\'5 $4$'1
2 3
CF\R~\A<:Je. 14\\..\.. ~D.
\Sl1b
4)
.:,
..
L
.-r
...\""~;Z\
I
out- 'I \ 5
103 -
1l/193 ?
E II \"1 q
1~lq7
12 ":P
t.1'
I ~Zll -a
~ f<'
13 -' 7-
,-
I~Z25 UJ IJ.\371o
;::,.
I~. C(
I" 2 Jq !n
15 UJ
'"
1 ,",255"" u
16
HI
'-\ o~
\ 10
~~
\ I,", 9
,G"',
,.
t_
" '
OUTL
-
---'~:3771--ff(!)o '-
C.,i"'i\...Oi F r-
'..A'~I'( H'{t'~~ .J
\-\7,\ Ab~~-'~% '
\1 4 !p 5 I 6 7
\ 5~l",.k~~.. ~S4~ . .
-a- ~_.,..y------
CITY
PRIOF<
Lt
R
tb
i!
j
PRIOR
LU< J:"
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MARIS STOLCERS
4654 .FILMORE STIlEET NE.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN. 55421
\
\.'
Valley Surveying Co., P. A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
___.--'--TELEPHONE (6/2) 447- 2570
--- TRAIL
SHORE 0 .........
---
~~ .....
~ N6t.~5~0-. nooo--- --
I I -'
----'1915
-- /,
/
\ I ~~
/ I
I
,~.
~.
>
,~
/
/7 \
/ I J r"\ \
-
> \
I : I \
..
1j \
II
\ , ,
I 'I
I I
I
I I
I I
~
o
r
SCALE
30
IN
o OenOfn 1/2 inch I /4 'nen' fron
monunMnf se' and marked by
llcenu No /0/8 ~
. ~"o'es Iron monument found
~ l)enote. P I< No" ser
--
w
~
.
.
..
$
2l ,
t( ,
w
. '.0 ;
0 Ii>
n . i7i ~J.
(,..- . ;
. ,
. 0
. VI
. 0
v 0
~ d ::, ~
aJ 1''''C)
N
-t- '"....\:o~o;'-
...-
.9.9~ ~_
DICK
o
,.,.
\
\
,
,c.
,C4
ON CONe W&ll.
PRIOR
EL ')oZ 8
4/Z6/96
PllllP"RT'l DI?~;cH I PrIUN:
Lot 2, BLock ~. NOR'rll SIK)RE CHl~S'l', :;cot:t COllut',', 1'1ilUl~~;()t,1. ^l:.;o !iho\oltlltj ,II I
visihle i.1Il\Jcove"'en~ and enccoilchlllp.nt:; on to oc ol t LCUlIl nil iel lJco~~ct'l l r ,lUY.
and thp. location of the elevnc.ion C).)4.U contollC tine.
60
-,
'" ,..t., Ct",ly ,no, ,,,.~ ~'JI"'t!y ..dO; .Jf~PO'N
lI, "'l!' (\' LJndl!'r m,. t1,,~cr 'uQer\l'~lon t]nd ,nu'
i -Jrrl rJuly II(~''IS~O' Land <;Ul'Vl!'Y'_'f ynd~ ",.
',J~~ '1f 1t.1!' 5Ia'~ at Mtnnl!',a'u
/
FEET
[Iurf' ~
L'c~n5l' :L: 'CI~ ~
r" .
A~8B
ill)
^ ,
fH./(.,j(
PAGE
~ d :Pc. ~ fi/,d-{Cffo
5+0 \Cl~
August 9, 1996
My response to Planning Coordinator1s response to Variance Hardship
Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
The Planning Coordinator's response is totally without merit. Of course
the property wi II be used without the variance. I personally cannot
think of one instance where use of property would not occur where the
Ordinance (as it pertains to decks) is I iterally enforced. The response
goes on to say that a deck meeting the criteria could be placed along
the west side of the cabin. The west side of the cabin sti II does not
meet the 75' setback. Also in order to place a deck on ~he West side
of the cabin would require me to tear down an entry way that is conc-
rete based.
I would I ike to add that I iteral enforcement of the Ordinance would
result in an extremely undue hardship. Everyone I ikes to enjoy their
lakeshore property. One of the most enjoyable uses of the property is
to sit out on a deck and soak in the surroundings. To deny me this enjo-
yment is to deny me something that a large number of property owners
on the I ake have.
2. Such unnecessary hardsh i p resu I ts because of circumstances un i que
to the property.
The Planning Coordinator's answer again makes no sense. Because the
answer to quest i on number one is No, quest i on number 2 does not have
to be answered????
My answer is that the circumstances unique to the property do cause
the hardship. The circumstances are such. The cabin was bui It many
years ago. The location of the cabin puts me in a postion that causes
me to seek the variance. Simply put, the uniqueness is the position of
the cabin. It causes me to be in a situation where I have to get a
var i ance.
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.
Again, here I don't understand the Planning Coordinator's answer. The
"hardship results from design decisions made by the appl icant...."
My response is that the converse is true. It is the Ord i nace that is
causing the hardship. If the ordinance is not there, I have no hardship.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substant i a I just i ce and is not contrary to the pub Ii c interest.
I totally disagree with the Planning Coordinator's comment. I am not
go i ng to comment on anyone's intent ions as I do not know what they
are, be it the Shoreland District's or anyone else's for that matter. I
wi II say this. The deck is consistent with the Natural environmental
values of the existing lake shore. It enhances the beauty of the lake
shore. If we are talking about a totally "naturalll environment, then
bui Iding permits should have never been granted to the majority of
property owners on the Lake. If you wi II closely examine my material,
you will see that I am not infringing on the lake at all. The deck is
totally on my rightful property and has absolutely no negative impact
on pub Ii c interest.
Additional Comments:
I do not know where the 3-25-96 date on the Planning Report means
Resolution 9626PC is adopted by the Board of Adjustment on 8-12-96
a date that had not occurred when I rece ived the I etter. Part of the
findings state that Board of Adjustment held hearings on 8-12-96.
How can this be when I read the letter 8-8-96 and it was postmarked
8-7-961111
~
Also in the DNR letter dated 8-6-96, the author talks about attaching
the deck to the back of the cabin. Obviously, he is totally ignorant of
the circumstance. The North side of the cabin is built into a hill. I
have yet to see a deck that is enc losed by dirt.
Finally, I would I ike to say that there are many decks on the lake that
are within the proximity to the lake that I am requesting. I should not
be treated differently than others.
Thank you for your 'consideration.
..3
H
i
.,
.
~. -~~~.:;.~;:~~=-~<-.!:
-
::J
c;
I.
..
~
,.;.,.,..- ...,J
~~~~~-'.,JJ..?'r:'"'''''':'''''",:
~......
. ~ .
-'"
\ " ....
of"'"
JeT ,~
...1.;'~ .
~. -....
.. .~--..
..
..
. . ..' _.'.:'::~ ":::: _". .. .:;,~ '. .....~:. '.. "":... ~.. ........... ., ........7:
;-~:';."{::.~..:...:...:..:.~.'.~...:.".'._::.'~... .. -.' ....... .... .. ..... . , ....... .... . .. ..
. -_ -. ..:;;'~;:;;~W'~'~;"6:!"';' I:~;;,::~::'~1.:;E;~~;t,.:-i~;.;~i!,-;;:,:ii:~:;
#:~ ''": .. -
'.
.. . ... ..... .' ... .. ...... ..:: . ..:.... .....,... ....:.....~..,....,.:.~.......:.~.;...~:.~~.~,~:;;:.. .:.~..~:.~.: ......:.,..
':: :.~. ::'~.' ~.:.:....~.'.;:.' ~};;':: ,::"'.. =:' :.: .::::. -.
:..~. ..:: ':.:"~.}..:~r .~::- :~;';'. ':'~:':~:';~~;~ ~;,~.
'1
/:
/ '
\
\
:i 0
(/)
~ 0
u
0 0
a: d I
t] /
(Xl ~,~(;
C\I f~
\ I -+-,.., ..,~
-lo- t. O~
.,:.,- y.
\
./
"'-1-
'" 0\'
:t z :
~ \
::>
'"
...J
'"
>
~ I
I g J
/ ~I
/ ;
r
I
r\
\
\
/
-9.'"
PECK
o
pp
,
"
~
"t- '. 'Q
~:..- 0
~o~ ' Firef?it
~.
\9,
~\
STEP OVER .1'
L.INE HERE~
NOTE CORNER
FAL.L.S ON WAL.L. \
SET REF IRON I'
NW'L.Y ON L.INE
~.
~.
~.
"'~
I
/
\
\
\
.,04_
PROPOSED 10' x 20.58 DECK
PRIOR
34
N?3o .83_
sou,,, li~ 42' 05" - - EL.. .,~
Of 10' < W
LAKE
ON CONe. WALL.
SHORELINE
'IlEL . 902.8
4 I 26 I 96
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2, Block 2, NORTH SHORE CREST, Scott County, Minnesota. Also E
visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said proper
and the location of the elevation 904.0 contour line.
Rl'vised 51
o
I
SCALE
30
IN
60
I
I herl'by CeI
by me or IHl
I om 0 duly
IoW,--' tt1e
L'~~
Dote -6- --
FEET
o Dl'notes 1/2 inch x 14 inCh iron
monument set and marked by
license No 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K Nail set
g
FILE No.
B288
t ... ? t
RAIL d-.."y. t(
',1
M!(I:
i I ,.,
. I. ,
:1, . I. .'1
:111 I:. I
I _I ..' I
. i 1: I ~I } ;:
" ,. . tH., l' '.
. '! ", fI "
':!Jt;f-i:!br r;pIt ,.
J U ..j-' 8 f
.1
Ii "I ,', iF I (lj
I: I! !!. ".1 i I., I:
/.; I" : i! ./ I I.
I i ~'I l~: I: 1 I ~ ' j i " j:
I I I j \ . I. ;.
. 'J I.... ., ; I I,.; j;:'
; .- r-l :' , ; ~ I 1 : ~ I !:~
.11 U 1':11 r.J ! I :j :.' i'/' I.: j. 1 i
..,II.!/. ','....iJJ'..lil'I.:;I'i..i.ii...,.'
. .; .":' !A. ,;), ~ L' I
..,.,.'~.~ r-11 ,~ or ~. 'w:!' Ill! .f.. oj
~ ~~ ~ . U LUG ~
~
3s1
1
BEAM
;;:t._~' X /0"
SO ~'I
l"1AIJL1~AC'T'Ll Q.E. ~ ;;.. xg
BE.A.!V\ .su pPoa....
7 J!.'
POST
G 1/ 'f. (,. 1/
BROWN
TREA TEO
BU~LDI N.e >
P:I:t'J
&RADE4t
t:7 PI!"
j}~~
elf> ....'"
() ::J;>
c't!tf
gOt.:).e.o
10"
Co U
tJ !-;,t> C
i:J~oOl:< 1
rf'1')O
~Vf',';"'.':"'
;~~':::
r 1a!1--:lf
LfJ,. I (
q
""
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 12, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The August 12, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall, Wuellner,
Stamson and Criego, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John
Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE
JULY 22, 1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson.
MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case 96-068 - Maris Stolcers, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommended denial of the application because the applicant
does not demonstrate a lack of hardship and has legal alternatives allowing reasonable use of
the property. The DNR recommendation was for denial.
Comments from the public:
Maris Stolcers, owner of the property, passed out a written response and photos regarding his
hardship. Stolcers explained how the proposed deck would be constructed on the 904 lake
level. He does not believe the DNR response is accurate. He feels what he is proposing is
not unique to other decks on the lake. Mr. Stolcers is willing to decrease the width of the
deck by one foot to 9' x 20'.
MN081296.DOC
PAGEl
..
Andy Valdmanis, 5405 Shore Trail, a neighbor, stated he had no problem with the
applicant's proposal and feels it would enhance the property. There is no other place to put a
deck. He feels the DNR sends out form letters and do not come out and look at properties.
Comments from Commissioners:
V onhof:
· Applicant was well prepared with his comments on the hardship criteria.
· Clarification on date of report and Resolution.
· The variance hardship criteria are not met on 2 or 3 issues.
· There are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
· Concurs with Commissioner V onhof.
· Comparisons by applicant are not similar. The photos are not applicable.
· The DNR is correct - there are other alternatives. The deck can be detached and accomplish
the same as having a deck.
· Applicant can build on the slope.
· There are alternatives, it may not be convenient, but can be accomplished.
· Support staff recommendation of denial.
Stamson:
· Concurs with Commissioners.
· There are other alternatives.
· Not being able to build a deck is not a hardship.
· Agrees with staff:
Wuellner:
· Questioned applicant on the level of the home on the survey. Applicant responded the 904 is
at the concrete wall. The home did flood in 1965.
· The 904 high water mark was broke in 1993 and there was a lot of property damage.
· Possible damage with an ice-out.
· Concern for another high water year that could damage the home.
· There are other options. Criteria has not been met.
Criego:
· No additional comments.
Mr. Sto1cers feels the Commissioners would help him enhance his property.
Kuykendall explained the variance procedures and the problems with a home being on the
high water mark.
Criego suggested going to the City and find out what the platform deck requirements would
be for his property.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
26PC BASED ON THE FACT THE FOUR V ARlANCE HARDSHIPS HAVE NOT BEEN
MET.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 2
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommends denial of the request due to the lack of demonstrated hardship. The DNR report
pointed out Minnesota Rules limits impervious surface to 25% of the lot in a shore land
district while the City allows 30%.
Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, said the neighborhood lots are similar. The lots were
platted before the City Ordinances were in place. He also pointed out he lives on a sharp
comer where there is heavy traffic and is safer for him to back around in the driveway. The
garage was approved.
Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, a neighbor, explained Mr. Smith's situation. He
pointed out neighbors have had variances granted and Mr. Smith's request is consistent with
the neighborhood. The hardship is from the aspect from public safety. Many people speed
in the area. He is aware of the DNR criteria. Mr. Smith does have a home business and the
neighbors would appreciate him storing his equipment in a garage. Mr. Smith has worked
hard to improve the property and the proposed addition would further improve it.
Comments from Commissioners.
Stamson:
· He understands the applicant and neighbors, but the standards have not been met.
· The house and garage meet the livable use area. There are other legal options.
Wuellner:
· The property is substandard. The Commission approved the garage because it was consistent
with the neighborhood and would not detract from the properties in the area.
· If the Commission had this same information at the previous hearing the design would have
to be changed to meet the impervious surface standards.
· The garage area and driveway could be reduced. Impervious surface coverage is important.
· Kansier responded the City requires a paved driveway and a gravel driveway is still
impervious surface coverage.
V onhof:
· The City did not see there was an impervious surface issue and did not address it at the first
meeting.
· Impervious surface is a big issue. If there is some way to reduce the size of the driveway
and get it down to 30% the Commission could look at that more favorably. The City
standard for impervious surface is 30%.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 3
RESOLUTION 96-108
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A VARIANCE
APPEAL BY MARIS STOLCERS, CASE NO. 96-068
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 4th day of November,
1996, to act on an appeal by Maris Stolcers of the Planning Commission's
denial of a request for a Shore land setback variance for property legally
described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest Addition; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City
Code, and that the appellant has failed to set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, 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 Maris Stolcers for a
variance to the Shore land setback.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of November, 1996.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
R96--CC.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The following comments are from the August 12, 1996, Planning Commission
meeting regarding Case #96-068 - Maris Stolcers request for a lakes shore setback of
o feet for the construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE:
Criego: I think it is important for you, if you want to do that, to go to the City and get the
regulations for a deck that size. A plat form. Make sure that you are within the
guidelines.
Stolcers: Okay, lets say outside of that. Obviously what I hear is you are not going to
grant the variance, so what is the next procedure in appealing this to City Council. Is that
what that is?
Criego: Yes, you have five days...
Stolcers: I assume I am going to get a written decision on this, right?
Criego: You have five days after you get the written procedure to present your case to
the City Council. In fact, you must remember, we are only a recommendation. The City
Council has the final decision.
Stolcers: Okay.
Kansier: You have to clarify that. Once you receive written approval, you file an
application to appeal it to the Council and then the Council will review it at their next
available meeting.
Stolcers: You mean this approval?
Kansier: Right. If you want to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment. Once
you get the written decision or you can do it before that. You may have an idea of what
they do tonight.
Stolcers: So it will be written and it will tell me my appeal based on that? Right?
Kansier: Yes.
Stolcers: Thank you.
Documentl
PAGE
November 5, 1996
Mr. Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
Enclosed is a refund check in the amount of $50.00 for your filing fee. Since the City
Council did not approve your appeal in the variance request, a resolution is not filed with
the Scott County Recorder, and this recording fee is not necessary.
If you have any questions please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
&UUtcc ~~{'~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
PURCHASE ORDER
CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
NO.
IMPORTANT - This no. MUST appear on all
packages, packing slips, shipping papers,
invoices & correspondence.
The Center of the Lake Country
INVOICE
TO:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S. E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SIDP
TO:
(Same as "Invoice To" unless orherwise DOCed below)
IMPORTANT
PLEASE INVOICE IN DUPUCATE
QUOTE TIDS ORDER NUMBER ON INVOICE
DATE
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
REMARKS
()I~
TOTAL ORDER
fttJ.~
ORDERED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY MANAGER
CASH 0 CHARGE 0
~~MARKS:
,~lfU ,)t ref\i0t0\ -h)
NOTE: The City Is not subject to penalty for late
payment on bills.
,
/
White - Vendor
Yellow - Receiving Pink - Accounting & Purchasing
October 16, 1996
Mr. Maris Stolcers
4654 Filmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN. 55421
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
I have reviewed your letters and the Zoning Ordinance requirements with the Planning
staff and with the City Attorney. While the City is under no legal obligation to do so, I
have decided to forward your appeal to the Council. The Council will consider this
appeal at their meeting on November 4, 1996. If you have any additional information to
submit, I must receive it no later than 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 1996.
apletJ.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
September 30, 1996
Maris Stolcers
4654 Filmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Appeal of Zoning Board of Adjustment Decision to Deny a Variance
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
Thank you for your September 20, 1996, letter. I have reviewed your letter and the procedures for
an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission).
Section 5-6-3 of the City Code states "the decision of the Board of Adjustment may be appealed
to the City Council by the City Council, the property owner or agent or any other person aggrieved
by the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The party appealing the Board of Adjustment's
decision shall file with the City Manager a notice of appeal stating the specific grounds upon which
the appeal is made within five (5) working days after the date of the order of the Board of
Adjustment granting or denying the variance."
Since the Board acted on your request on August 12, 1996, the five business day deadline for our
receipt of your written appeal would have been August 19, 1996. As it turns out, you actually had
more time to file your written appeal since we sent you, by certified mail, a copy of the denial
resolution on August 27, 1996, and calculated on that basis that the five business days would
expire on September 4, 1996. We actually received your written notice of appeal two days after
the "extended deadline" on September 6, 1996. Based upon our City Code, you have lost the
right to appeal.
The five day appeal period is intended to expedite the process as well as provide a reasonable
appeal period. Your letter is the first complaint about the appeal time that I am aware of. If you
would like to discuss an extension of the City Code specified appeal period with the Council, feel
free to attend the Council's forum scheduled for 7:00 PM, Monday, October 21, 1996, at the Prior
Lake Fire Station City Council Chambers, 16776 Fish Point Road. The forum is an informal
opportunity to share your concerns with the council members.
to discuss this matter further, please contact me at 447-4230.
c: Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
96-068va\frankres.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Jane Kansier
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jane. Kansier
Frank Boyles
Maris Stolcer Letter re: appeal
Thursday, September 26, 1996 11 :03AM
Frank, Don asked me to draft a reply to Mr., Stolcer for your signature. Attached is the letter I have
drafted. Let me know if you need anything else.
< <File Attachment: FRANKRES.DOC> >
Page 1
Jane Kansier
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Don Rye
Jane Kansier
FW: Maris Stolcers letter re: appeal
Wednesday, September 25, 1996 2:40PM
Jane, would you k9indly draft a reply for Frank to Herr Stolcer informing him that he actually received way
more time than the ordinance allows and, if it shows, include the Planning Commission minutes where he
should have been told about the appeal.
From: Frank Boyles
To: Don Rye
Subject: RE: Maris Stolcers letter re: appeal
Date: Wednesday, September 25, 1996 9:47AM
YES, PLEASE DRAFT A RESPONSE FOR ME. THANKS!!!
From: Don Rye
To: Frank Boyles
Subject: Maris Stolcers letter re: appeal
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 1 0:44AM
Mr. Stolcers actually was the beneficiary of some unintended largesse on the part of our department. Jane
applied the policy they followed in Rochester which started the appeal period when the applicant was
mailed a copy of the resolution, not on the date the Planning Commission denied the request. Mr. Stolcers
case was heard on August 12. The appeal period would have expired on August 19. Jane sent him a
certified letter which he received on August 30 informing him that he had until September 4 to appeal.
While his letter was postmarked August 31, we did not receive it until September 6. This doesn't say much
for the US mail, but we have no control over them, so Jane sent him the letter he refers to informing him
that the appeal was not filed in time and would not be processed. Re the Columbia Heights postmark, the
Stolcers live in Columbia Heights; this place is a cabin.
Do you want us to respond or do you want us to draft a letter for your signature?
Page 1
'"
September 20, 1996
Frank Boyles, City Manager
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake, Mn 55372 - 1714
R!OSIVEO
~t~ t. 3 1998
CITY OF:
PRIOR LAKE:
Dear Mr Boyles,
I am writing this letter in response to a letter I received from Jane Kansier, A/CP Planning
Coordinator, dated 9-13-96. In her letter she states that I have not filed an appeal within the time
period allowed. This is entirely false. First of all, I cannot understand why there would be such
a short period within which to appeal. I work for the State of Minnesota and all of our appeal
periods are fifteen days or more. A five working day appeal period hardly gives one enough
time to formulate an appeal if you consider the mailing time. Even with your short appeal
period, my appeal was filed on time. I have submitted a copy of the receipt that I got when I
mailed my letter of appeal. There is also a copy of the receipt that your office signed. As you
can see, the post marked date is 8-31-96, well within your appeal period.
I would appreciate it if you would give this matter your personal attention or if that is not
possible please delegate it to someone other than Jane Kansier. In my dealings with her, I have
experienced nothing but frustration. She has acted in an overzealous fashion to deny my
variance and rather than act as a public servant, has acted in an adversarial manner. Her letter of
the "untimely" appeal exemplifies that. I believe that every political subdivision of the State has
a deep concern for due process and that certainly hasn't taken place here.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
~.-~/. -/
Maris sf(;(c~~ .
enclosure
c: city attorney
.
'y
Postage
$
3~
l- -I D
Certified Fee
Special Deliwry Fee
Restricted Deliwry Fee
It)
~ Return R
~ Whom
.~ R
<( Dale
8" TO
CO
CO) Pos
E
o
u.
en
Q.
I < I D
~,~~
- _. ". - - - . - -.. - -
A': "-;',' :,--~",-,-,"~-,,,,~,-,,,,__,,,:...,.,..~.,,,.,,,,,.,_.,_...._...~....~ _'1."..1 tif~""~
4. COD Nunter
5.~~
8. IllSJred Nwnber
9. ElIpr8SS Mail Hunter
10. Article 0
C ~ O~ r r: or La. k
...
.1
September 13, 1996
Maris Stolcers
4654 Filmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Appeal of Zoning Board of Adjustment Decision to Deny a Variance
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
The City of Prior Lake received your notice of appeal of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment's decision to deny your variance request on September 6, 1996. As I stated
in my letter to you, dated August 27, 1996, the deadline for filing an appeal was
September 4, 1996 (see attached copy of letter). Since this deadline had passed before
we received your notice, we cannot process your appeal.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
SincereIY,Cl. ~
~nSier, AICP
~:n~g '6oordinator
Enclosure
c: Frank Boyles, City Manager
Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
96-068va\apllet2.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
/
."".
August 30, 1996
CITY MGR'S. OFFICE
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Iii) 5 E P 6 1196 \ffi
UUECEIVElW
NOTICE OF APPEAL
City Manager:
This letter wi II serve as my appeal of the Board of Adjustment
decision denying me a variance to bui Id a deck at 5395 Shore Trai I
NE, Prior Lake, Mn. (Resolution 96-26PC)
My reasons are as follows:
1. I showed through overheads, pictures and graphics that
reasonab I e use of the property cannot be made without the
var i ance. The board never def i ned what is "reasonab I e" to
them.
2. A hardship is created in the sense that I cannot enjoy my
property the same as others on the I ake who have decks just
as close to the lake as mine would be. Another additional
hardship is that my elderly mother-in-law would not have
access to the deck at a I ocat i on elsewhere on the property.
She is disabled and cannot get around well. Have you seen
the hi II that she would have to cl imb to get to a deck elsewhere
on the property??
3. The board of adjustment gave absolutely no consideration to my
arguements and had their mind made up before I even approached
the podium.
4. No one to th i s day has given me an answer in terms of why I
can't bu i I d a deck there. I have been put on the spot to come up
with "reasonable use of the property", "having a hardship
created" without having these terms defined. These terms are
a bunch of subjective phrases that should be considered in the
most favorable I ight to the appl icant. Obviously they have not
been.
5. I feel that I have been discriminated against because I am a cabin
owner <the Ii tt I e guy) One of the members asked me if it is a
seasona I or a year around dwe II i ng.
.-'.'; ""..' ,~
":j 1\1 'if
> ~O YTiO
~ ~ ; ~ ;1; R
.' \
. .'
, ,
. ....
6. The granting of the variance would be in the best public interest
as it wou I d enhance the appearance of the property and add va I ue
to the property (higher taxes).
~~
Maris Stolcers
"
~ d :Pc.. ~ <(jlrd1'tfc
:m,\~
August 9, 1996
My response to Planning Coordinator's response to Variance Hardship
Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
The Planning Coordinator's response is totally without merit. Of course
the property wi II be used without the variance. I personally cannot
think of one instance where use of property would not occur where the
Ordinance (as it pertains to decks) is I iterally enforced. The response
goes on to say that a deck meeting the criteria could be placed along
the west side of the cabin. The west side of the cabin sti II does not
meet the 751 setback. Also in order to place a deck on the West side
of the cabin would require me to tear down an entry way that is conc-
rete based.
I would like to add that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would
result in an extremely undue hardship. Everyone I ikes to enjoy their
lakeshore property. One of the most enjoyable uses of the property is
to sit out on a deck and soak In the surroundings. To deny me this enjo-
yment is to deny me something that a large number of property owners
on the I ake have.
2. Such unnecessary hardsh i p resu I ts because of circumstances un i que
to the property.
The P I ann i ng Coord i nator's answer aga i n makes no sense. Because the
answer to quest I on number one is No, quest i on number 2 does not have
to be answered????
My answer is that the circumstances unique to the property do cause
the hardship. The circumstances are such. The cabin was bui It many
years ago. The I ocat i on of the cab inputs me I n a post i on that causes
me to seek the variance. Simply put, the uniqueness is the position of
the cab I n. I t causes me to be I n a s i tuat I on where I have to get a
variance.
" \
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the
property.
Again, here I don't understand the Planning Coordinator's answer. The
"hardship results from design decisions made by the applicant...."
My response is that the converse is true. It is the Ordinace that is
causing the hardship. If the ordinance is not there, I have no hardship.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the publ ic interest.
I totally disagree with the Planning Coordinator's comment. I am not
go i ng to comment on anyone's intent ions as I do not k.now what they
are, be it the Shoreland District's or anyone else's for that matter. I
wi II say this. The deck. is consistent with the Natural environmental
values of the existing lak.e shore. It enhances the beauty of the lak.e
shore. If we are talk.ing about a totally "natural" environment, then
building permits should have never been granted to the majority of
property owners on the Lak.e. If you wi If closely examine my material,
you wi II see that I am not infringing on the lake at alf. The deck. is
totally on my rightful property and has absolutely no negative impact
on pub lie interest.
Additional Comments:
I do not know where the 3-25-96 date on the Planning Report means
Resolution 9626PC is adopted by the Board of Adjustment on 8-12-96
a date that had not occurred when I received the letter. Part of the
findings state that Board of Adjustment held hearings on 8-12-96.
How can this be when I read the letter 8-8-96 and it was postmark.ed
8-7-96????
:0
t,
.
Also in the DNR letter dated 8-6-96, the author talks about attaching
the deck to the back of the cabin. Obviously, he is totally ignorant of
the circumstance. The North side of the cabin is bui It into a hi II. I
have yet to see a deck that is enc losed by dirt.
Finally, I would I ike to say that there are many decks on the lake that
are within the proximity to the lake that I am requesting. I should not
be treated differently than others.
Thank you for your consideration.
~
"
.~~.:.>
, ~
.".; ,,'
., "-~
~t...,..~_u' ,. \
, ..
J.l
~.
~
I
f
l
--:-~.~.~. ~,...;.-:."; '';'':''';:~7.J
~~;.-~:... ~_.~'. ",,"---~~ . .....
. -~~-:-'.,...~.. - ..
s
~,.
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
),
.', ~...
c;
'. I,
.
.
\f""::~' " .~ ~,'"
,-,~,~ :-~. .
~ ~ t_.... .
~ .,~ '., 'I
J:r.", t . ,i __ ~. j
:'~~ 'ld.' "if"'." .~.~ ~
_.-. '~~. ',- - ~
,.....,.",.,~-::"':!9~.....~-I.-....:,.
.",. .
. . .
f~;':;;~f: t1?'L;~,~ii~;'~;:;;~':~~~~:'~~;~.;;:,W:;;;,;W;j~~.~;f~~~.f~~~J:;~:;~;~'" ~}~:",,,;?~;,~:,~'F~:::;;:.~~:t~i E~jf:t~;!~~~~;~fi
-:f
./'
"1_
... 0\'
~ z :
~ \
III
E r\
I g I \
/ /\1 \
v/
I I
\
\
~ 0
(f)
:It 0
U
0 0 (
II: d .:1,/
CD
N ~,'ioc:,
I 1-.,,,:> c,<<'
;:9-: ~ 0..,)
'. ~
\
/
~ .
/7
/ '
"
..9.9'
PECI<
o
pp
~.
~.
~.
,;,~
/
\
\
\
PROPOSED 10' x 20.58 DECK
904_
SHORELINE
ON CONC. WALL
PRIOR
"'EL. 902.8
4 I 26 I 96
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2, Block 2, NORTH SHORE CREST, Scott County, Minnesota. Also sh
visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said propert
and the location of the elevation 904.0 contour line.
Revised 5n
o
I
SCALE
30
II
IN
60
I
I hereby em
by me or und.
10m a duly Ii
IalN~;!J the S
c:#~
Dote.6- --
FEET
o Denotes 1/2 inch l( 14 inch iron
monument set and marked by
LIcense No 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K Nail set
8'
FILE No.
8288
~ ... ' . ~ .. .
RAIL tJ....1'Y.lf'l
tl
38:;,
1
Be:AM
.;1...-;;z.:' X 10"
POST
6" 't G, 1/
BRoWN
/"REA -nm
P:rN
'I /I
SA US,. E.R ;;. X J...
ni{"
I '.: .j
. j
HUi,lj:'
j U..J r~f
lfJ... II
r1a!i-71
1
,I
:i
,\ ;1
II " .1
,. ; .1
i
,
JOkT"
i"fAlJU~AC""UQ.E.~ f)... x8
BEAM. .suPPoQ.T
7 J.!.'
BU1LDIN.5 )
GrRAOE
q
C4;SN
:2 -C9rnplllte .i\ems 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
fI -C9rnJllete Ilems 3, 4a. and 4b.
I.. -PI'in! your name and address on the reverse of Ihis form so thai we can relurn this
card to you.
~..> -Atlachtt'lis form to the fronl of Ihe mailpiece, or on lhe back If space does nQI
- permit.
CII .Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on tile mai1piece below the artiCle .nurnber.
5 -The Relum Receipt will show 10 whom the erticle was denvered and the dale
e delivered.
o
'tI
11
Q.
E
o
Q
I alllO wish to reQeivethe
foUoWing serviqes {for an
extra fee):
1. 0 Addressee's Address
2.0 FleStrictedPelivery
ConsUlt ~rforfee.
48. Article Number
3
i
CII
f/)
a.
-;
g
a:
E
~
i
ell
e
"i
~
..
o
...
::I
o
>-
<.~ [
"Ill I
~I
3. Article Addressed to:
rY)a. ('I' ~ S 10 {Ge. V-.s
LJ (P SL( Fi I mo f-e Sf- NQ<
ttJ( urn 10 to... f.ki5hT3J ynA.l
~~
41>. SeI\liC,!l'1tvpe
o Registersd
o Expre$$l,A.1ail , 0 Insured
Return RE!CeiptforMerehandi$8 0 .COD
. Pate of Delivery
..-">O-~
8. Addressee's Address (only if requested
and fee is paid)
~fied
Domestic Return Receipt
August 27, 1996
Maris Stolcers
4654 Filmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Resolution 96-26PC, Denying Variance Request
Dear Mr. Stolcers:
This letter serves as your official notice of the Prior Lake Board of Adjustment's action
on your variance request to allow the construction of a deck addition to the house
located at 5395 Shore Trail NE. Attached is a copy of Resolution 96-26PC, denying
your variance request to permit a lakeshore setback of 0 feet instead of the required 75
feet.
The City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance states that the decision of the Board; ;of
Adjustment may be appealed to the City Council. "The party appealing the Board of
adjustment's decision shall file with the City Manager a notice of appeal stating the
specific grounds upon which the appeal is made within five (5) working days after the
date of the order of the Board of Adjustment granting or denying the variance." In this
case, the official date is the date of this letter, and your appeal period expires on
September 4, 1996.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely, a. f)'~
~nSier, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Enclosure
c: Frank Boyles, City Manager
96068apl.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL:\iTY E'vIPLOYER
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, 81. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
August 6, 1996
1\ LH;
7 ICia.::
...i ;.,I",,)
Mr. Don Rye
Director of Planning
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
RE: DAVID SMITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRING LAKE),
AND MARIS STOLCERS SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (pRIOR LAKE)
Dear Mr. Rye:
Please incorporate the following DNR comments into the record of the Planning Commission hearing for the subject variance
requests.
DAVID SMITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST
I did not receive a site plan or survey for the Smith impervious swface coverage variance request. However, I know the lots in the
Butternut Beach Subdivision were platted many years ago, and contain many existing substandard lots.
Is the size of the proposed garage addition and the width of the proposed driveway the minimum required to alleviate the hardship
the applicant must demonstrate? Is it a three-stall garage on a lot more suited for a single or double garage?
Without the benefit of a site plan, it is difficult to provide any recommended alternative to the proposal which may reduce the
variance. It should also be noted that, although the applicant is requesting a 4% variance from the city's required 30% maximum
impervious coverage, Minnesota Rules 6115.3300, subpart II, limits impervious swface to 25% ofa lot in the shoreland district.
This is to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff on swface water features.
All that being said, I do not have adequate information on which to provide a DNR recommendation on the proposal. I trust the
Planning Commission will consider all the facts, including the hardship which the applicant is required to demonstrate. Please
consider the questions I raised with respect to the garage/driveway dimensions as they relate to the overall constraints of a small lot.
~
MARIS STOLCERS SETBACK VARIANCE
It appears there is ample space to locate a detached deck meeting the required structure setback. If it must be attached, it could be
attached to the rear (north side) of the existing cabin. That, too, would require a setback variance, although significantly less than
the zero setback requested. I would be most interested in hearing the hardship argument on this one. The DNR is very much
9Pposed to the granting of this variance, and urges the Planning Commission to deny the request before them. Several options
exist which either eliminate or greatly reduce the need for a setback variance. This one seems so blatantly counter to the intent of
shoreland zoning, I need say no more.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the two variance requests. Please forward a copy of the decision made on
these matters. Call me at 772-7910. if have any questions regarding the DNR comments submitted.
Sincerely,
~~~~~-
Patrick 1. L~h III
Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 6 I 2-296-6 I 57, 1-800-766-6000 . TTY: 6 I 2-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
".>> Minimum of IOclc Post-Consumer Waste
\ i..!
_...
'....,.. ~ ~....--.....-
June 27,1996
Maris Stolcers
4654 Filmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
RE: Application for a Variance to the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mr. Maris:
Attached is the application for a variance to the City of Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance. Based on our telephone conversation and on the survey you
submitted, the proposed deck will require a variance to the Shoreland setback
requirements, which is Section 9.3 (A, 2) of the Zoning Ordinance. This deck
may also require a variance to the required 10' side yard setback. Both
variances may be considered on the same application.
The attached information also includes the procedures for filing a variance, and
the required submittals.
If you have any questions about the attached application or procedure, please
call me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
O.~
~anSier, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Enclosure
\
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(
~
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
q~- ()fo(
--;} I ~ Y 7
g.<;.-:.. 04-0 - 01 S- D
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin!:) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin!:) A 1) I~ /0 I )( ,;1.0 I 7 'f OC'-'Ck: T7)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance GVI oS TIN~ Cl41'5t'AI
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~Variance
Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Cj. '3 (1'1,;L 1_
Applicant(s):----.M A r<. r s S To L U::/2.~
Address: 4 C:. s'f /=ZLL;n~c .5/ /V L
Home Phone: Co 1.;1..... -s 7/- ~1. 110 Work Phone:
~ / d-.- - 7 g-s--t::, 7/9.5-
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ----'-
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
~OT ,;2... A t--C/G/C ;i)..-. N ote-n..f S(lP4?-L5 r ,R5-rr
, /c: _ ,- C'.zj~, _ ' \,,-
) ,:1- ~_.J 'Dr~ -y; .~ t0l::::-
To the be t of m knowledge the information prodded in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
7J!AA~ cS~ 7-/S--9r-
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
RECEIPT
29105
DATE-J.d1'Cz , "lh
\0
11-
CITY OF
PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE. S.E., PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Received of (tltl\'lAL~ul,~
whose address and/or legal description is
~ ., 0:1"'% ~ i~
the sum of ( ~ #I); . LU~ (}e~V - j)~ Lt~
for the purpose of ~
I ZS, Oi fFe~ (lJ'vuUCLI' / ~CfifuV1
6D. IlJ .. >j
dollars
Reference Invoice No.
$ /15AJ
July 16, 1996
1trn@rnowJ[g n
~'8" U
J
Per your Planning Commission Procedures:
A. Completed application enclosed
B. Check for $175 - filing and recording fee
c. You already have the survey and the deck plan
D. Names and addresses of property owners within 100' enclosed
E. No deed restrictions or covenants
F. N/A
/111~
I
S~
'6
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
~ ~ of the City of Prior Lake, County of Scott, State of
Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the ~ day ~ ' 1996, she served
the attached I~Of persons to have an interest in the Jf~ t/~
-J q {o - m , by mailing to them a copy thereof,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
_day of ,1996.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MAILAFFD.DOC
PAGB
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE:
A 75 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 5395 SHORE TRAIL NE.
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, August 12,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421
SUBJECT SITE:
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing
dwelling in the Shoreland District along Prior Lake. The proposed deck will
have a 0' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 904' instead of
the required 75' setback.
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 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: July 31,1996
96-068va\96068pn.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
'SW10 iLlItO 55/0
IIML?L6.WOOD Oil..
S"i~\ 54"15 Str"" ""12 1-
." ...,.. ':>'185 54"" 550" \-;"'2~
2 3 4 5 6 7 B
".i~r~/
5l-\ORE l...t\. ,j
F;r""\I'I'i .11\"G";"-['~~SLJ""./7 . I
r"~' \ 2 \':' 6 I
LJ--L--'~ J --
RK
of :\001.
F ''-':'77~--D<'' .-- ~
CJi'LOT r-
..-",,\~,,( R,a~;
~.l ,A~({r[:' \ ~ '
\ '6nn.lJ!.l..~ ,'" ~.
...- --,...,,-.-----
1'4/5c..
6
tl/''-'t
103
'/l.{193
II
II
I'IZZI/
/i/23fJ
12
/4252.
13
14 ZII4
14
JIIL7'
15
IIIZ,o . iO
16 II
llwn
12
/llZ II
13
//.{ZZ5
I~.
CARRIA<:JE I4I\..l RD.
2" I
'5f II
3
~a145 5~"1
6
5~ 1;'.
5,*03
Ii
2
~,
01\
~1
~
.'"
...l1'
~
"
5510
5
5281
13
v
Q)
It')
It')
C\J
Q)
I()
C\J
-~
Ism;
"'-:-:
..1i.l~21
I
1J.l5Z0 .,
I
\ 5
-
?
,'I q
1LI
:::.
ct
tn
tJ1
co:.
o
~,~
~
\ 9
~I
A'
i,
",./ -
~Jo.
C.
OUT LC
;- '55
5
'5 ~5
~ITY 0
19 It') PRIOR
13 It')
12 IX)
8 9 10 I() LAI(I
I')
N I
-f'
~
.if
j
PRIOR
-
o
l
"'%'
A 1<' J:"
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MARIS STOLCERS
4654 .FILMORE STREET N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN. 55421
\
\:
Va lIey Surveying Co.. P. A.
SUITE 120-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
~ELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570
~\\..
SHORE O,A..".
--
~E .....
~ N6'~5~0~."ono-..- -.
I I -.,
__ ~~5
/ {
/ I
I
I
--
:;O(j
... :411 :
~ Xl/o
0" o. 0
~J,.,;
r:.1~
~ ~ ~'i
/ ~ \
/7 il
/ I \
~ r'\ \
~
" \
I ~ I \
~
..
~ \
I,
I I I
I 'I
j I
I
I I
I I
8l
2
wi
! llJ
" W
. .
0 \{'I ~
n in . -1-
{... " . ;:
" ,
~ 0
~ <II
. 0
u 0 ,
0
.. d ::1, '
CD 1.,+r"
N
-+- .....,11 o;t.
'1.9- '" +o>J
.9.9-
~-
~
DIlECK
0....
\
\
\
904
90'
ON CONe WALL
PR\OR
EL 902 8
4/26/96
~Ro~'mTl DF~JCi{ 1 P'l'lUN:
Lot 2, Block ~, NClR'rll SlK)RE CHt~S'l', ~icot:t COlmt," "'1iftllp.~;()ta. ^l!iO !iho,,'inq -,II
visi.hle ill1lJcovementl:s and enccoachlllelltR on to DC oCt (cum sa lei ~CO~~t.ty it illlY.
and thP. location of the elevation 9<l4.0 c"nto"~ line.
o
I
SCALE
30
IN
60
-,
FEET
hut-b, ct"lIy thaf ,tits 'ioJ(Vt', \1100" ;Jrt'pOfN
/)1 HIP. (I( vndtr my d'rt<t ~uper\l,,,otl and '''ur
i '.Jrr :J "u/'f IIC'eonsed Land '5UfveytJr under 'heo
.;J"'lt fl' ",e Slaleo ot Mmflesafu
/
o Oenofn 1/2 inch. 14 rnCh' I(on
monument set and morhd by
lIe.n,. No 1018.3
. Deflolts .,on monument found
at lhwoles P K Nor' set
(llJ'f'~
LIcense fl'l !(:16 j
FII t 'I.
8"8U
~UC'K
!'l)
PAGE
-1(:'
'"
",..-
~ ,/
./
/'
~
,.)
,
\
~ --~-
~
- ---- -----..
---
ROCK
+ ON L1NJ...201.99---
WALL ..
''''
1;0
I'
"-
,---~
.......,..... 6RAVrL SURFACe DRIve
- - J - -.., N..270 3-.2.' 25~
./ "/---172.00___
10
,io
I I
5010 51' 56"E---
~+-280.00
": I . . ,
-0
Tilt Wall
GARAGE
"
t--
\
~
\
k
I
'+
'"
~ "'.....
Oc;. '"
"'~
<"
"
(_0
.J.I
01
0:
\
-(I)
~
o
:u
1ft
-\
'.1J
O~
",-
'"f"""
%
;
~
(") ~ ~ en
oO)...~
r(J11f1'
c~:u~
3:, _-<;
aJ "1'1 ,..
- - v, "'D
J>r :0
3:
X 0 en r1'I
!:!!:o -i jg
(;) I'T1 0 :0
~~,~
C/):C n
"r1'I","1'1
s: r1'I 0
2-i:U~
~~ en
(J1r1'1
~.
~
; ,
i
!
i
!
"tl.,,~ ~Q
1'Y1::o::o_
r-O~:-i _
tti ~ ~ rYi CD
:r r- c: ;\; "<
o~ZO
2"" I en
I'Y1 I'Y1 -t C) c:
.. ~ .. ..,
m~;::C;; <
-2 O'l ~
I\) 2 '<
- I'Y1 0 ~ _.
~ C/) :;: :::s
"'On~cQ
-....I-tI'Y1)::i.
I ~ 2 ("")
~ g~ 0
....,012-.
00102..
""'0 -t ~
""'1\1 3: ::0 . U
-b """--
2_~
~r-.
3:
...---
--
. .
~
NEW ABSTRACTS
CONTINUATIONS
CLOSING SERVICE
REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS
TITLE INSURANCE
RECORDING SERVICE
SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC.
223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Cjio _~~
~
David Moonen and Dale Kutter
Telephone: (612) 445-6246
FAX: (612) 445-0229
July 3, 1996
CfbCfdt M L
Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
To Whom it may concern:
According to the 1996 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's office,
the following persons are listed as the owners of the property which lies
within 100 feet of the following described property:
Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest, according to the recorded
plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County
Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota.
DANIEL C & CAROL ANN REILAND
5365 SHORE TRAIL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
VALDIS MURINS
30 HARRISON AVE
HOPKINS MN 55343
KRISTINE KONTERS
5386 SHORE TRAIL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
HARLAN & HELEN ANDERSON
5325 SHORE TRAIL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
ARNIS & STEPHANIE L OZOLS
14548 SHORE LANE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
btJ i<
VIKTORS A KONTERS
5381 SHORE TRAIL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
~~A
I . ,-I ~~
DaVl E. Moonen
President
BARBARA VALDMANIS
5405 SHORE TRAIL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
SCOITCOIIRY MSIIIM:l
AND1ITlE.1C.
UcenIId AbIIIIICIIr
State of Minnesota
MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
-0 .
.. . .''to '.4 ~""" -.. -~ :;::;.:..-
. ' vii>'-' -- ~--.. .'
'. . "..." ~
-~ ~~;";'f;J:.~6.:,,~~
~ ~~ ;..,~.'
----"~ ,/' --:. ...."
"'~ A-.... ~ r
1.:r - ' .' 1
'~-jJ ~I.' .....:_' -'~ ~
,.._1. .~j.-;:::;;' ...~ """"-.... -.J 1
--'
~-_.M'BIi
~
>In
Ef~:;;:
.
...
.
~
-\
~.,,""f.c. ...r~....!'i .~;. ~ ".- ....
_ .-. ~~ < ~ '-~ -----Ila
~ ~ ~' _. c.=-l?' ~.~ IIZO"""
_ _ _-:;0 ~ -~-,~.~
.~ '~.sC'~ =-.e'" ''=~ ~. ~
'e::l' - -.,.. !:S !II r:lI
_ C"""'! ~ ~~_~
..
,..
...(.."ll"^....
-
-
'g;'~
_,...t:J.- ..;:~.,:::
!:;l!l~ ;:
- il .,."
~_ ~~ ,iii" ...~
;,; Jll!'Q Ki:!\II ~
':: I:l ~,'~i~, ~.. ~~~ ~~~
r... -..a.., " lfr:: ~~ :::r
-----~ """ . c- I;;J
_c ~ ._
L_
... ,,..-
~.~,.,...
~~.. -~ij;i .....
~. ~B"" ,.1"1
C'=, .,'~ .-oet:...
,,*. .~.
;;;
rf:
c:t. c:::::
~
rJ-~
c........,. ~
---------
----
, .:I..
.J
-:I
...
~
:;w
~ 0
~-- ..&.-.-
~~
~
..
~
f~
~ ,':-
i
,
.~. ~
: ..... ~
---_.__._---~----
.....-:
-----------
White - Building
Canary - Engineering
Pink - Planning
'.
Thf Ctntn of Ihf t.ke Counlry
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
NAME OF APPLICANT
/(-1// /'1 S
1;1 ,_, _ i'
,I {! ( C f' ,,:-,
APPLICATION RECEIVED (:-::,/.}~)/ 'I fp
The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
':.).' :) /; /.- ('j - t:' "'-1/. ',--, ., (:1 '-J (:
~ ~.1 / ...) ...~} 'J () ( '_',,~' , 'A",,,, / ,~.:",~'"
Accepted
- Denied
Accepted With Corrections
Reviewed By:
Comments:
Date:
t
J
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid."
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MARIS STOlCERS
4654 FILMORE STREET N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN. 55421
Valley Surveying Co., F?A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
ELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570
SHORE
TRAIL.
o SAN."""
-
N82055'25"E.
_-50.00--
RockS
--
--
I I
_~'5 1
/ {
I I
'\
/ \ I
I ,
, I
"
I.&J I '
..,: ,
> !OJ '
4:(\10
o. .0
!O! .
1'1)(\1
o I "'-
"'--
'" 0\'
~:2 :
g \
Ul
rj
t.-.
III
(!)
<l
cr
<l
(!)
9.9-
8:
(5
N I
wi I
1
Z L\J
~ (0
Z
0 lCl
.0 1.0
~
~ 0
c <5
~
(f)
)t 0
U
0 0
cr d
(J)
N
,
.;:.;:
-2
,
~c,i-
Q
--
..
/7
/ '
....
'"
>
i ocr
I ~
/ ~i
(/
I ,
\
\
\
'(,'i'G
"'f- ,,,, o.)t;~
~ ~O
r"\
I \
\
"
-9.9'
PECK
o
pp
~.
~.
~.
e,~
I
/
\
\
\
PROPOSED 10' x 20.58 DECK
904_
PRIOR
EL. 902.8
4 I 26 I 96
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
N ?30 rfI.. 83_
SOfJ'h . rfl.2'O - - EL. 904 ON CONC. WALL
II~ S"~
Of 10' <
LAKE
SHO~ELINE
Lot 2, Block 2, NORTH SHORE CREST, Scott County, Minnesota. Also shc:JWing all
visible improvements and encroachments on to or off from said property if any.
and the location of the elevation 904.0 contour line.
Revised 5/23/96 To ShOW propo_ houR.
o
i
SCALE
30
IN
60
\
FEET
o Denotes 1/2 inch x 14 inch iron
monument Ht and marked by
license No 10/83
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K. Nail set
Date
FILE No. 8288
800K
210
~.E
42
w
~
<(
-.J
0::::
o
0::::
0-
~