HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-120 Variance
File No. 96-120 Variance
ST ATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The undersigned, duly qualified and City Manager ofthe City of Prior Lake, hereby
certifies the attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the original.
Resolution 96-38PC
on file in the office of the City Planner,:ry ofP:or Lak~
tJ /
/ l' --;'\.!"'"
Dated this ~'day of I j;({/11/~r, 1996.
A<s '{ ~ Q tJ 0<:- :::t:L
Dec.
-)g'15"DCf
(City Seal)
\q~
SCOTT COUNTY. MINNESOTA
'nf!-ified 1~iled and or Recorded on
Ute 1 1996 9: I1D ~.
OFFICE OF THE C=UNTY RECORDER
Pat Boeckman. C=~nty Recorder
by
Deputy
16200 E~~:~Il;;oCr'?R& Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota ~m2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
A'.; EQUAL OPPORTL:;\ITY EMPLOYER
RESOLUTION 96-38PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 32 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
43 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED GARAGE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City cfPrior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Vaughn and Henriette Lemke have applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage on property located
in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at
the following location, to wit;
14472 Shady Beach Trail, legally described as Lot 5, Shady Beach No.2, Scott
County, MN
1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case #96-0120 and held hearings thereon on December 9, 1996.
2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such property,
and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such land is located.
The unique circumstances applicable to this property include the substandard lot size,
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
the fact that the property was platted prior to the incorporation of the city, and the
location of the existing structure.
4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a
convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
The factors listed above do not allow for an alternative location of the proposed
addition without this variance.
5. The contents of Planning Case 96-120 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section 5-6-8 of the
Ordinance Code this variance will be deemed to be abandoned, and thus will be null
and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder of the variance has failed
to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits for the completion of
contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variance for the proposed garage;
1. A 32 foot variance permitting a 43 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on December 9, 1996.
Ar\~Jl~
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
\
1:\96var\96-120va\96-120re.doc
2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL AND
VARIANCE TO MAXIMUM ALLOWED AREA FOR
VAUGHN AND HENRIETTE LEMKE, Case File #96-
120
14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL %
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER \.1j\
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES ---2L NO
DECEMBER 9, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Vaughn and
Henriette Lemke, who are proposing to construct a detached garage on a lot that
currently has a single family dwelling with no garage on it. The lot is located at
14472 Shady Beach Trail, on Prior Lake.
The proposed garage has a 42 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level
(OHWL) of 904 instead of the required 75 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning
Ordinance). The applicants are requesting a variance of 33 feet to the required
setback. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the size of the garage
is 872 square feet, which is greater than the maximum size permitted of 832
square feet (Section 6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). A variance of 40 square feet
in area is being requested.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 5, Shady Beach No.2 was platted in 1954. This lot averages
approximately 90.29 feet wide and is 100 feet deep on the west property line and
164 feet deep on the easterly lot line, for a total area of 10,820 square feet. The
property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland
Overlay) district. The lot area makes it a substandard lot under the current
Zoning Ordinance.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
The applicants received a variance on September 25, 1995 permitting a 49
foot setback from the OHWL and permitting a sideyard setback of 7.5 feet for the
construction of a garage. Those variances previously granted expired on
November 20. 1996. The applicants applied for a building permit on November
6, 1996. However, their intent is to place the garage 42 feet from the OHWL.
The applicants plans have not changed since that variance was granted. A
survey was not a part of the original variance granted, thus the determination of
the distance from the OHWL was not clear in the application.
The legal building envelope is triangular shaped and does not accommodate
the size of the proposed garage. The location of the garage is situated as such
to allow for an expansion of the dwelling to connect with the proposed garage.
The applicant is aware that another variance will be necessary prior to obtaining
a building permit for the future residential addition located closer to the OHWL,
than allowed by ordinance or with granted variances.
According to the survey, the applicant is proposing to remove existing
bituminous surface to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the lot.
Furthermore, with the construction of a garage, the applicant will not need that
additional paved area for parking. The proposed impervious coverage on the lot
is 20 percent.
The variance to setback from the OHWL can be minimized by moving the
proposed garage towards Shady Beach Trail. The proposed setback from the
street is 26.14 feet. If the applicants move the garage 1.14 closer to the street,
then the variance request can be minimized by at least one foot.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
2. This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, the legal building envelope
which results from the applicable yard requirements and a 75 foot or 50 foot
setback from the OHWL cannot meet the needs of the applicant. The size of
the building envelope limits the architectural style and size of the proposed
structure and the future habitable additions.
In regards to the size of the garage, there is no hardship resulting from the
property that would warrant a 40 square foot variance to the maximum size
permitted.
96120pc.doc
Page 2
3. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Unique circumstances in this case are the substandard size of the lot (10,820
square feet) which was platted in 1954, the size and shape of the legal
building envelope, and the location of the existing structure from the OHWL,
which was constructed in 1956. The special conditions affect the location of
the proposed garage, but have no relevance on the rationale for a variance to
maximum allowable area of an accessory building.
4. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The size and location of the lot and existing structures are hardships over
which the applicant has no control. The lot was created before the Zoning
Ordinance. The origination of the hardship for the variance request to
allowable area is caused by the applicant's desire for more storage space
and the phasing of future residential addition.
5. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the proposed dwelling on the lot are not inconsistent
with the location of other structures in this area. The garage will be setback
approximately the same distance as the property located to the east and
closest to the garage. A variance in this case will not be contrary to the
public interest.
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:
In regards to the setback variance, staff has concluded that the size, physical
characteristics, and existing structure of the lot are hardships outside of the
applicants' control. In addition, the legal alternatives for the location of the
96120pc.doc
Page 3
proposed garage are restrictive of the applicants proposal. However, the
variance can be reduced if the proposed garage is move northward, as to be
setback 25 feet from the front property line, rather than the proposed 26.14 foot
setback.
Staff recommends that the variance to maximum allowable area of 40 square
feet, to permit an accessory structure of 872 square, feet does not meet the
criteria of hardship and should thus be denied.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-38PC.
96120pc.doc
Page 4
l
~~.:- i<I'"
I,J ~ ,0 1\ '?
~QO
V \./
~ /~~~/'
~// Y" /1 //'\ ^
\,J./\. ?
~ _>/<~"\i to) ..0"
\-tlo\'. ..'l/~~~ .~I.".\~ ,;:/
~ ,01 /::7.. ~ ~-l:J . r
[ /.' ~~ . ~~v-- oj\'" ~.,
y/ " ,. 0" -'~;/
I r-l 90' :;::t,' V"" to
.A \ to'" ,.:~ ~Oq..i,.
, t ' ' 'j
)
/
/
/
II
/
/
/.
/
l//
/
~
A..Q;~
/
I
/
.I
/
cJ:
'q-
~.,
5"
/
/;\
~..~. r~ ."
... ,:r. v-, . 0
~~. V>
,'/
. .
NOTE SHED '
ENCROACHES
//
".,,../T
~,,,,,6
to-1-''i! #-
",O'l
.. _ 17 6"
/.
L t
/'
\
BUILDING' ENVELOPE
,0'
-.
I~
~)
.~
I"
,I
..~' t~~
it
~b
....'tv
+-">.;:,">
i<I<,O
---
\ __ f>.. 'f. ~
November 20, 1996
Statement About Garage
My wife and I want to build a garage. We live on the lake. We just want to build a garage big
enough to put our thing in. As I drive about town, I often notice cars parked in the drive, because
the garage is full of things like bikes and lawnmowers and snow blowers. We have a boat and two
cars. We also have a snowmobile and two jet skis. We want to be able to put our things in the
garage and not have to park trailers in the drive or on the grass. We have a 6 month old daughter.
It would be nice to be able to open the car door enough to put our little girl in a car seat, without
having to back the car out of the garage. And fmally, I would like to put the BBQ, and our boys
bikes in the garage to store for the winter. For all of the above reasons, please let us build our
garage approximately 872 square feet. This would leave less than 832 square feet inside space, as
the walls on two sides of the garage will be 8 inch block up to a height of about 30 inches.
Thank You,
Henriette and Vaughn Lemke
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
LEVEL (OHWL) OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET;
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) OF 872
SQUARE FEET RA THER THAN THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 832 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED;
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1
(URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL.
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, December 9,1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Vaughn and Henriette Lemke
14472 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
14472 Shady Beach Trail, legally described as Lot 5, Shady Beach No.2,
Scott County, MN.
REQUEST:
The applicants are proposing to construct a detached garage on a lot which
will have a 42 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake instead of the
required 75 feet, and the total proposed size of the structure is 872 square
feet rather than the maximum size permitted of 832 square 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.
3. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
4. 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.
5. 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: November 25, 1996
96-120va\96120pn.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..
P1aDDlng Case FOe No. -!}k I r:n
Property Identification No.. -CJj -Cf)S:-o
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zoninl:)
to (pro.posed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
sheets/narrative if desired) J\
G Ct I'" Cl / e (7T CI,v/JrO X 9570
5fJClv-('" Feel w i fit ,/I ~ h ~
7<j1'. /C/hf>~h",t' s-efbvrk
f;le, ~t/./'t/.py~
, r
Variance
o Other:
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): \~ ~~~ t t1 ! ~ e nr_~ ~-;I ~ L j--rr1 ~ .('
Address: Iii 5 0 1- I. C( h rq /
Home Phone: i.f t-J S - 9' 3/ U Work Phone: / I 3 - '-I cJ 00
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a co y if there is not enou
/'" p1 5'. ~ do. ac '
.I- <573> 1/ 0"1-
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applic ons will not rocesse ntil deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
I/-/Cf-C:;v,
Date
Fee Owner's Signature
11-/q-9~
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
. Any down side to community with this proposal? Rye said a possible downside
would be if a preliminary plat was approved at a reduced standard. The plats before
the Commissioners are not in this case.
Stamson:
. This ordinance applies to the 11 existing plats. Rye said it addresses a staging plan
for future developers as well.
. Supports amendment.
Wuellner:
. Supportive. It is a housekeeping measure to eliminate issues that fall through the
cracks.
. Likes staging plans. It means the City will work with the developer. It is a negotiated
document and adequately addresses the problems.
. It is consistent with State Statutes.
Criego:
. Agrees with Wuellner.
. Questioned if there was an actual phasing taking place within a two year period would
it automatically extend the time period?
. Rye said this was the purpose of the clarification.
. Concern is to state what the phases are.
. It may take several years to finish a project.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall: There should be a need for an automatic renewal.
Criego: This helps the developer, it is not designed to hurt them.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROV AL THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED OF CITY CODE 6-3-5.
Discussion: The goal is sound. Staging is reasonable. Also includes PUD.
V ote taken signified by V oOOof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-120 VAUGHN AND HENRETTE LEMKE REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCES: A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH
WATER LEVEL OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7S FEET; A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) OF 872 SQUARE
FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 832 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED; FOR THE
MN120996.DOC
PAGE 4
"
ugene Simpkins, North Shore Oaks, stated they started the developtpent in the 70's and
de eloped 12 lots at a time. North Shore Oaks have neighboring 65,' lots and their 100' x
150' ts have been cut down after sewer and water were put in. It s hard to sell bigger
lots for . ger houses with 65' lots nearby. He feels they cannot ell the lots fast enough
to come ou manciallyokay. However, he is supportive of the rdinance.
The hearing was losed at 7:29 p.m.
Kansier addressed so e of the comments including:
· The provision reg ing the two year period after final plat is currently in the
ordinance. For instan , under the provision Kno Hill would have until May of
1997. It would give the an additional year, n just to file a final plat but also a
staging plan for City Counc' approval.
· Staging Plans would address 0 things, or r of development (what portion would
go first) and the timing. Timing a guess The Council would approve the staging
plan and would have the authority t m e changes.
· PUD's are different from the standar bdivision plat in how they are approved and
the purpose behind them. An exampl i The Wilds.
Comments from the Commissioners
V onhof:
· What form would staging take lace? Kansier said' would be done at the
preliminary plat stage or fina plat showing a general . e line.
· Specifically the staging for e Wilds would be a conce . Council can give them an
extension.
· Impact on how people fil their plats? Kansier explained th two year staging is
already in the ordinance Staging should be addressed in the p liminary plat.
· Support the amendme as stated. It does provide the ability for aling with the
existing developmen as well as future developments.
endment as attempting to help a developer.
velopers.
Criego recapped the
provision for future
.
\
Kuykendall:
Conceptually upported the amendment.
· Amendmen came about from Eugene Simpkins' request for North Shore Oaks final
plat. Origi ally City Council rejected the request then reconsidered and asked staff to
review th ordinance.
· Standar practice from other communities? Rye responded other cities have the
statuto language and address the issues; through Developer's Agreements, or
simpl approving resolutions and extensions.
· It is esigned to help developers to be competitive.
Su~/ prtive.
.
MNI20996.DOC
PAGEl
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l DISTRICT
AND THE SD DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a
variance application from Vaughn and Henriette Lemke, proposing to construct a
detached garage on their property located at 14472 Shady Beach Trail, on Prior Lake.
The proposed garage has a 42 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of 904
instead of the required 75 feet. The applicants are requesting a setback of 42 feet instead
of the required setback of75 feet. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the
size of the garage is 872 square feet, which is greater than the maximum size permitted of
832 square feet. A variance of 40 square feet in area is being requested.
Regarding the setback variance, the staff concluded the size, physical characteristics, and
existing structure of the lot are hardships outside applicants' control. The legal
alternatives for the location of the proposed garage are restrictive of the applicants
proposal. However, the variance can be reduced if the proposed garage is moved north,
as to be setback 25 feet from the front property line, rather than the proposed 26.14 foot
setback.
Staff felt the variance to maximum allowable area of 40 square feet, to permit an
accessory structure of 872 square feet does not meet the criteria of hardship and should
be denied.
Comments from the public:
Vaughn Lemke, 14472 Shady Beach Trail, referenced the 10 foot setback, explaining a
line of trees extending down the lot line. They would like to keep the garage away from
the lot line and not destroy the trees. Applicants have two cars, a boat, jet skis, a trailer
and snowmobile and do not feel it unreasonable to store them in a garage. The garage
would be less than 832 sq. feet. Mr. Lemke explained the original building plan and
future additions to the home which will include a variance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Disagreed with staff's recommendation the hardship criteria was met.
. If you use the 5' side yard setback a 3 car garage could be constructed. Take out the
trees and the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
. The hardship criteria has not been met. It is a design consideration by the owners.
. By using the 50' setback averaging applicants can get a good size garage in.
. Plenty of legal alternatives to fit a garage in.
. Do not go beyond the ordinance on size.
MN120996.DOC
PAGES
Wuellner:
· Applicant can come up with a reasonable size garage but standing between the lake
and the garage is the house.
· Appreciates applicant wants to stay away from the property line as well as saving the
trees.
. Given those two factors he does not object to what staff recommended.
. Would like to see 25' street setback.
. No hardship on 832' size garage.
V onhof:
. Agreed with Wuellner's comments.
. Due to the shape of the building envelope and location of the house and existing
neighborhood, a lake variance is acceptable.
. No hardship criteria to justify the square footage on the garage.
Kuykendall:
. Reservation with the property planning process. It is reverse order of planning. Start
with the house and add on.
. Applicant can not add on to the house unless a variance is granted. There should be a
footprint for the house.
. Tovar said applicant's 1995 application shows future plans. There has never been a
garage on the property. Applicant's present need is for a garage.
. Support staff s recommendation. Concern applicant has an understanding how the
plans are going to come together over time.
. No problem determining a reasonable hardship for the garage.
. This is not in the best interest of either party. (The City and applicant.)
Wuellner:
. Concern for this plan is making the applicant promise to live at this location for a
long time to follow through with this plan. If he is transferred it is forcing the new
owners to build on to the house according to applicant's plan. It doesn't make sense.
The City cannot force the future as to how someone is going to add on to the house.
Stamson:
. In regards to the 50' setback, is not just aesthetics from the lake, they are also dealing
with run off and impervious surface issues. Pushing the garage forward is loading
the lakeside with impervious surface. Water running off the garage roof has less time
to soak into the ground before it hits the lake. It is better to get the garage back
toward the street.
. Against the 42' setback.
Criego:
. Applicant is taking the asphalt out giving them 20% impervious surface.
. It might be better to keep the garage closer to the road which will reduce the square
footage and increase the distance between the house and the garage. When and if
MNI20996.DOC
PAGE 6
there is a future addition, it could cause an impervious surface problem. Suggested
keeping the garage closer to the house rather than moving it toward the street for
future developments.
. Agreed the hardship was not met regarding the additional garage size.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOf, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-
38PC.
Discussion: Motion was to move the garage one foot closer to the street making the
distance 43 feet and not approve the 872 sq. foot garage, based on lack of a hardship.
Concerned the applicant is aware of the future addition problems. Mr. Lemke said he
was aware of the situation but felt the garage is the present need. He is aware if the
garage was attached it would not be an issue but this is the only way he can work it out.
V ote signified ayes by Wuellner, V oOOof, Criego and Kuykendall. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. CASE #96-123 JOHN CRAIG APPEAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions ofthe
Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. In
September of 1995, the Planning Commission denied applicant's request for a variance
based on the lack of demonstrable hardship. In August of 1985, Mr. Craig applied for a
variance to permit a 1500 sq. ft. detached accessory structure (garage). The ordinance in
place at the time allowed for a detached accessory structure to be up to 800 sq. ft. in area.
Even though the Planning Commission denied Mr. Craig's variance, Mr. Craig submitted
a building permit application for the detached garage of 1500 sq. feet. The building
permit was issued on November 7, 1985 and a 1500 sq. foot detached garage was
constructed. It is the staff s understanding the building permit was issued based on the
premise the new garage (1500 sq. feet) would be attached to the principal structure.
Therefore, maximum area would not be an issue unless it exceeded the 30% impervious
surface standard. Upon review of the permit application, it appears a "covered walkway"
was accepted as means of "structurally" connecting the proposed garage with the existing
house.
The definition of structure has not changed since the original adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance in 1983.
MN120996.DOC
PAGE 7
" A
Mr. Craig applied for a building permit for various additions to his residence and garages,
one of which is a 12' x 25' addition to the 1500 sq. foot garage.
A site inspection revealed part of the "covered walkway" had been detached from the
principal structure. Furthermore, the covered walkway is not actually covered. It is a
trellis type fencing covering the walkway, but still open to the sky. The applicant claims
to have removed deteriorating parts of the walkway in preparation of the construction
activity .
Regardless of the removal of the "covered walkway", staff's interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance is the 1500 sq. foot garage must be structurally attached to the principal
structure (existing house) by habitable space in order to be considered an "attached
garage", and thus allowed to be expanded. A "covered walkway" open to the sky does
not warrant the 1500 sq. foot garage to be considered structurally attached. An
acceptable attachment would be in the means of habitable space.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Jim Bates, represented Mr. and Mrs. Craig in the matter. He felt if the structure
was conforming when the building permit was issued it could be expanded without a
variance and is permissible to make this expansion. The staff looked back at a permit
issued in 1985 and disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance. Craig's variance
was denied. Mr. Craig later discussed the plans with the Planner and applied for a
building permit. The permit was signed off and Mr. Craig built his garage. Mr. Bates
went on to explain Mr. Craig removed part of the walkway in anticipation of building the
addition. Furthermore, he did not find any mention in the ordinance requiring the
attachment to be inhabitable. In the spring of this year, Mr. Craig submitted preliminary
plans to staff. Bates handed out pictures of the property and a copy of a letter from
former planner Michael Leek dated May 1, 1996. Craigs worked out their problems and
assumed their plan was acceptable. He feels staff is disagreeing with a mistake made in
1985. The building permit was properly granted in 1985, the situation nor the ordinance
has not changed. It is a conforming structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson pointed out the building permit issued in 1985, is clearly marked "detached
garage". Mr. Bates feels it was a mistake presumably by the building official.
Kuykendall:
· Horst Graser, Island View Circle, said the issue in 1985 was controversial. The
variance request went before the Planning Commission and was denied. Mr. Craig
revised his plans with a covered walkway attached to the house. He recalls the issue
was subject to a number of meetings between staff and the City's attorney. If it was
constructed as revised it would meet city standards. This was the subject of
MNI20996.DOC
PAGES
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVIC~ BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
, . -r
'-- ~nnA I rJv C<.f of the City of Prior L e, County of Scott, State of
Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the .tilS.- day 0 AJdletriJ:;t,{; 1996, she served
the attached list of persons to have an interest in the z::I.. ~ - J d-
, by rrtailing to them a copy thereof,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depo$iting same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the res.
~ .vf7}OA-J
Subscribed and sworn to be this
_day of ,1996.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MAILAFFD.DOC
PAGB
-
~. 'T ,., ,~"",,_,~"~, ....,~..".".~, ,,' ,.,., . ",,,,,,., ~. '., '.' _,. . .. ,. "..,"'" ...."~~ ".""^.'P '.'~"""" -. . ,.,... .,.... -, ',: ~-. '." , '.A .. .'-- .'
RECEIPT
N~
?!"'Q11
_~.......l.._
DA T E I / I.::rr-) /~?J
I .' - .
i
CITY 0 F
PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE. S.E.. PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
Recei ved of (Ifill f.-JV}~ ;' ~!!;'jbi
whose address and/of legal description is
I"' '" ...4" '1.,. ,
I Y? A 1/1 /l'I-/ I , I.bt'y,,! II j /' r{ m~
v I ,'~
J...I! '( 'kifA -,u i YY-- r-,!/I'"
i Ii
V
II ars
the sum of
for the purpose of
Reference Invoice No.
$ l~~
_'---'- (J j .,;, ,,~
( ..>(l.~,--. () t...tJIJ.l~
Receilpt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake
,I