HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C - Variance Appeal (Crouse)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
AUGUST 6, 2001
7C
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE
LAKE SHORE SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507
CALMUT A VENUE
History: On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received an
application from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) for a variance to
allow a deck to be located 4' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the
year 2000 without a required building permit. The deck is attached to an
existing single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval
of setback variances to the front yard and the ordinary high water mark.
Upon processing this application staff determined a second variance was
required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30
percent. The Planning Commission has not yet acted on the impervious
surface request. Consideration of the impervious surface variance is
required regardless of the outcome of this request. This appeal deals strictly
with the setback variance request.
A public hearing to consider this variance was originally scheduled for
. March 26,2001. On that date, the applicant requested a continuance to the
April 23, 2001, meeting. The applicant again requested a continuance for
the next two scheduled meetings due to business commitments. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on June 25,
2001. The specific variance request is as follows:
1) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the
required setback of 75 feet rOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback
Requirements] .
At the June 25, 2001, public hearing the Planning Commission denied the
setback variance. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached
to this report.
On June 29,2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commissions denial
of the deck setback variance. As of July 26, 2001, the deck and the
L: \0 I fi1 es \0 I appeal \0 1-06 5\Crouseccrpt. 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
.'.. T T
impervious surface coverage remains the same. The Planning Commission
has scheduled a hearing date of August 27,2001, to resolve the impervious
surface issue and allow time for the applicant to revise the original request
and to update his survey to include the railroad right-of-way area with the
subject lot area and to propose a reduced impervious surface coverage area
in the 30-percentile range.
Current Circumstances: North Grainwood was platted in 1947. The
subject lot is riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are
approximately 62 ft. by 107.5 ft. for a total lot area 00,689 square feet).
The lot is considered a substandard nonconforming platted lot of record.
The setback variance request was for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of
4 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant/owner
submitted a building permit application for the deck as a result of
notification from the City of an ordinance violation for constructing a deck
without an approved permit.
Research for the variance report indicated a previous owner of the subject lot
had requested two variances that were approved on April 6, 1978. One
request was for a 63' variance to permit a 12' structure setback to the
ordinary high water mark (904' elevation). The other was an 8' variance to
permit a 17' front yard setback. The variances were approved to allow the
construction of a year round dwelling to replace a seasonal cabin
[Attachment 2 - Variance 78-05: A 63 foot setback variance to the
OHWM (2 pages)].
On January 31, 1995, the builder, Trim Tech Inc., submitted a building
permit application for the owner, D. Mark Crouse, for the house and garage
addition. According to the survey submitted with the permit in 1995, the
house was located 13 feet from the OHWM, and 22.6 feet from the front lot
line. This building location is within the parameters of the original
variances approved in 1978, but by moving the house location to within l' of
. the required minimum 12' setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a
l' deck extension from the principal structure (Attachment 3 Survey-
Building Permit 95-27). If the contractor had utilized the 17' front setback
as allowed by the variance that would have provided for a deck dimension
up to approximately 7.6 feet deep.
The existing deck structure serves as the main level access to the lakeside of
the property. The deck's dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long with a
step down level of 9 feet by 7 feet and 3 foot wide stairs that wrap around to
the ground level. Under the deck is a concrete patio area for the lower level
walkout basement. Also, noted on the survey is a ground level 12' x 14'
wood deck/platform area adjacent to the sidewalk that is not attached to the
principal structure (see Attachment 1 - Survey).
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for the report. In
essence, engineering recommends denial of the variance requests because
approval would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake creep", the
L\OJ files\O 1 appeaJ\Ol-065\Crouseccrpt.DOC
2
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the
infiltrationlbuffer strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach
the lake; 3) Increase the potential for shoreline erosion with additional
upland runoff; 4) Contrary to the Land Use Practices and the Comprehensive
Lake Management Plan, which is to, minimize the transport of nutrients,
sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake
watershed.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request
dated 3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing impervious
surface coverage area of approximately 60% that poses a problem regarding
storm water runoff and lake water quality. The DNR recommends bringing
the impervious coverage area into compliance. In addition, the DNR is not
supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck setback.
Issues: Variance requests must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria
as listed in the City Ordinance Subsection 1108.406: Issuance. These
criteria and the suggested findings are discussed below.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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 such lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was
developed under the current ownership and they did not meet the
conditions spelled out in the building permit for the principal structure.
Therefore, staff has determined the requests do not meet the hardship
criteria, as a legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
development of the subject lot with the originally approved setback
variances.
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 existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the
property, and generally do not apply to most other lots within the
Shoreland District. However, when all required setbacks are applied,
there was a buildable area on this lot.
L:\O 1 files\O] appeal\O 1-065\Crousecc'1lt.DOC
3
-,-,._-._-- '''''''''Y'
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The approved legal buildable site precluded the need for the additional
variance requests. The hardship was created by the owner when the
decision was made on the building dimensions and location, as well as,
the excessive paving ofthe subject lot.
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 variances will not impair light and air to
adjacent properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger
public safety.
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
the area.
The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated
values by increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the intent of the setback
regulations.
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 variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance
or the Comprehensive Plan by allowing increased encroachment of
setback regulations and excessive impervious surface conditions than
was originally approved by the City.
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 granting of the variance request appears to serve as a convenience to
the applicant in order to retain the existing conditions as created by the
applicant without the required permits.
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 hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he
constructed the dwelling in 1995.
L:\O 1 files\O I appeaJ\O 1-065\Crouseccrpt.DOC
4
AL TERNA TIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this
variance request. The property owner helped to create the need for these
variance requests by not following the approved conditions for the
original building permit.
The Planning Commission and staff have concluded the variance request
does not meet all of the required nine hardship criteria. In addition, although
variances must be considered on a site-specific basis, approval of this type
of variance may set precedence for similar situations. Therefore, staff
recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the requested setback variance.
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution 01-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 variance.
3. Defer action on the appeal at this time and continue the agenda item for
specific purpose.
The staff recommends Alternative # 1.
A motion and second adopting Resolution Ol-XX upholding the decision of
the Planning Commisso n to deny a 71 foot variance to allow a structure
setb k of 4 eet om e ordinary high water mark elevation of 904 feet.
L:\O 1 files\O I appeal\O 1-065\CrouseccrpLDOC
5
-",...~t
RESOLUTION 01-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 71-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK ON
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT A VENUE
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D.
Mark Crouse of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 71 foot
variance to permit a 4-foot structure setback from the ordinary high water mark
904 foot elevation rather than the required minimum 75 foot setback, for the
property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government
Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described
as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lots 1 0 and 9 and also 8, a
distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-
of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, S1. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence
northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the
westerly extension ofthe southerly line ofthe northerly 45.00 feet (as measured
at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said
southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line
of said Lot 9, to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
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.
1:\Olfi1es\0Iappeal\OI-065\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
r
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) It adopts the following findings:
a. Mr. D. Mark Crouse 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 4-feet from the
ordinary high water mark of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75 feet as shown
in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD
(Shoreland) Districts at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MN, legally described as
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5,
Section 25, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lots 1 0 and 9 and also 8, a distance of
165.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly
along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-
way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the
northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10;
thence easterly along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly
along said shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line
of said Lot 9, to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning ;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case
Pile #01-017, and held a hearing thereon June 25, 2001.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request.
d. Mr. D. Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 1109.400 ofthe City Code on June 29, 2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case Pile #01-017 and Case Pile #01-065, and held a hearing
thereon on August 6, 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 that would
constitute a hardship.
1:101 fileslOI appeall01-065lccres,doc
Page 2
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to
literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property
without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-017 and Planning Case File #01-065 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 4-feet from the
ordinary high water mark of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75-feet for applicant
D. Mark Crouse, as shown in Attachment 1, which exhibit is incorporated into this
resolution.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of August, 2001.
YES NO
Mader Mader
Petersen Petersen
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I:\Olfiles\Olappeal\Ol-065\ccres,doc Page 3
T"
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 25,2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhofcalled the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
Vonhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Stamson: Page 3 of the minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at
that meeting. These comments were probably from Bill Criego.
The Minutes from the May 29,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
the above change.
Commissioner Vonhofread the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 23, 2001, the Planning Department received a variance application from D.
Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a
required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family dwelling that
was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and the
ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application staff determined a second
variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30
percent.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to
April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public
hearing be rescheduled to the end of May due to business commitments. On May 29,
2001, the applicant requested the 3rd postponement of this agenda item for the June 25,
2001, meeting due to business travel.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet
(30%).
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) elevation of904 feet, rather than the required setback of75 feet.
Staff received comments from the City Engineering Department and the DNR. Amount
of impervious surface affects water quality and stormwater runoff. The DNR
recommended the impervious surface be brought into compliance.
Staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria had not been met, and the
hardship was created by the owner when the principal structure was constructed in
violation of the building permit conditions, and by constructing the deck addition without
an approved building permit. The staff recommended denial of the two variance
requests.
Atwood asked if the impervious surface is impacted by stacking deck over concrete.
Horsman noted the deck would not be impervious surface if the concrete were not below
it.
Comments from the public:
Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue, the applicant, stated the contractor took care of all
the variances and permits for the original structure and was in compliance. Noticed
erosion on other lake properties. Recommendation from landscaping company was to
create impervious surface to help with erosion. When he raised house, he would have
moved it if he could. People who did concrete work gave incorrect advice about need for
permits.
In terms of hardship standards:
1. Lot shape is weird. Cannot meet setbacks. Other lots with weird shape are within the
75' setback. According to Pat Lynch from the DNR, the impact of runoff is
negligible. His property is next to the Windsong Association which is not going to be
built on. He felt runoff would not be an issue. Neighborhood lots are substandard and
cannot make the setbacks but they all have decks.
L\OJ files\OJ plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN06250J,doc 2
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
2. Agreed with staff finding. Unusual circumstances because of the nature of the
property.
3. Traveled around the lake and felt well over 80% of lakeshore owners have a deck. It
is customary
4. Agreed with report, the variance is not impacting the air supply.
5. Disagreed with the hardship criteria in the report. Will not affect stated values.
6. If intent is to not block views, he is not blocking view with deck.
7. The impervious surface based on patio and driveway. Intent of patio is to solidify the
retaining wall, not just convenience. (Presented pictures of the property.)
8. Hardship as a result of construction came after the house was built.
9. Financial standpoint -leave it alone.
Kurt Hazekamp, 15654 Fremont, did contracting work on the house in 1995. Worked
with the building official at that time. The variance hardship was never brought up at the
time. Did not know of option to move house forward; just built house straight up to
elevate above flood plain.
Dr. Todd is a new resident who lives 4 houses down from the property. The work on the
applicant's house has added value to his property. Including the surrounding vacant lots
and Windsong area, impervious surface would be below 30%.
Commissioner V onhof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Is there a runoff issue if the Windsong property is included? Horsman explained
Wind song on the Lake plat layout. Applicant is discussing outlots used as open space by
that development. There are vacant outlots near property used by association.
Atwood: Is there a relationship between these lots? Horsman noted they should be
separate. The applicant is making the argument that there is a lot of vacant land adjacent
to him. However, the problem isn't here, the problem is on subject lot with 50%
impervious surface. The recommendation ofDNR and Engineering is based on the idea
that the closer the structures get; "lake creep" is promoted. The Lake Management plan
is to eliminate this.
Stamson: This is a narrow and unusual shaped lot. Hardship criteria were addressed by
previous variance. It was the responsibility of owner to accommodate space for future
deck. Agreed with Engineering's recommendation. Have decided lack of deck can be
hardship, but usually weighs that against magnitude of variance. A 4 foot setback
outweighs hardship of lack of deck. The hardship criteria have not been met in this case.
Choices and decisions were made that prevent construction of deck. Agreed with the
DNR about percentage of impervious surface. Has staff does any calculations on how to
remove some impervious surface? Horsman noted the original permit taken out in 1995,
with house and some part of the driveway, was at 30%. Stamson would like to see some
L:\O I files\O I pI all comm\O I pcminutes\MN06250 I.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25. 2001
reasonable amount of impervious surface. Rye noted area of house and garage is below
30% by about 150 square feet.
Lemke: The issue before us is deck and not impervious surface. Horsman noted the
issue was originally the deck, but upon further investigation, staff discovered excess
impervious surface. When the home was built, for some reason it was moved forward so
there is only 1 foot left in original variance. It was a violation of the original variance.
The original plan was for a deck and meets the Ordinary High Water. For whatever
reason when the house was built it changed. Lemke commented if the deck is removed,
does the concrete still remain? Horsman commented DNR recommendation is that it is
more important to deal with impervious surface. There is still issue of Zoning Ordinance
violation. Stamson noted they are separate issues, but dealing with both now. Lemke
stated impervious surface is necessary to stabilize wall. Horsman stated properly
installed retaining wall would achieve the same purpose. This sounds like his was an
older retaining wall that they are trying to save. Struggling with the need for additional
impervious surface. Felt there is a need to provide parking. There should be additional
impervious surface, but maybe not 57%. Seems like a tough situation.
V onhof: Questions for applicant. Remembered the original variance. Is the boathouse
gone or remodeled? Crouse responded he worked with Pat Lynch from the DNR to clean
it up. There was an existing concrete driveway on lot. Original detached garage was
removed and tuck-under garage was raised and attached garage added to north. Crouse
explained remodeling of house. The retaining wall was built when house was raised.
V onhof asked if lot lines go all the way back to street. Railroad right-of-way is 8' wide
between the lot and Calmut A venue. V onhof questioned who did cement work. Crouse
stated it was Lowell Russell.
Atwood asked for clarification of when the retaining wall was built. Crouse explained
the remodeling in 1995 and the wall settling.
Vonhof: Agreed with Stamson that a number of variances were granted on this lot in
1995. It is unusual lot. There is a section of property between the actual roadway and lot
line. Appreciate applicant's comments regarding hardship standards. In 8 years of being
on the Planning Commission has not seen more egregious violations of ordinance with
regard to impervious surface. The patio area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed
impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2,300 square feet. It is almost a 100%
increase over what was allowed by the original variance in 1995. Cannot support either
variance. City Code did not create the conditions. Code existed in 1995 and owner was
aware based on variance applications and then preceded to put in additional impervious
surface. Impervious surface is so critical on this lot because of adjacency to lake. The
fragile ecosystem is highly impacted by runoff. The Shoreland District is to protect this
area. The Commission has held very strongly to impervious surface on every individual
lot. Will not support request at this time.
L:\Ol files\OI pJancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501,doc 4
~
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
Open discussion:
Atwood: Ifvariances are not granted, what happens to impervious surface? Vonhof
noted applicant can remove impervious surface. Horsman noted calculation does not
include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot.
Vonhof: Recommend driveway be narrowed to width of garage. Crouse stated majority
of impervious surface is driveway. Horsman noted surveyor can revise calculations to be
more specific about what is include. Maximum width of driveway is 24 feet at right-of-
way. Condition should be to reduce width to 24 feet.
Stamson: Give applicant some time to figure a way to reduce impervious surface. Look
for a reasonable solution to reduce impervious surface. V onhof agreed.
MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE
CONSIDERATION OF V ARlANCE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO JULY 9,2001,
TO LOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
Vonhof: We are going to go ahead and discuss the second variance.
Stamson: Did not see how the hardship criteria in relation to the lot are met for a deck.
It hardships were addressed by the previous variance and the fact that the house was built
that does not accommodate a deck really is not a hardship under the ordinance criteria.
Did not see going back and creating variances to ordinances for that specific reason.
Lemke: There is not much difference between 12 feet and 4 feet. A deck adds to house.
A house without a deck looks odd. Considering where house is, felt the variance is
justified. Without the impervious surface issue, the question is how close to the lake can
the deck be? Stamson noted this had been decided with the original variance. Applicant
did not leave space for deck.
There was a brief discussion between Stamson and Lemke.
Crouse said the City did not inform applicant of option to move house forward to provide
for deck. Ifhe had known that then, he would have done so.
Lemke: How would a person be aware of old variances? Stamson noted it is not the
City's responsibility to make these recommendations. Horsman noted staff today looks
at these issues. Vonhof commented that variance resolutions are recorded with County.
Stamson noted that house was built with variances so they knew there were variances.
V onhof noted comments on building permit note previous variances.
V onhof: With regard to deck, variance criteria are not met.
L\OI files\Ol plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN06250J.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
008PC DENYING A 71 FOOT V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, V onhof and Atwood, nay by Lemke. MOTION
CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process. The applicant may appeal decision of Planning
Commission to City Council within 5 calendar days.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
A public hearing was convened on May 29,2001. After review of the applicant's request
with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 01-009PC approving the variances with conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
009PC GRANTING A 2.5 FOOT V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT
V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF
IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-051- Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side ofTH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easement presently
functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south side of TH 13
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is scheduled to review
this matter at a public hearing on July 2, 2001.
L\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 6
r
o
uJ
S ~73. .... ~
~.IA E\.... ....t:"\.'~1" ,': 4
I '\.9.J'=-.\ ," Q)
. T ~", '", : ":'j" ,.,.8.
, . ,"'~'h"I~" :'~. s,o.1'l.M\-\
\, ~".::~.:,.~II.r' 1'~4
:: .' ':~ ,.c d > O.
. ~O'" . '0.....; 0 I
,. "/'" ..,:,.',t .'~~I~ ~
f\..E\... ". ..
9011.6._ i' '.
\" ~ ;...,~1.~~:~.
Z . ~t>~
. " ll. . N
U,1. ' '. dl <r .
> ,.C t\.. .J - to.
. ,'0." ::> . \I '
4. t l>~,
I- .
Ul
\
\
\
'.
\
. ~ ';' .,'
\
\'
't-
::>
Z
'.J
4.
\,)
ATTACHMENT 1
co~tlt.~
tl'" ot \0
of \.
,. 10
Of \..0
\...\t1t. --~...
-. \
;.'.
. .7
'.
\
;.
'..-.-\
""' ..
,- \
,,,
.~ ~
. ')
r
""'
~
-:J
<fl
~
~
\
\ .
, \
~,...,
1.
,.C t\.
,,..".
.,.
f:. ~ \
,J"
'... \
".
't.--,-.r--r \-~,~l
y ~ (,',lltl
,.. . i,"Y'\
;t ~ ':,~;
~
~
ATTACHMENT 2
unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances \..U1ique to my
'The hardship is caused by prov~s~ons of the ordinance and is not the resul t of
of persons presently having an interest in my parcel.
.
4. The variance observes the SpIrIt and intent of this Ordinance and produces
substantial justice, and is not contrary to the public interest.
Variance may be permitt~d if all fOUT requirements are met. C. ~';:? ; .
. Date 1-/.:::. c ~ ! '3 , 7 f Si gnature ///-,V7<- -:::. j J '.v7: " ~......-::;/
This is to certify (hat $ ;)rj. () ,) was received this I) da( of // i;/./v;./{., ~9-:7j
I 7-r--:-'
for a Variance Application Fee. Received BY__.lJ.ttA/-:I /,:.f..t<AtJ_{.(,U
- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - .- - - - -- - -- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ 3-- __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
THIS SPACE TO B~ FILLED IN BY PLANNING CO~~ISSION
, /
'/
/' \,
for Variance Granted
Den i ed
Remarks-:-=---
-~-'- r-'--";",--
I~#~~~~
'<..,/-
I( ., _._~...... ./ ," /~7
( '. ,f 'V/;;l /, ~) j/, ../l
'~.'" /.t - , ../Z(C":"-C ( ..;.-
..j
/../ ,I
o.;,PlClJ1l"ling CorJunission/,) /: ( L
'J'...-...;,. .-.~<, '.i -r"- .
,.
~.
'\.
~
)"
,.
.~
'"
~
...
,
'-
"
.",.
........
.
v..~
.J:
'(
J,.-
\): r
.J
~I
~
~
. tl
-~
I
\ I
~
DC1dt,.( /I~f I, tt~ t
70 p~ r(~(J",'Jl
Q{) ftvtJ{'''~ J 1 'tt75. 3
/v,... 8/f fl." 107.5"
I" 1'- I
-= ..:)
,~ ... ---..-
I
If''
~_ _ ......___ _0 _..1 I
I -...;"\\
IS:: ;:1
I o. .'~.....
~ 0 "
I \i\ t~ I
. .
-. ...
.......
". , ":'"
I. I ,
-.. ~.9
J
t
I
I
. .
I
J
l'l5
t')
,
I ~---
I __ _ _ _ . ~
... t
~ ..
~ -- ---,-. - -..,.
.... 0; ~.
~I .
=: '<I
ct t'( I
~"'I
. I
I ..-
Jt;~
V
'j . _ L..::-,
~.
Z. 2.
",-I
d.1
!-- ::;
If) -.:
L.u
;: ~
, C',-
LL.\
"
......
.. I
~ /, ..f I
~ . I
I
""'\l - -.- - - - ~I
OJ ....~ ;
..
.. n
';-x.
c:tcO
rr")
'"
"
~: ~O+ r
.---- ~/, 'I - ..
f-Ot- 2>
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
\ II
. '-.1" '. rt- ~a/~ I'" V .
I,' (
j~\
\
\
\
\.
"- >\
',~
,;:0- - -
-
-, '.::; -
- .--
,''' -- ~ - ~~: ")
I~
>.
"'
1.'./
'l~ No
1.
Pr/o r
1. _Jr.
l(~:
l
I ~
/--.. "1 \ \ ""
( . C- I.' -
,
t
~
t.,
~
i
i
j,
i'
1.1
:;!
1:-
)-:.
G
:1'r ", H
roP ~~,910
..; ,.
~:~ .~
.....
'., .:S,_
,
J'i:
.'
.... " 't., ::;.~
. ,',':'ft'. i~~
, '\d' '~'!i. ;~t09.1';.';
,:::~:, "~, :.: (: " , ":'.!.
.."'J 4. ~'-' l.!;l.,.;,'-'.
~.9-% ." ';"-'
'.W'..~.
. .>." '-',
. ... ~ . \" J ~ ' . .
..-t-."'~; :~t;~: . ~.:- :J.4:' _
'.,:. . l" . - ;~;~~:: ...~
. "'-;":J
~ ". '.
. ._~,..
\\ L. ....
~ r-.;
u:,:)
\\:E :
~..J
~ ' .
.. <t
\.
ro
1\
~
Ii
~
r.
~
\}
~
II
.\
~
~\
1\
[
...19
9\'
~
\-: .
~,
.
O'
01,
o
U
~ :.
U ....
o
.... -
I:) 0\
U ICl
.E .
.,., "
<l
UJ
~
{, '
\~I'I f.\.
,C. 66
.,,911.
n
'\
,I
ATTACHMENT 3
COl' Of f 10! 10 _-
.-- .-\11 I n~ 0 \
\ L.OfIO ~~~ -
r-L \
'\'
't
\
1"
~ ~ ~\.\..
1" \ f' .JJ
Sf. E. 0
toG
i~
!,
it
pR\ (
,t
-:.
~
. ~
,
-
.
,
IrtG
E~\S:f /
rtolJ l'
OU
af,.ll 11~
'#I" 90'
Eo\.
\
,l
;If,.
:,
\ ~~
~ ~
a> ",
\ \~
i ~
\
\
"\
.-t~
--:::--;- ,
, 9\~. 3.
---.
CD
o
-
~
I
~
"
....I
" 19"
., Cj,
\
\
67 t -.. ..
-- "W
- "26' 10
~w cor of 579 of lot 9
.' lof 9 5'ly I,ne
, of I of 8
"'--W'I)' line
Of tlfG
pf
/
ii