HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Crosson Variance Request
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREP ARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FEBRUARY 20, 2001
7A
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 12 FOOT VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A 13 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM A
REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN 25 FEET
History
On September 1, 2000, Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, submitted a variance
application for the property located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue
SE. The property is a pre-existing substandard platted lot of record.
The variance request was to allow construction on a lot with less than
the minimum lot area and less than the minimum lot width required to
be a buildable lot. The original proposal did not include a main level
or second story walkout door or attached deck to the proposed house,
but did include a lower level (basement) walkout door to a ground
level platform
On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and approved the requested variance (see attached Resolution
00-012PC). The Resolution approved two variances: 1) A 3,522
square foot variance to permit a lot area of 3,978 square feet rather
than the required minimum area of 7,500 square feet; and, 2) A 10.24
foot variance to permit a lot width of 39.76 feet at the building setback
line rather than the minimum required lot width of 50 feet. A
condition of approval for this variance was for the lot to be developed
as shown on the original survey so no additional variances would be
required.
On December 21, 2000, the Planning Department received a second
variance application for the same lot from applicant Jane Y. Crosson.
Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, is the owner and builder of the subject lot,
and Ms. Crosson has purchased the property contingent on securing a
variance to permit the construction of an attached deck to the new
structure. On January 16,2001, the Planning Commission held a
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\CCREPORT.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
I .. "T' T-~-- -- - ----""1-
T
'(
'"rr
public hearing and adopted Resolution 01-001PC, denying a 12-foot
variance to allow a 13- foot structure setback to a rear property line
rather than the required 25 feet (See attached Resolution 01-001PC).
The Planning Department received a letter from another resident on
Oakland Beach Avenue expressing their opposition to the requested
variance (a copy ofthis letter is attached for your information).
At the public hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from
the applicant and a neighboring resident. The applicant currently
resides on the lake and expressed the need for a main level deck for
convenience to barbeque outdoors near the kitchen. The neighboring
resident Greg Engebos, 14582 Oakland Beach and 4931 Beach Street,
approved of the variance request and believed that all of the homes in
the area will be rebuilt at some time. He also expressed that most of
the neighboring homes do have a second level deck, and would like to
maintain the aesthetic appearance of the property as high as possible.
The Planning Staff s report concluded that all variance hardship
criteria had not been met, and recommended the variance be denied.
The Planning Commission concurred and denied the variance request.
A copy of the minutes for the January 16,2001, Planning Commission
meeting are attached to this report.
Following the Planning Commission meeting, the City received the
attached from applicant Jane Y. Crosson, appealing the Planning
Commissions denial of this variance request. A public hearing was
scheduled for the City Council meeting on February 20,2001, in
accordance with the provisions of the City Ordinance [Section
1109.400: Appeal to the City Council]. A public notice was posted in
the Prior Lake American on February 3, 2001. On February 8, 2001,
notices were mailed to the owners of property within 350 feet of the
subject lot.
Current Circumstances
Lot 16, Oakland Beach was platted in 1926. The property is located
within the Low Density Residential (R-l) and Shoreland Districts
(SD). The lot is riparian by dedicated waterfront access that was
granted to the collective property owners in the Oakland Beach Plat
(see attached Certificate of Survey). The applicant and owner do not
own either ofthe adjoining parcels. The applicant has purchased the
subject property contingent upon approval of the requested variance
for the deck addition.
The lot dimensions are 39.71 feet by 100.09 feet by 39.99 feet by
99.94 feet. The total lot area of3,978 square feet is 3,515 square feet
L:\OOFILES\OOY AR\OO-089\CCREPOR T_ DOC
2
less than the required minimum of 7,500 square feet to be considered a
buildable lot. In addition, the lot width at the setback line is 39.76 feet
or 10.24 feet less than the required minimum of 50 feet wide to be a
buildable lot [City Ordinance 1104902: Nonconforming Lot]. The
Planning Commission approved the original variances because this is
an existing lot of record that would be unusable without the variances.
As originally proposed and approved, the principal structure's setback
to the rear lot line is 25 feet, the minimum setback permitted by code
[City Ordinance 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (41J. The original
building plans depicted a lower level basement walkout to a grade
level platform, but no main level or second level walkout doors or
decks. Platforms by definition, are not defined as structures provided
they are not attached to the principal structure, and do not exceed 29
inches above the surrounding grade elevation within 5 feet of the
platform [1101.400: Definitions: Platform).
The proposed main level deck dimensions are 12 feet by 24 feet, and
the second level deck measures12 feet by 12 feet (see attached
Buildine Plans). This creates a reduced structure setback of 13 feet to
the rear lot line. The proposed decks are setback 97 feet from the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), greater than the required
minimum 75 foot setback [City Ordinance 1104.302 Shoreland
Regulations (4) Setback Requirements]. The rear lot line is separated
from the lakeshore by approximately 85 feet of dedicated waterfront
that is common property shared by the respective lot owners in the
Oakland Beach Subdivision.
As of February 7, 2001, a building permit application has been
processed but not been issued for the single-family structure, and
construction has not commenced on the proj ect. The building footprint
has been surveyed and staked on the subject lot.
Issues
Variances must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria as listed in
the City Code [Subsection 1108.406: Issuance]. These criteria and the
suggested findings are discussed below.
Findines
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot,
or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of
such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using
L:\OOFILES\OOY AR\OO-089\CCREPORT.DOC
3
Ii
II
II
such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the
Use District in which said lot is located.
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, is an existing lot of record platted in 1926. By
reason oflot dimensions, 100 ft. deep by 39.9 ft. wide, it is
nonconforming by today's minimum standards of90 ft. wide by 139
ft. deep. However, in this case, the lot accommodates a lower level
walkout door, which provides lake access from the rear of the dwelling
without the need for a variance to accommodate the requested main
level deck.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and
do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use
District in which the land is located.
The lot area and lot width are somewhat peculiar in that most lots
platted at the time where at least 50 feet wide, the subject lot is 40 feet
wide.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The owner (buyer) has a substantial right to reasonable development.
Staff believes that right exists with the previously approved variance
for lot area and lot width, and the walkout capability of the proposed
dwelling.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property,
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variance will not unreasonably affect
these conditions or values.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of
th e area.
The granting of the requested variance will not unreasonably affect
these conditions or values.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\CCREPORT.DOC
4
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the proposed variance will be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, to maintain minimum
structure setbacks to property boundaries.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The requested variance is not necessary to alleviate undue hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from
actions of the owners of the property.
The application of the provisions of this Ordinance on the affected
property does not result in hardship.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Increased development costs are not a condition of this variance
request.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission and staff concluded the variance did not
meet all of the required nine hardship criteria. A legal alternative
exists for ingress and egress of the principal structure on the lakeside
location without the need for an additional variance to accommodate
an attached deck to the main and second levels of the principal
structure. Therefore, the staff recommends the City Council deny the
appeal request, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to
deny the requested variance.
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution Ol-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny this variance.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for approval of the
vanance.
3. Defer action on the appeal at this time and continue the agenda
item for a specific purpose.
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\CCREPORT.DOC
5
. d
I
II
!fl
MOTION:
Alternative # 1. A motion and second adopting Resolution Ol-XX
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a 12-foot
variance to permit a 13-foot structure setback to a rear lot line rather
than the re ired feet.
REVIEWED BY:
L:\OOFILES\OOV AR\OO-089\CCREPORT.DOC
6
RESOLUTION 01-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 12-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 13-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE REAR LOT LINE RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED MINIMUM 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by
Jane Y. Crosson of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 12
foot variance to permit a 13-foot structure setback from a rear property line
rather than the required minimum 25 foot setback, for the property legally
described as Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards
for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that
the appellant has not 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 requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should
be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully setforth herein.
2) It adopts the following findings:
a. Jane Y. Crosson applied for a variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code in order
to permit an attached deck to a principal structure be setback 13 feet from the rear lot
line rather than the required minimum 25 feet as shown in Exhibit C on property located
in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at the following
location, to wit;
b. 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, legally described as Lot 16, Oakland
Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
c. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case
File #00-089PC, and held a hearing thereon February 20, 2001. The Planning
Commission denied the applicant's request.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-089\ccres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I ;[
1
II
\I
d. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request.
e. Jane Y. Crosson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
Section 1109.400 of the City Code on January 22,2001.
f. The City Council 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.
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all nine of the hardship
criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any
hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of
the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property which would
constitute a hardship.
h. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal
enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the
vanances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #00-089 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission denying a variance to permit a structure setback of 13 feet from a rear
lot line rather than the required minimum 25-feet for applicant Jane Y. Crosson, as shown in
Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this resolution.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of February, 2001.
YES
NO
Mader
Petersen
Ericson
Gundlach
Zieska
Mader
Petersen
Ericson
Gundlach
Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-08 9\ccres .doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT A SURVEY
PLAT OF SURVEY
I
o
~
I
\
\
Scale
in
feet
30
60
I
90
~--
~
,--
,.,
'--'
rr:
d_
C::
tLJ
~--.J
.......<(
\--
:~:
I)
I I .
/1 I
}(.SAHO ~~
),
r
{ (
/ ,;
I I
(
j" no )ILOCK5-/
I
J
/
/ ~
/ / I~
/ ( ~
/ ./ G
I q(.'~ ~~ 2
\ "&
\ \
\ \
\
\
\
\
NOTE:
THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT
THIS TIME.
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVA nONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o IRON MONUMEIOT
-0- POWER POLE
ro TELEPHONE BOX
1m GAS METER
'd HYDRANT
t><l WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
I I PROPOSED ELEVA nONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
* 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16. ELEVAnON - 928.00
___ DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared by me or under my
supervision and that I om a duly
registered land surveyor under
Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02
to 326.16 /J
C>~/ r~
Reg. NoIB~z...1 Date: IZ -/4-00
1;1-'" Hansen Thorp
~ I Pellinen Olson Inc.
? l) Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Architects
7510 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644
(612) 829-0700 FAX (612) B29-7806
Drawn Checked
II
r
T
II
uvaU/UI TUE; 15: 40 FAX
/#'
141001
APPEAL LETTER
Jane Y. Crosson
16101 Northwood Rd
Prior Lake,MN 55372
9524478444
Jan. 30, 2001.
-- -~~--7~~L~fT~~;---ii--\1
>i JAN 3 0 """1--; III!
aN III ill
, J)'
~l
:'. \ I
lUl \'\)
I WI
Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek A v SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Case f1le#OO-089 Resolution 01-001Pe
14624 Oakland Beach A V SE
Dear Mr. Horsman:
1 am requesting an appeal to the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission decision to
deny the variance requesting the addition of two 12 foot decks added to the lake side of
the above property. Please make an appeal the City Council.
A variance is necessary for the building of decks on the main and upper level of the
proposed house. The lot is a substandard size and a variance should be granted to allow
proposed decks for this house. Lakeside living should include access to lake view and
enjoyment from all levels of the home. A ground walkout is not enough of an access,
since it does not allow for fu.l1 convenience of grilling and entertaining with reasonable
kitchen access. A lakeside home value is reduced when access to the outside via decks is
restricted.
A rear yard setback was established to protect the neighbors to the rear. In this case my
neighbor is the lake. Since I am well within (85 feet) the 75-foot setback from the 904-
flood line I do not see any harm in having the decks as requested. None of the neighbors
have o~iected md no impairment will affect them. The ONR did not have an objection.
Due to the nature of the price of a new home in the neighborhood, the value of adj acent
properties will increase.
The granting of me proposed variance will NOT be contrary to the intent of the
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Again the structure setback does not harm
neighbors or natural surroundings_
The requested variance IS necessary to alleviate undue hardship of complete enjoyment
and va.lue of a new lakeside stnlcture.
j/
,
. ..~~:. vJ
-;
"', ~::;..
..."~
'../~~'''-'''''---''~'.~,-
TUB 15: 40 FAX
The same formula for figuring impervious surface should also be applied to setback for
the deck. It would seem the only fair way to make a determination.
Thank you for your consideration,
J~~
Ii r
II
I4l 002
2
,.
APPROVED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 00-12PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3,522 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERl\1IT A LOT AREA OF 3,978 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED l\1INIMUM AREA OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND A 10.24 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERl\1IT A LOT WIDTH OF 39.76 FEET AT THE BUILDING
SETBACK LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
OF 50 FEET.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
""' ''-'
FINDINGS
1. Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in
order to permit the construction of a single family dwelling located in the Rl (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue,
Prior Lake, MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case File #00-071PC and held hearings thereon on September 25,2000.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property 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.
5. The pre-existing lot of record does not meet the current Ordinance for minimum lot
size and lot width in the Rl District. This situation creates an unbuildable lot and a
. .
1: \OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-07 J.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E!VlPLOYER
hardship with respect for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the minimum lot area and width required today
and the platted lot of record. Reasonable use of the property does not exist without
the granting of the variance to permit a buildable lot for a single family dwelling.
7. The granting of the Variance will not serve merely as a. convenience to the applicant,
and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. 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 applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
9. The contents of Planning Case File #00-071PC are hereby entered into and made a __
part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
following variance for the proposed structure as shown in revised survey dated 10/1 0/00:
1. A 3,522 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 3,978 square feet rather than the
required minimum area of 7,500 square feet, and a 10.24 foot variance to permit a lot
width of 39.76 feet at the building setback line rather than the required minimum lot
width {}f 50 feet.
The following are conditions which must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed structure:
1. The lot must be developed as shown on the attached revised survey dated
10/10/00. Including a minimum side yard setback of 10.33 feet on the north side
lot line.
2. The permit IS subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable agency
regulations.
3. The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning
Department within 60 days. The resolution must be recorded and proof of
recording submitted to the Planning Department. An Assent Form must be signed
and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City Code, the variance will be null and
void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed structure within
one year after adoption of this resolution.
1:\OOfiles\OOvar\OO-071 \aprsOO-071.doc
2
If
1
II
II
PLA T OF SURVEY
\ 24._
.-
\ l~
Scale in feet I
( I I
0 .30 60 90
~--
~
\
\
\
\
\
~~ \ )
~ V6-jll
C'do'l
II
\
(
~ J /
k I I
i"/(! 1
:,/ ~
0,0 f;tz
( 'e;
\ ..
\ \
'"
o
V'
\
\
)
\
\
\
NOT 5T AKED AT
LE GEN D
PROPOSED ELEVAnONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o
-0-
lD
Illl
'r:f
IRON MONUMEIOT
POWER POLE
TELEPHONE BOX
GAS METER
.
HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
PROPOSED ELEvAnONS
BENCHMARK:
TC? NUT OF" HYDRANT WEST OF
tI 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEEl EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16, ELEVAnON - 926.00
___ DIRECnON OF DRAINAGE
C><l
I hereby cert:lf~ that this survey
I ,_ _ _ _ ._ -,-I
Drown Checked
DENIED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 01-001PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 13 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE
RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jane Y. Crosson has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit the construction of an attached deck addition to a single family dwelling on
property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and theSD
(Shoreland) District at the following location, to wit;
14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
follows: Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case #00-089PC and held hearings thereon on January 16,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property, such as, a proposed principal structure
with a lower level walkout and platform for an alternative site, and the proposed
decks location with regards to the surrounding property, the proposed variance will
result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed attached deck addition increases the encroachment into the rear yard
setback. The applicant has an alternative site for location of a platform at the lower
level wa'lkout door, as such, the applicant has created the hardship.
1:\00files\00var\00-089\dnyrsO 1-0 I pc. 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
Ii
I
!I
II
./
. f
...Ii
.,)'
..'/
" .,.;/'
.'
j'//
"
6. While there is not an existing structure on the lot, there is no justifiable hardship
caused, and that reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the
variance. There is a legal alternative location and plan design for construction of a
detached platform on the walkout level without the requested variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted without the need of a variance.
8. The contents of Planning Case #00-089PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an attached deck structure-(as shown in attached Exhibit A):
1. A 12 foot Variance to permit an attached deck addition to a principal structure to be
setback 13 feet from a rear property line rather than the required 25 feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 16,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
I:\00files\00var\00-089\dnyrsO I -0 I pc. doc
2
1':1"
cc
DO
DO
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE 1/8"=1'0"
S"OH
D
REAR ELEVATION
SCRLE 1/8"=1'0"
BUILDING PLANS
I.
'I
r
M c::J c::J D
I-zj c::J c::J D
c.n.....:3
(J
~M
1"11r
'M
to
If<
'"":~
~~
~
o
,.f~
(J
1"11
F
zl
Ci1'
I
E3
E3
I :r
~
~
()
~
~~
:D
~t:t:j
-~
~t:t:j
.!!:<
~>
-~
~
o
z
c::J c::J C
c::J CJC
D
t:::] t::::1 C
t:::J r::::::I C
D
D
1
II
I..
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE 118"=1'0"
~
~
~: _l~
~IT ,I Dl~
~ r.. I. II 1 r-:-, T ~
~ TI . ..1 11 ~
:2111 -, T . 11 I --=r I U..J" J ....... . I ~..~
o T TiP' -I Ir I 1 I .1 t '7'..11 I 11 .~:-
---..- tt::"'if' . ~ ~ 1 . t0U~ -~ t 1T"
-1.
ING II..,,~-~IIO.
II "j I
lJ n"T I I I . r I
,1J.l I . 1 I IT, T . t .i. L I .
il'l,\ I.! i T .. If'~ -,
1 1 .. r T~'. J. ] "
IT L dl T TI I' I /1.1 ,eoL
"\ I i .' l. ..:- iJ
t ,.,,_ '01' . t . , ,. I .J t-' I
I l- i 1 j I "I ; I ! 1 I I I 111 l' ff.1 I iT I. .
FLOOR 1 . ..... JU f r r I IT .l II ill 1- l i:f I~
-------
-..---- -: ... . r-.~ 11 ..; ~<.JJ.JS.Y ~v. -......:...'" .1 If . 1.c,.-pr.
CEILING
....~YJcr. y':. .. I:'Yr&.:~ ~ ..~~ ~ )c~ ~ ~~'~
r'~K ~.J1~~~' ~ ~.l:
__ Ci..... .r., ~ -.:.. . L r:Ji'tf yo < .
i!:- ~l ---..:-, ~ .-J:P, "'l ."" ."'. "'- . - ~;r,.. -" . .)/ )i~~ y'
-:-./. .~; ~. ~b....
6 ~ ~,. 0 0 0 000 000 k~~<J
.j5~
;~ 0 D D 000 D 00
~
~Jt$~ DDDDDDDDD
iEl 000000000 [f~
FLOOR Y~J".
------
7 FRONT ELEVATION '\
SCALE 1/4"=1'0"
PLANS FOR:
MESENBRINK CONSTRUCTION
7765 175th ST E
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
612.447.5058
DRAWN BY:
KREBS CRAFTING & DESIG
\29\ DIAMOND CT
SHAKOPEE. MN 55379
612-445-5787 BUS.
612-445-5787 fAX.
., ., , ,_"
, 65/27/1997 03:43
6672774631
DAVID FaDSHUH
PAGE 61
RESIDENTS LETTER
David Feld.hub
14612 O.khlnd Beach Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55371
FAX: 612-447-4245
January 7, 2001
TO: Steven Horsman and Prior Lake Planning Department
SUBJECT: 14624 request for deck variance
We believe that any new construction along Oakland Beach should be
consistent with previous, residential regulations.
H an exception is made in this case, ALL other residents in the area will
gain the legal precedeDt to build closer to the beach, closer than has ever
been permitted. Is this what the Planning Department envisions as a
model for the future of Oakland Beach? Is this what it wants? If so,
then YOQ should grant this variance. If not, tbe variance request should
be denied.
Li~J).
I...r
II
II
Planning Commission Meetin&
January 16, 2001
P.C. MINUTES
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated January 16,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jane Y. Crosson for a deck
addition to be added to a single family structure recently approved tlRa_. BH:IJ:..f, P6l"ft1it
#88 '183, to be constructed on the vacant lot at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue. Eagle Creek
Villas, LLC, is the current owner and builder of the subject property, and Ms. Crossen has
purchased the property contingent on securing this variance to construct the deck addition on
the main level.
On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-12PC granting
variances to lot area and lot width for this subject lot, an existing substandard lot of record.
The original building plans and variance request did not include a main level walkout door or
deck addition to the house, only a lower level walkout door to a ground level platform.
The following variance is requested:
lL lj
A .0' foot variance to permit a 12' foot structure setback to the rear lot line rather than the
required minimum 25 feet.
The Planning staff believed the hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the
Ordinance requirements and the subject lot in relation to the proposed development plans,
including the previously adopted variance resolution. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution denying applicant's variance as requested.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Jane Crosson, said she has a purchase agreement contingent on approval of the
variance. She is a current lake dweller. She would like to build a new house with the
convenience of accessing the barbeque area from the kitchen area. Crosson explained the
proposed structure included the common area not the actual lot line. She did not feel this was
an unreasonable request and stated it would increase the value of the home. She would enjoy
the deck May through October from all levels of the home. The neighbor's view will not be
affected.
Greg Engebos, 4931 Beach Street and 14582 Oakland Beach, felt all of the homes in the area
will be rebuilt at some time. He thought most of the neighboring homes do have a second
level deck and would like to keep the aesthetic appearance of the property as high as
possible.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Four months ago when the home was designed without a deck, no accommodations
were made for a deck. It was designed under the ordinance and setback requirements.
It was an obvious conscious decision of the builder to eliminate space for the deck to
accommodate some other needs. The builder would not have done that if he felt it
was a great hardship given the home he was designing.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\O I pcminutes\mnOl1601.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
January 16, 2001
· The hardship criteria has not been met under a number of issues.
· Nothing has changed to create a hardship.
. Deny the request.
Criego:
· This is a substandard lot, smaller than a substandard lot at 4,000 square feet.
· The first variance we accepted was a 3,500 foot change from the original plan. There
have been several variances made on this property that were justified.
· The common area was considered for impervious surface.
· The applicant is stretching this property. Now she is asking for more.
· There is more home than the property can handle.
· Not in favor of the request.
Lemke:
· Looked at the lot and neighborhood.
· Does not disagree with the Commissioner's comments, but a deck is customary and
reasonable in Minnesota.
. There is going to be platform underneath it.
. Support the deck.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson and Criego, the deck is an afterthought. In a well thought out
plan a deck would have been included.
· Pointed out at the last meeting, the neighbors felt the variances on this property
would cause a hardship if they wanted to add on. Questioned flip-flopping the home
as previously discussed.
· Crosson said the plans were flipped-flopped. She pointed out she was not part of the
original plan. She put money down in November and made changes inside the home
to suit her tastes. Crosson questioned why there was no deck and requested the
vanance.
V onhof:
· Concurred with fellow commissions, the hardship criteria have not been met for any
further variances on this property. It is a small property area to provide a deck.
· Will not support.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
001PC DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF
13 FEET FROM A REAR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
L:\OI files\Olplancomm\O I pcminutes\mnOl1601.doc
5
II
1
II
fl