HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Variance Appeal - Perrier
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREP ARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AUGUST 19,2002
7B
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO A STRUCTURES REAR YARD
SETBACK., OHWM SETBACK., SUM OF SIDE YARDS, AND
SETBACK FOR A BUILDING WALL OVER 50 FEET LONG
(Case file #02-068PC).
History: Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for variances to allow the
redevelopment of their property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach
Circle. This property consists of three substandard platted lots of
record, which have been combined as a single parcel. There is an
existing house on this property; the applicants are proposing to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling
with attached garage. In order to redevelop their property Mr. and Ms.
Perrier requested the following variances:
1. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather
than the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (4)].
2. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from
the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the
minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback
averaging [City Code Subsection 1104.308(2)].
3. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of
14.31-feet, rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum
of side yards on a nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502
Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
4. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be
setback 7- feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required
9-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
(6)].
162&QO~g~~~~~~EP.~~&WEr,.q%nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
On July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the applicant's request. The original Planning Report, dated
July 8, 2002, outlines the proposed variances and the staffs
recommendation. A copy of this report is attached. The Commission
determined three of the four variances did not meet the hardship
criteria. The Commission agreed with staffs recommendation to grant
a rear yard setback variance because the Commission found all nine of
the hardship criteria had been met due to the size of the substandard lot
of record.
Accordingly, the Commission adopted Resolution 02-008PC
approving a 9- foot variance to permit a 16- foot structure setback from
the rear lot line rather than the minimum required 25- feet. The
applicants have appealed this approved variance because it does not
meet their original request for a 3.23-foot rear yard setback to
accommodate the proposed rambler floor plan. A copy of this
resolution is attached to the agenda report. .
The Commission also adopted Resolution #02-009PC denying the
remaining variances requested by the applicant. The Commission
based its denial on the determination that a legal alternative building
footprint exists on the lot. A copy of the Minutes for the Planning
Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, is attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: On July 12,2002, the applicant submitted
the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the above-described variances. The appeal was originally
scheduled for the August 5th meeting, but was rescheduled to August
19,2002, at the request of the applicant in a letter dated July 17,2002,
and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the variances as requested by the applicant with. the exception of the
rear setback variance that would be needed to permit the structure to be
setback the average ofthe two existing structures on the adjoining lots.
This recommendation was based on the fact that the applicant has the
alternative to redesign the proposed structure to fit within a legal
building footprint on the subject lot and eliminate the other three
variances requested.
The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation and
denied the requested variances. The Planning Commission determined
a reasonable use ofthe property existed without the following
requested variances: (1) variance to the setback from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHW); (2) variance to the 15' required sum of
the side yard setbacks; and (3) variance to the minimum side yard
L:\02FILES\02appeal\pemer appeal\CCREPORT.doc 2
setback for a building wall in excess of 50 feet. The applicant could
redesign the building plans to fit within a reasonable footprint on the
subject lot.
The findings of fact included in this report reflect the Planning
Commission's decision.
Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the
Planning Commission's findings of fact and decision to deny the
requested variances. Minnesota State Statutes and the City of Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance require the following hardship criteria be
applied as a standard for approval of variance requests. All nine
hardship criteria must be met regarding each variance request.
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 substandard nonconforming lot of record
and an existing condition over which the applicant has no control.
Some form of rear yard setback variance will be required to build a
reasonable single family dwelling for this site. However, the
applicant can control the design and size ofthe proposed structure
and eliminate the need for all of the variances as requested,
specifically: (1) a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear
yard setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet variance to
the setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW); (2) a
12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the
minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback
averaging; (3) a 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side
yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for
the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot; and (4) a 2- foot
variance to permit a building wall 74- feet in length to be setback 7-
feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property,
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 3
and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the
Use District in which the land is located.
Plats of this era (1924) were created with smaller lot dimensions
than are required today, and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining
properties of the Inguadona Beach Subdivision. In addition, the
substandard lot depth precludes the ability to build a dwelling
without some form of rear yard setback variance. However, as
requested, the 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard
setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet, the 12.5- foot
variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback
of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback averaging, the 0.7-
foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31- feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side
yards on a nonconforming lot, and the 2- foot variance to permit a
building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line
rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet do not meet the nine hardship criteria. The proposed
structure could be redesigned to reduce or eliminate these
vanances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The rear yard setback variance appears necessary to permit
construction of a dwelling of reasonable size and to preserve a
substantial property right of the owner. However, as requested the
setbacks to the OHWM, sum of side yards, eave encroachment,
and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated with a revised
building plan.
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 a rear yard setback variance will not impair these
stated values. The granting of the requested 21.7-foot variance to
permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the minimum
required 25 feet, the 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure
setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation
(OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would
be permitted by setback averaging, the 0.7-foot variance to permit
a combined sum of side yards of 14.31- feet, rather than minimum
of 15- feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot, and the 2-foot variance to permit a building
wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line rather
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 4
than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet
do not appear to impair these stated 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 the area.
The granting of a rear yard setback variance for a future dwelling
will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or
diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of
the area. However, the granting of the requested variances to the
OHW setback, the sum of side yard setbacks, and the setback for a
building wall over 50' in length may impact the character and
development of the neighborhood in that it will allow further
encroachment onto the lake, and create a crowding effect between
the structures on the adjacent lot.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a substandard platted lot of record, the granting of a
reduced rear yard setback variance is not contrary to the intent of
the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. However, the requests
for variances to the OHW setback, the sum of side yard setbacks,
and the setback for a building wall over 50' in length can be
eliminated with a redesigned building plan; therefore, they are not
necessary to allow the owner the ability to develop and use their
property in a manner customary to the R-l district.
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.
A hardship exists with respect to the rear yard setback variance to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a
single-family dwelling. No hardship exists pertaining to the
variance requests to the OHW setback, the sum of side yard
setbacks, and the setback for a building wall over 50' in length,
since these requests can be eliminated by modifying the design of
the proposed structure.
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.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with
regards to a rear yard setback for the construction of a single
family dwelling structure. However, the applicant can reduce the
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 5
ALTERNATIVES:
size of the proposed building to eliminate the remaining variance
requests.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of
variances. In this case financial considerations are in addition to
the other 8 hardship criteria for a front and rear yard setback
vanances.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined the requested
variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard
setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet, a 12.5-foot variance
to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet that
would be permitted by setback averaging, a 0.7-foot variance to permit
a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum of
15- feet as required for the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot,
and a 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be
setback 7- feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9- feet
for building walls over 50-feet did not meet all 9 hardship criteria.
The Planning Commission did find hardship regarding a reduced rear
yard setback variance and approved the revised variance. The
remaining variances could be eliminated by redesigning or reducing
the size of the proposed structure.
The two attached resolutions are consistent with the Planning
Commission's direction for approval of a modified variance for a
structure setback to the rear lot line, and for denial of the requested
variances for setback to the OHWM, sum of side yards, and setback
for a building wall over 50-feet long. The staff recommends the City
Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a structure setback from a rear lot line, and
adopt a Resolution to deny the variances as requested by the
applicant. The attached Resolutions are consistent with this action.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the
requested variances.
3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\pemer appeal\CCREPORT.doc 6
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The staff recommends alternative # 1. This requires the following
motions:
I. A motion and second to adopt a Resolution upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a 9-foot variance to permit
a 16-foot structure setback to a rear lot line, with conditions;
2. A motion and second to adopt a Resolution 02-XX upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny a 21.7- foot variance
to permit a 3.23-foot rear setback, a 12.5-foot variance to permit a
SO-foot setback to the OHWM, a 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum
of side yards f 14.2 feet, and a 2-foot variance to permit a 7-foot
sid y se ack of a building wall 74- feet long.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 7
ld
RESOLUTION 02-~
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502
INGUADONA BEACH CmCLE SW
MOTION BY:
NG
SECOND BY: _t!--
WHEREAS, On August 19,2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by
Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather than the minimum
required 25-feet for the property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of
said Lot 21,29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said
Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior
Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said
plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70
feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of22.33 feet; thence North
00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06
seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly
and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons
for reversing 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 reversed, and said variances should be approved.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4.245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21,40.4 feet West
of the Northeast corner thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat ofINGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast corner of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068, and
held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did meet the hardship criteria and approved the
vanance.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12,2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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 requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances
or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that
would constitute a hardship.
h. The variance requested constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as
reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances.
1: \02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccaprvres .doc
Page 2
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part ofthe 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, and approves a 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather
than the minimum required 2S-feet, subject to the listed conditions.
5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed future
single family dwelling:
a) The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along
with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
b) The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved variances and all
conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage
and an erosion control plan.
c) The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of Lots 17,20, & P.O. 21
for approval by the City and create one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at
the Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
d) The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the total lot area. The
applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the
impervious surface on the lot.
e) The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
.
Haugen \ Haugen
Petersen \ Petersen
LeMair \ LeMair
Gundlach \ Gundlach
Zieska \ Zieska
t
YES
NO
{Seal}
City Manager
J: \02fiJes\02appeaJ\perrier appeaJ\ccaprvres.doc
Page 3
\)~
RESOLUTION 02-~
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A
BUILDING WALL 74-FEET LONG ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE
MOTION BY:
~tG
,
SECOND BY:
t~
WHEREAS, on August 19,2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal
by Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for, for the
property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line
of said Lot 21,29.56 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof to a point on the North line
of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, All in INGUADONA
BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of
the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat ofINGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said
plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of
said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a
distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of
22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to
the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North
75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast corner of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot
17, to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria 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:\02fi1es\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage, as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast corner thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat ofINGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast corner of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068PC,
and held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12,2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19,2002.
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 requests do not meet 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: \02fi1es\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres .doc
Page 2
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance reasonable use of the property exists without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 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 variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear lot
line; A l2.5-foot variance to permit a setback of 50-feet to the OHWM; A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of
side yards of 14.2-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A 2-foot
variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet from a side lot line rather than the
minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet for applicants Dennis & Karen Perrier.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
LeMair LeMair
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager
1: \02fi1es\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres.doc
Page 3
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5A .
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN REQUIRED FOR SETBACK
AVERAGING, A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15
FEET, A REAR YARD SETBACK LESS THAN 25
FEET, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A
BUILDING WALL GREATER THAN 50 FEET, Case file
#02-068PC
DENNIS & KAREN PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JULY 8, 2002
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen
Perrier for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on
nonconforming platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)].
2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than
the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (4)].
3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback
7 -feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
DISCUSSION:
Lots 17, 20, & 21, Inguadona Beach, were platted in 1924. The subject lots are
legal nonconforming platted lots of record. The property is located within the R-1
District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SO). The subject lot
has dimensions of 37.7' + 22.33' (front) by 112.51' (east) by 60.31' (rear) by
107.59' (west), for a total lot area of 6,400 square feet, including the recently
acquired 1 O'strip of the originally platted 20' easement adjoining the east side lot
line. The applicant also owns Lot 20, and part of 21, with a combined lot area of
5,804 square feet. These lots are located across the private street from the
proposed building site. According to Scott County records, the applicant does
not own any other adjoining properties (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new
larger dwelling in its place. The proposed building footprint is approximately 75'
deep by 40' wide for a total footprint of approximately 2,655 square feet,
including a 904 sq. ft. attached garage. The main level floor plan includes a
kitchen, % bath, dining and family rooms, and main bedroom with a full bath.
The lower level includes a full bath, two bedrooms, family room, and wet-bar
area (Attachment 2 - Building Plans).
The proposed structure includes a front setback of 25' which requires a 1.8'
variance, because setback averaging requires a minimum 26.8' setback. The
proposed west building wall is 74' long. City Ordinance requires that two inches
per foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (74' - 50' = 24'
x 2" = 48" or 4'). This requires a 2' variance to permit a 7' side yard setback as
proposed rather than the minimum required 9'. The combined side yards total
14.3', and requires a 0.7' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is
15' on nonconforming lots. A proposed setback of 50' from the OHWM rather
than a 62.5' setback as determined by averaging the existing structures east and
west of the subject lot.
The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet with a proposed 4,104
square feet of coverage area or 27% of the total area of the combined lots,
including the common area between the rear lot line and shoreline of Prior Lake.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-068\VarRpt.doc
Page 2
The proposal is less than the maximum allowable area of 30% or 4,546 square
feet. The applicant did not submit an existing impervious surface area for the
current conditions on the subject property. Staff inspected Lots 20, and 21, and
it appears a large portion of the area is covered in class 5 gravel that is
considered impervious and would exceed the allowable 30%. The applicant is
proposing to remove any gravel/class 5 area and will seed/sod this area to
become non-impervious. The City Code requires all front and side yards to be
sodded (Attachment 3 - Proposed Impervious surface Area).
The submitted survey depicts an existing non-compliant water oriented
accessory structure (boat house) located beyond the subject properties
boundaries and on the common shoreline property that is jointly owned by the
property owners of the Inguadona Beach subdivision. The structure is currently
used by the property owners of Lot 16, and lot 17, for the storage of water
oriented accessory equipment.
The City Engineering Department has determined the survey must be revised to
include 2' contours for drainage and grading purposes to be submitted with a
building permit application for review.
The Department of Natural Resources has responded to this variance request
and the comments are attached (Attachment 4 - DNR Comments).
Due to the depth of the lot, it appears some form of front yard setback variance
and some form of rear yard setback variance are necessary to allow a building
pad. However, the proposed dwelling can be redesigned to meet the side
setbacks and the setback from the Ordinary-High-Water-Mark (OHWM). Pulling
the house back to meet the OHWM setback will also reduce the variance
required to the rear yard setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP 51 ANDARDS
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 lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control. Some form of front and
rear yard setback variances will be 'required to build a reasonable single
family dwelling for this site. However, the applicant can control the design
.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-068\VarRptdoc
Page 3
and size of the proposed structure and eliminate the need for all variances as
requested, specifically #'s 2, 3,4, & 5.
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.
Plats of this era (1924) crreated lots with smaller dimensions than are
required today, and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining properties of the
Inguadona Beach Subdivision. In addition, the substandard lot depth
precludes the ability to build a dwelling without some form of front and rear
yard setback variances. However, as requested, Variance #'s 2,3,4, & 5, do
not meet the hardship criteria because a redesign can reduce or eliminate
these variances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Front and rear yard setback variances appear necessary for construction of a
dwelling of reasonable size and preserve a substantial property right of the
owner. However, as requested the setbacks to the OHWM, sum of side
yards, eave encroachment, and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated
with a revised building plan.
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 front and rear yard setback variances will not impair these
stated values. The granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5
appears to impair these stated values but does not appear to endanger the
public safety or increase the danger of fire.
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 front and rear yard setback variances for a future dwelling
will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or diminish
property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area. However,
the granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5 will unreasonably
impact the character and development of the neighborhood.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-068\ VarRpt.doc
Page 4
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a substandard platted lot of record, the granting of the front yard
setback as requested, and a reduced rear yard setback variance is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. Variance
requests #'s 2 - 5, can be eliminated with a redesigned building plan and
therefore they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
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.
A hardship exists with respect to the front and rear yard setback variances to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a single-family
dwelling. No hardship exists pertaining to variance request #'s 2 - 5, with
design modifications.
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.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to front
and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a single family dwelling
structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed
building to eliminate the remaining variance requests.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances.
In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteria for a front and rear yard setback variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to
the requested front yard setback variance #1, and some form of rear yard
setback variance, such aS,a rear yard setback of 15.73-feet in order to meet the
minimum OHWM setback average of 62.5-feet. Due to the depth of the
substandard platted lot of record and the required front and OHWM setback
averaging, a legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to
allow for a single family dwelling of reasonable size for this use district.
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-068\VarRpt.doc
Page 5
However, staff feels the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in
size to reduce or eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the
variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to variance request #'s
2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these
requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with
the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the
approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the
Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an
erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17,
20, & P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and
shall record said document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on
the combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less
than 30% of the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances, in this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
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.
ACTION REQUIRED:
.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-068\ VarRptdoc
Page 6
The staff recommends alternative #1, approval of variance request # 1, and
approval of some modified form of variance request # 2. Staff also recommends
alternative # 3, denial of the requested variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, for a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. This requires the following
two motions:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-008PC approving a variance
request to allow a 25' front yard setback rather than the minimum required
26.8' setback as required for setback averaging.
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-009PC denying a 21.77-foot
variance request to permit 3.23-foot rear yard setback; a 12.5-foot
variance to permit a 50-foot setback to the OHWM; a O.7-foot variance to
permit a sum of side yards of 14.31-feet; and a 2-foot variance to permit a
building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-068\VarRpt.doc
Page 7
BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED F'OR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55372
PH. (952) 447-6012
F'AX (651) 645-6318
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
16670 F'RANKUN TRAIL SE. SUllE 230
PRIOR LAKE IAN. 55372
PH. (952) 447-2570
F'AX (952) 447-2571
ATTACHMENT 1
-
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
: I
, I
i I
: I
: '
11 ~
W
: I
, I
! I ~
~
I
"
:'
il
I
~ "
~ JI
~!I
~i'
" . 1 #'
'l ?
! -,-
i ,,~-
I '_____
1 '
I _____
I, ~".., I
.=C.. '-~;;~~E~-ru ...: I
-------------I----=r ~0
,--;;-- - - - -
(/t'
I
,
,
--.._--
P,R/O,R
<l 90<.. -Mk.e
9/11/98
---
/ /
/
I ~;: .:" 'r
I "
I l
\ ~ I.
2 .
C~ 1- .~. ._.
"
"
"
.:::)~
-r-l !
OICIl .1 I
,.It" ....l_.___L.
,. f' '0'
o I "!
J 1/
. 1
",- :
" I
: ,
~ I
or _.,.,........
--.-1-
.. I
I
---
//
)
~~:.
---
---
c..n..c 1tCMt1CNl.-c;(
I
I.,
I
I
I
I
----11
,i--:'~
"1 "-r
I I .,./~:::t~'t.",.I.' ...
......~.,..
""d "
"1C:;
I V
I ,: 'r-1 i ~
_!!'!--- ", \ I'. .: 1"...:1 ) ! ~
. < 1:--.,. '.-'- [,1 : z
~ . ..... I I
~~ I~;I- .....~,." =1 I~ i
~~ . ....... I~ ~~...Y:
If) : I! .11 : ~
,'. ...~.. I PI '\ i
('[ i ;-,.7;;-~ :
~vc~ ---- ;/ \1 I!
'" ~LJOk ,', I:
-r--~ ___-_. ~ ! i
I -- ~:..-__ )' ,i
I -~ s .1.>',
I.... -".....~-" ""s>:s,;:~ / ! )
'~ -/ 22.33 t '1"0
F (-' ',:Y I """"'~ L'-. "<'~:~:13_~_~,_/_i___-
r, \ .... .".""\. 'c~:~oO~:~: '<.: ,- __
..oU ~l"'\."'~. ...~...,,~
el.cOl'l'l
, ')n
. .;;;; I ~ l.I "<\\
\:k I · ·
- "'fL_~________~
/ /
./
"1:::::-
I .....1
,
,
,
.1
,7
/
t'.llrS1Wl;:MOIJS[/CIoltACI: ,/
/ /
"1f<
I '-/
/
--
PROPFRTY OESCR1PTlQN:
I,,' ''1 ".ItJr.llann.,. a~A"''''' 0:'__.. "'_'._". ..,_____"_ .. _~..__. ...", .. .
r -_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
'--
,~
, /
/ /
['''1INO
.......$(/CNtACl
-1 '""'
U
I .....
~
i!
o
~
s:
m
z
~
I\)
..
m
c:
-
r-
C
-
Z
G)
-c
r-
)>
-~
tJ)
r
~! ~~ II
1111 " :. I
I! i II
Ii! ill! i
I ;11 II
1:1' : I d .
I ~ t .
1:\ I.
Il II ,:
I ~ I : j I ; ! II ! I I!
Iii I , i I II: I,
:'; I i 1I1I Ii
III i III i I
I:' i: II '. I
Iii I.: I'; .
\:\ :: I i 1.1 ,':
\1 : ;1.11 i' j
i Iii ,I
:1: \ illi'
I:' ,I \1 II
:1 \,
1:1 I
\,1 I:
1:\ I
II
---n
--lJ
~
rt
II
II
--H
j I
I,
II
'I
~
/
/
II
! I
',n
"II
I
11
~l
---- /-i
(I
IIII
,II . I
I, .-~.. -'. , I
-,-'-- ., . I
0~i1 'II
. IIII
~-w I
I ~. II
I'
,
'.1EJ1
.,. "..
;.
i
1.
. j
: i
<.=;:" , ~
"'-~"-l
,,-.;- ,
. I
t
. .-,
- .
'r
. j
':.-C.' .,~ .
'~~"r
, -.
. ~.., l' I
. . .
-," ,
f., .
,
. . .
.,
" .
;--
'-
,,~ ";,
.'
.;.l
'~~:/:f.
"Ii. q"
' ""i'~:f...(".~
.,{'i~;!I~
. ~:...t'""'~~""'~"'"
: ;~!~.!t"'tCi,~ '.
:, ;'::-::';;;~.M.~';ti~
')iJ~~'~
"
".',.. _,
.
".'-'-f-'
j
i ~
t
I ~ , "
.i ,
" I "
I
I
-t-
\
.,
.,... "'r
. t,' :. ~~
., -
I
",
"
'!
..:.:. l
"
II
! I
.;J
n
II
I
, I
~i.
r ,n
f. ; 'I
."11 II
. : II . I
'. .I.I~-T II
.:.~ ;11
'III
-:-i--j I
II
I i
II
II
II
II
II
'. ...--'. U
....._-=--==...:....~--
. ",
"
'. .
-... ,
"
."
. \
..... - ....
'--, ;.~
.. .
:"',
~.' \_..,~..
''''t,
'.
. .
~ ~ . ,
. ;~~~_ .'. .ii' ~;..:
'- .:....
~ :. '. ~ ,'.:,:
i '
. ,
.~
.'
" .
. .
,,' -.
. ~ -.
'." :
,., ..- ~
'.. , t
~ . '"
, ~ '!'
i.:
.',; .
, ',.
, .
.- ~," .
,"';'). "
""
.~;.,' .....~ ..,'~~;~",:',,~}
. -,
-:,." ,;,.
.' I,
y
, -',,~
J'
,;.?~1i~i~~~~~~I::,:
;, ~'
,.,,-
.;
'l-
~
I
...'
''-,. ..
I
I.
I,
, .
. ..
.~ :. ~,
, '"
", ,
t,.:.;.,..."..... '!'
.:'3~~;~~;L.~
+--...
I,';.
. ,
f ~..,
~'...
'," i;
'. ~.
~ .
.... '.' j
i
~ .
~
. i
; ;
1 .... .. '.~,.,
. ;..j.
I
I .-
\
----f1
---~
II
II
II
II
"
,I
II
. II
:---u
II.
II
II
II
/.1
II
. II
-;----0
II
I"
II
II
I
, I
.:..:~-U. .
~
-
--
-
I
-~
r~
I
I
, I I-~
I : I
I ,I
i}
, L-- . I
, -.- j"
-------- --,~,-
I
I
....;., --. .-
[Cr -=
-~"-=-=-----~
I~ , --- ~
I
I
I
I
1-
~' :I~ <, '/1'
I _" """- '/ '11
,') [ll "0
,.~ '. ,,~'_"
. ~~--~~~~rY----~', i. .: .....0-
.1
'rL-1
:\
I
-,,----..
LJ
-l"---'
I l
,I I
~'
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
,I I
, I
I I
, ,
, /
I I
,-"
f[j
o il~
i' r
,.
I
~
.f-
(Zl'~
Itt'
.i,
:J
.>!
....'
, ';
: .'i
'j:,
...,..
-- . ,':;:..
".1.)'
1.1' .
I ,.:~
: I~
: " I:
I I
1'1 '
I . ~ .:,
L_____ -.J':~
-- !
~
'" ":~
)"1'
,'. ,'J',
',.}
., ,~
',;L
" :J
" :;
,
','
't .'.:'
, ;.
,'.' "
-
'r-
~
~ ~ .'
.. -f
.~ .L,
IUI
rr~;~~
I
L.__
L. .~. ~
1".( \'
r#J *d
-rIJi. i-ct +
,. :+~L
I -l........ ' .
: ,
ti...l- I
1-+-' tl+
.. I
-T~
'\'.'1.' ',:
..:t' .
" ',~
- ~ r t _.
,:.;~,:
cO
I I
IL
I
,
I It.
I
I
I
I
:
, "1-i
,
,.,...
,.
I
T
~~
, ,
.,
,.<.... "t -='::.
- .-
, '
I
r
.
,"
. '.:;.)::".1::, :,(,
.. ,-.t-,
:',; :.
" ...
,. f'
........
-
.
~ ,I 0. r-JJ-,:li
~. _ or ~'f"'t.~o
,~ " " ,;;~' .?'~7~ ~
1 ~j - tJ'-1-tt:~'1t . .., ". '::'!'::-It; s:\
I . I ,r\ Jl TH+I....'~. . %
_, ,( . J - - ..I-H.-l--!-L-rttfj : <:l:1:;~t
..-.,...., ._. . -L: ...~..:.
,K
rl-------JY . . .,
, . ----~'
I
I _____ '1' ......i ",,:
-l"'--.J . .' .1
I : ., '
,I I.
~
I I
I I
, II
I I
1.1
I I
'1'
-1' I
-I I
I I
I I
I I
.~
'I :
I ,
I ,
--:. -=--=-a-=.::.-=-=- ----,;
____-.ii
.\ -
... - .....-
~ ~-----
_~ >-----n-f!:
/4 \
......
I
I
I
I
- ,
-n:
\
LJ
I
-
~
-
I
rr'.'__
I
-
L
." ~----
--
_.
-
1-
-
q
~-
-
- -
., ~
\~~.
~.
.~'
'./'
-..,
c8
l~o
111
III.
~
-.. .
.' :
....
....
~'''.
dI8--'
'.i r--'-
! :., .'
!-
o
J:J
~
.
"--:
I
"
~.. ., -..1
,LJ
I' ,~
i
, .l'
........1
:
j
I .. _...
_'W t'
; -.
'. .
1-
!
.:-i~ ..-.-
,.r....,...
f-:-',
:1-
I
I
1
I
. I
. I
I
I"
I
i
:;01--'
;0
1'1 .,
.'='
"
0."
I
0-
.:.
....;..;..
1
-~ '
Hr~ ~"q:
T
.... .1j-1- +-+
, ,-
t~t..:;:: ,
, tR=1
..L.J
.,'
..,..,
L
,-
I
It' -
~-:-
I -r-I . :r::
-r
\1
,
.
ILJ
..- ..... \;
r-- ~
1 .
I ..
L':"'_
I
('
'I, .
. II
-~r~"
. Ii
I
-
~
, .
~t..
~'.,
..-. :...
k-'
.f.:
~ll ';'1
.1
I
:
.
.1
.,
I I"
-
-
...-
',:.'::",
, . ~ . .- 1
.. ,~~I--
I ','
'--.-
F~7<;~-'t/;~;?.
. . . . ',:. .~.,;;:~~:~. '-~',';-' ,
.'.. IJ, '.: :;Ji;~:~.:\~,'.~.~
-' .:.tll:. '::. ".< -, ..... .'::\ -:".;' .:
. - I I ..,:. :: ";. :..~.; . ~.~ .
' - '. I ! '.. <:;)~:Vr;.;:? . .
" ':;!".'.",.7..?... - _;, .
,
-----, I
I :r-----=-~iL
I fl.... I,
:1. --
I ! I
" ! I
II.
.1 II
Ii
!f;
I . o.
l/ :.
.',
I . '".
: /.
I .
'I
: I
I ! I
JilL
r. --tlJ
:r
, . .
[ I
! I
iL
III
I I
I I
I !
I I'
I I..
J'
II
Ii!
, ;,
1'1
1:1
. I
)" ,
-, '1-..
:'.
.. ..
.... .
~~~,;-'~;.?:. ;~\
. "-.. ~
~-
I
II
I
: I
I
----r
-------~
I
I, .....
t....':.....".
......... .". .
. .
' " "':2E":' --
- '.-" . .'.
'..... '-"'"'.:"'
-~-------.~~
. II \
~ 1-: -t
.1
I
. . '..
... .#
'.
(;~ .
:. .'..
'.' .
~'~~'~'~...
b-
"" ,
1:'.
-.
.,' \
T I
I ~
L_~
" ..
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submined with Building Permit Application)
ForAH Properties Located inthe Shoreland Distdct (SD).
The Nla.x.imum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
~
~
~
h'\,"'Il,i
m
Z
---i
CN
Pr, operty Address\\pt?02-'I-~~<0DN~ . , 6~~ qt C.~\Y-dt ' \~L\'Jr9~r,..J o,~~L~ 0 N
, ~ 10 '2.,0 ~~ \ e>--Ioo'-J-e.' .,\04.0 ", ' .
LotArea \c.Sr \tSy Sq. Feet x 300/0 = ..............'-\ S\\ v
**************************.*********************************************
~P-c eC)~E'& ..
HOUSE
\
~
,
,t.
A TIACHED, GARA."GE
., ,~
DETACHED BLDGS
(Driveway-pa vedor not)
(SidewalkIParking Areas)
P ATIOSfPORCHESfDECKS
(Open Decks';''' min. opening between
boards. with a pervious surface below,
are not, considered to be: impervious)
OTHER
'~r
. LENGTH
'N1DTH
SQ. FEET
x
=
x
=
x
=
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................
'1..loZ\
x
919
. ~~t\eo..1 P/o
\o+-..J 21 X (.. "2. L
'PI O-'6ClA+'rk.et:')~ X 2\ ~
L-04- n .
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
QP-I)p~s~d' '.
DRlVEWAYfPAVED AREAS
X
C-oV\G S-\-COfl X
=
=
1"2..
TOT AI. PAVED AREAS.........................................
\oz:;\
x
=
X
=
x
=
T OT.~ DECKS........................................................
x
x
=
=
TOT AL OTllliR.............................. .........................
t..\l D4 .,
t..\ 1.\1.- I
Date
~o-z..
TOTALINIPERVIOUS SURFACE
eVER... ..
PreparedBYUuL~\.t A.1
company~u\\~S"D-~~..~~ Co'} ~ ~.
\ \ \
Phone # l\ \\1.. "Z.Si 'C
I
-
s:
-C
m
:2J
<
.-
o
c:
en
en
c:
.:J:J
.i
o
m
)>
:xl
m
)>
. , -C
:xl
o
-C
o
CJ)
m
C
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr,state.mn.us]
Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:59 AM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
JKansier@cityofpriorlake.com
Perrier setback variances, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
I have been out to this property. My recommendation would be to slide
the house towards Inguadona Beach Circle 5 feet, modify the home design
to meet setback averaging (with Lots 16 and 18), and recommend removal
of the old boathouse as a condition of any variance approval. It
appears that if the house is pulled back slightly to the street and
setback averaging is utilized, the lake setback variance could be
eliminated. Sideyard could also be eliminated with slight redesign.
Was there a narrative describing the hardship included with the
application?
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us
ATTACHMENT 4 - DNR COMMENTS
1
RESOLUTION 02-008PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling on
property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and
legally described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet 'West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat ofINGUADONA BEACH,
adj acent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held a hearing on July 8, 2002.
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
1:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed vanance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance to a rear yard setback 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. A legal building envelope does not exist on the nonconforming subject lot that
eliminates the need for the a variance to a rear yard setback. The proposed structure's
rear yard setback is such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant.
6. There is justifiable hardship caused by the topography of the lot, and the required
setback averaging, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance to a rear yard setback, 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.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC 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 a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Revised Certificate of Survey;
1) A 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line,
rather than the minimum 25-feet as required by the zoning ordinance.
Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and
proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted
to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
I :\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc
2
3. The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of
Lots 17,20, & P.O. 21 for approval by the City and create one legally transferable
document. This document must be recorded at the Scott County Land Records Office
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the
total lot area. The applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the impervious surface on the lot.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
~.
Anth~ny S1amson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
~~.e
Donald R. Rye, Plannin
I: \02fi1es\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc
3
RESOLUTION 02-009PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-
FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A BUILDING
WALL 74-FEET LONG
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family residence on property
located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and legally
described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat ofINGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 2002.
1:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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, 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. A legal building envelope exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested
variances for a structure setback to the rear lot line, Ordinary High Water Mark
setback, side yard, and sum of side yards. The applicant has control over the house
design and shape, such that the hardship has been created by the applicant.
Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required setbacks and impervious
surface coverage area as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of
the 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 with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC 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 variances for a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey;
1) A 21.77-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear property
line, rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
2) A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark, rather than minimum setback of 62.5-feet as required for
setback averaging.
1: \02files\02 variances\02-068\dnyres.doc
2
3) A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.3-feet rather than the
minimum required IS-feet on a nonconforming lot.
4) A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50- feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
AnHMS A~. Ch.
tony tamsnn, ommISSlOn air
ATTEST:
~ e. e. /9nf ~
Donald R. Rye, Plannin~Dile6f>r
I; \02fiJes\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc
3
BUILDING PERMIT SUR'.'EY
PREPARED ,OR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55J72
PH. (952) 447-5012
,AX (651) 645-5318
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
16670 FllANKUN 'TRAIL SE. SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55372
PH. (952) 447-2570
,AX (952) 447-2571
ATTACHMENT 1
-
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
.........-----
~---- ..-----...--......
----
-r-
I
/1/
I
I
I
I
- -----LL
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
: '
, ,
II r--
: , I
j i \~~~~ I
9:, ,.,.. ,~~>' I
~ /~ / /
:~ , \
~ ! I ~ /'
8 "
z 1/.. ,...... """.."..._ / I
I ~
G) / I
~ i~ I
:1 "1 n /'
ii ' () I
~!, I
~:' I
~il
~:, I
~SS?~:.'>o'(' ~ ! L ,:: 11
... .J15''' "'... : - ,~ I
", (' "'" ,.;---- .. I
"-'-- ... ",';-- '-, 22 JJ~': ,---- .. II.
-", ---f S89"1il'1J'o,,; I "--'.... - ____ ..
"./'.', ,I 'T...." - .. ""-t---.-
......" ~ ~ .......... ~I \..._--------------~->;-----------
... --<:...: T. ----.....' __- 1
~,,""<~~ ----:~:~" CIRCLE \, ____:---
" " _----------,-----------r
'" " ",- _ -L _ _-----1-
, ", ",;,-- -
\ -- ,,','
~' \\, (/(
\ I
, ,
, ,
.--...,,-,," ,
----
----
'1::::
I 0..-'
,
,
4~/
----
./;,-1 ? .. --
./ vC / ? ..
~ u4LJo
J- .. -1----r--- __~__ ~
~-
I .. ;: -..::.::.::.::.,
~....
""
I
'. ':,. I
1''-'
~: I
_~~l__________
ltll.~'\. I el.:~oO:(:~=
..Of( ::::... 8t ::~~,,"."'OO,l'
'11.(","
01"1
L. L.J
--
.~
/
/ /
,......
..., ,......
U
I '-'
/
j
t
~
T
/
LAKES AND PLAINS REGIONAL COUNCIL
of CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
Of United Brotherhood of Ca.rpenters and Joiners of America
842 RAYMOND A\i"ENUE
Sr. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
1~1
PHONE (651)646-7207
FAX (651)645-8318
July 17, 2002
City of Prior Lake
Attn: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Horsman,
Due to a work-related commitment, I cannot attend the City of Prior Lake Council
Meeting of August 5, 2002. If possible, I would like to request that I instead be
permitted to attend the Council Meeting of August 19, 2002, in order to
participate in the hearing on variances that will be held concerning the property at
16502 Inguadona Beach Road. I can be reached at 651-271-1922 (Cell #) for
confirmation of the new hearing date. Thank you for your time and consideration
of my request.
f)cerel~, . n "
D~~~
Dennis Perrier
Organizer
s~@
IS ~ fa 0'0' @: \\\\
\ D 15 ~ 1.5 '~ 1
\ ~,?1Ul\\ 1\':
! ,;Oll
\ I - i.,..o" -\
\ L . \.l~ _ d- IV ~D1);;L
\0 -\:~C~~ \f'Y\~Q~(2.~
c.C\.~e- ~ 0). -\) 6~
\ ~\:~ '\~ C\... ~'n~-A 0~-\~ -\-u ~"'~\, ~
~~ -\~o...~ 0-~~~~c::;>,..~~ ~-e...c~:cr
~~ ct.~~e ~..\~) -\'N:- \>\q~('\~~ CO~~~~ ~€~,.5
6e.c~S\CN\ ~C\.6e- ~u.\~ ~\~ ~~"1q,\6\.~~ ~~
V ~ \.Q."",ce., <) ~ ~~ ~ ~~\(e~ \ 0 ( -"-~ of! J. ""-+
'~Sb~ ~('-~Y-~~~'''- ~C~.
~~'fr (O~~
\)~,,<,~ . ~
U~<"''(\~~ ~~,{, e,c.\.~c
"
/
Planning Commission Meeting
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002
1. Call to Order:
I
ng Commission meeting to order at
e present were Commissioners twood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, PI . Coordinator Jane Kansie Assistant City Engineer Larry Popple,
Zoning Administra r Steve Horsman and ecording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3.
The Minutes from the Jun
presented.
ommission meeting were approved as
4. Consent:
5.
Commissioner amson read the Public Hearing Statement and op ed the meeting.
>J(
A. Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front,
side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family
dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen Perrier
for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on nonconforming
platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After a revision on the
survey, the applicant is eliminating variance #1, a 1.8 foot variance to permit a 25 foot
structure setback to the front property line:
1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the
minimum required 25 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 1
3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
4. A 0.7 -foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31- feet, rather
than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot.
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9- feet for building walls over
50-feet.
The Staff felt the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in size to reduce or
eliminate variance requests 2,3,4, & 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to variance requests #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the
applicant and staff recommended denial of the requested variances.
Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, &
P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record said
document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the
combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of
the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Ringstad questioned if the proposed house would fit anywhere else on the property?
Horsman responded there would have to be another side yard variance and went on to
explain the rear yard setback averaging.
Criego questioned if the existing garage would stay on Lots 20 and 21 ? And does the
impervious surface include the garage? Horsman said the impervious surface was
calculated with the boathouse, garage and common property. The applicant meets the
impervious surface requirements.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
Applicant Dennis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, explained they are trying to improve
the neighborhood and have worked with the City for almost 4 years. The house is over
the property line and will have to demolish their home and start over. They have lived in
the home 29 years and plan on retiring here. He realizes it is a non-conforming lot and
pointed out they are under the impervious surface requirement. Perrier said they could
eliminate 2 variances ifhe reduces the home by 2 feet and would only need the rear
variance. They have expanded their property to the east and south. Another point is that
part of Inguadona Beach Road was always on his property. Back when it was a gravel
road people could not make it up the actual road in the winter, so when the road was
paved Perriers deeded a portion oftheir property and traded a portion of the common area
to the north. They are very limited with the lot size and are proposing a rambler so it
would fit into the neighborhood.
Lemke questioned the ramifications of losing 2 feet on the home. Perrier felt it was
necessary for asthestics and it is still a small house. He also pointed out numerous
variances given to neighboring homes.
Criego questioned Perrier ifhe would consider a larger home with 2 stories. Perrier
responded they considered it and went on to explain the huge obstructing 2-story homes
on the lake. The rambler fits into the neighborhood.
Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said the Perriers are really trying to meet the
requirements. Tremaine explained he was forced to put in a huge 2-story, but looks like a
3-story from the lake. It would be nice to have a rambler in the neighborhood. It gives
some distance between the lots. Tremaine said the neighborhood has been trying to
improve their homes and are supportive of the Perriers' request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
. Appreciated the applicants' willingness to be flexible and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. A rambler would have more appeal to his neighbors.
· Supported staffs findings with the 2 foot side yard and there is a willingness on
the part of the applicant.
Ringstad:
. Agreed with staffs findings. Support a variance for a rear yard setback.
However, it may be necessary to move the 2 feet and remove the other variances.
Criego:
. If the Commission agrees with staff then the applicant is reducing the length of
the home by 12.5 feet.
· The average width of a lot is 50 feet. This one is 55 feet and historically have
stayed with the total 15 feet distance between properties.
. Agreed with staff, a very nice home can be managed with only one variance and
that is with a rear yard setback variance.
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
· Understand reducing the length of the home is a burden on the applicant. But to
have a home 40 by 75 feet long on a substandard lot is pretty unusuaL Have
never seen that before.
· Questioned if the eaves were included with the setbacks. Horsman responded the
applicant is proposing 2 foot eaves. He should not have a problem. There is no
encroachment. There may be a problem in the stoop area as proposed.
Lemke:
· Most of the house is 32 feet wide. The widest part of the home is 40 feet. It is a
modest size - 1,800 foot square house.
· Lemke questioned the rear yard setback. Horsman explained the setback
averaging would be under the 9.2 foot variance. The proposed setback is 50 feet.
· This is making the house much smaller with the 2 foot reduction.
· Only needs to eliminate small variances.
· On non-standard lots - 50 feet have been the guidelines. It is a reasonable use of
the property.
Stamson:
· Concurred with the majority ofthe Commissioners and staff. The hardship
criteria have been met but a reasonable correction to eliminate the hardship would
be to draw the house back to the averaging for the OHWM.
· Explained lake creep. This is a classic example. This home is drastically close to
the lake than the adjoining properties.
· The applicant could easily build a two-story. A small foundation size does not
mean a small house.
· The applicant does not want to have a 2-story. He has a small lot, there are some
tradeoffs. The Commission is not eliminating his ability to build a reasonable size
house.
· Agreed with staff - it is reasonable.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· The neighboring homes are not going to be demolished soon. As proposed the
applicant is actually moving the structure away from the lake.
· Understood lake creep, but has a hard time when the applicant is moving the
structure back from the lake.
Stamson:
· The reality is the house can be pushed back. It is a replacement home.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson there are other ways to scale down. The fact of the matter,
is that it is a small piece of property. This house will be further towards the lake
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
than the neighboring properties. A precedence should not be set. It is a violation
of neighbor's rights.
. Agreed with staff s position and conditions.
. Approve the rear yard setback.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST, 1,3,4 AND 5 AND
MODIFYING REQUEST 2 TO PERMIT A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET INCLUDING STAFF'S 5
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
/
B. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a v~riance to the required rear
yard se ack to allow the construction of an additioltio Carlson Hardware Store
,
located a 16281 Main Avenue SE /
/
///
Zoning Adm' 'strator Steve Horsman presentedihe Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the of e of the Planning Departm~;n~
/
The Planning Dep ent received a varia.rlce application from Mr. Bernard Carlson
(applicant/owner) to all the constructi6n of an addition to an existing commercial
building on the property 10 ated at 162~ 1 Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be
attached to the side of the ex ting building and extend to the rear lot line. The request is
for a 10- foot variance to permi - foot structure setback from a rear property line rather
than the minimum required 10-
/
/
/
The City Building Department noted applicant must provide soils and structural
engineers' plans on the method ofprotec' g the adjacent buildings. The City
Engineering DepartmeIJl/commented the e 'sting manhole is under the concrete of the
loading dock, and a n manhole outside of ilding slab envelope must be built. In
addition, the line fr the new manhole to the isting becomes a private service.
Integra Telecom ted existing telephone lines tH t service building will need to be
relocated.
The Plannin staff has determined the variance request r the rear yard setback does not
meet the . e hardship criteria, since it is a business decis' n to expand the existing
buildin ue to economic growth and the need for addition space for storage and
displa of materials. The applicant can redesign the addition meet the required 10'
setb ck with a comparable yet smaller addition. The staff there re recommended denial
of e requested variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
PETITION
The undersignedl being homeowners and residents of
Inguadona Beachl and neighbors of Dennis and Karen Perrierl
do hereby request that the Mayor and the City Council of the
City of Prior Lake approve the Perriersl request for three
variances and to allow the Perriers to build the house that they
have proposed to build on 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Name
Qao I ~M-
----1' ~ --"_ p
~~
~~
vfI~(ruM-;
trz
/~~
J~
..
~I(~
~~ J~ IWi'! 115"'<-#><>'"
~R~l\
Address
Telephone
11o--S'fo{
t~(;t) J2~
~ /Z.
I~ ~h J)~rf~I?tJuY")cv
(I
4~1-'
J b </9 Y -PI!:/..." 16l.~ is:>. ~y Ylv6~Y6
/ (; Y 7 Y ~)o,jL,f Ie.<. ,,-.fJ>~ C}S?- -YY7-' d-Y ~
J/C/~ ;2~ s~~ ~
~/oq Ra-s~ 51- <5~
J701 jJ~ Jt J.y;) 95'i--22/9-S519
/ ~ ~ 06 r jJ t(tAl1 pc~-'? 'I 'IT G.F 12-
! ~N 'I- #7--3<1 71
I(
o
t.{ c...t 7 - ~ ~ Z-
Lft/""r- ;u.f f :J-
)Lst7~P 7:3
L{l{O '.... t S'v 1/j
! '-
'l
l {
". _....,".~.._"~._^.~~..--~-----"-.....----"-.......--,..._--,.,,..--~...-_.----_.~-" .~~-". .. - -,
,.
Telephone
<1 .
~~
yvJ~W
~4&t
1~~
..;;JJY~
\?~~
K-ell Hurfn.l1 It" Jot
Ibul.{ I> 1/-JIrl41-Dt/JJ,4- ~<J" c,'rct-e. Qr2... Lf'f7 7c/,}'l)
~'-'.~~ IIob1!p ~u..- ~~ '1~-HC>--Sssg
\~ ~~ "
Address
ICco'1S ~Of'O\.
/ 05$"5 I~tJA
<102. ~'-I40 ....S3<G
1S;'-1'-/d"0"'fC/l
I t
1105'49 rY\J~~V1C\
{'
9 5 ~- t-/ Lf 7-g73/
/1
II
" /
,,/
~ ,",,-q~ -X'\~
C\r b2--- - \.-{ "'-t 7 ~ \f--t!L4:;
V\.
11..
I--t .
'^
'\.
1104~-c.{ ~~ ~ ~~ 7S2.-yt!b' 1-Sr4>
<'-
tl
(l
{ \
II
/I
~ ((,,>"2'D t~l:W~ ~S~ 6Z "'fill ~"6l
. _..m.... _.".....,,_._..,_.~~,._ ....__^..__ _..._~-"-------'--"- ...-
~~;gcD o-om
x, 6tnl"l ~~
......,.....::0 R Z -0 r
(l)CD ~Z>o
~~r-__::OZ
....,_~~ en l:j"
(l) .... ITl C "0
~~~~"d~
I 'zo~::o~
0II(l)' z~..-
(,01 e 01 >::0 -I
<>> ;::; f:: m fii ~
~~::o ~
:J: -<
...<
(l))>
(l)r
~J;j
-o;a~
'"'1"0::0>
>:J:6zU)
x':""::OPC
co8~z ::0
';e~;d~
.... t ~ ~::S
...."z z
",' UJG')
~...,tnr"
Ol~~ (")
::::!e"UJO
NC.
ii1"
...,\J
(,01.
e,,!>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
P':b
8&
~~
~
~ .f:-,
C4~
~
I
/
~ --I
/
~~I.I(X.FOI%
0':---
~r..74.QO- ..---
o
-)" "'-;r' -7'- /l (922.9)
~-~~.~---.-------
, 42
/:
9ZZ,9
..
-110
~ ID'"'
... _0
.Ut. CDjC. L.
.. .
(
,-_-L.
"'---i +..
y "'.
!
j
y
==0_-- - ==Q
- ------------
- - - - - -----------
... --
'\- 1..,\
~
-~
" ~
..... "I ~4.
9" ~"
~ s\ ,-.
t\~ ~
~<<"/~ ~
""'Y'" 0" .."-
~
.~
..
!:l
'"
31_'
~ tA
~ t9Z~ '8
'---T-~~. ....
.......---..:-----"--""- "L_~:1""'a-~' l\~&::-
./ -~ . ---
l -'___
'f ____
---
112.51
-~
(_11
_o_g_O
~
~
~ '"
~~
. ...
\f"
',.
;,;
..
N00041'47"E
L-
.....;-:;:..-:~4/
\-_.,
v
,.
_/..
-----~~----------
/
i
Y
tL
----
----------------
--
--
(9Z7.71
~'2'-
S01 "26'27"E
1 07.59
/
---------------------
.;
<;J, j
-~'-- / ~#
~ g I ~
A I ~
W. !~~ }1 ~
~~~ I
~,,~ :
~..~ I' C"'\
%~: d ~
~~:; JI:t;;.
~i-:' /
;;~.. I
~'::. 1/
o:r!
/ // $
/ / ~~
/ / Cv/.
<>/~to '
'J;., / /// ~f)~
, ,/
-
, --
- -" //
- _/
---
0_41-'.
-(~
(-'"';
t~
6
"".
i~
"''''
...%
,.
o
~~
r-,,\
,-'
;'
;'
/
;'
"
:;0
o
"
FTI
:;0
~
o
'"
UI
o
:;0
'U
::l
o
;;
or-r-3"333~"J(D r-,.,r-
g ~2.3"g 5":r:r: O)~ ~p ~
e:~~;.~~;;~~.~ ~g::j
~.. ... (8 '< (IJ . . ~ ~ 5" - 0'''
Q O:T~~ ~t:~O:1O ~~ i
CO_Cl..... (,0 - ~ (IJ G')
.. ::r~VI~grC8~taN oQ-C
~..~!!.~~g9."~ 0:<,>
o-g.ggog~Q."G 'E.~g
-S"go. a~.r-~CD 00%
-@ ""':T ClI ~ at (It ,." ~ 0 g -'< >-
~o~:e-~~2-~:;: ~~CD
G;~:~~!."':-J"~ ~c.o~
;-~g::lQOOoS'~ ~~Q
:!.:;Q.Q" Q: o.n9:a.l!-a &.!...
-~.~ fi':rCi"..~ii.o ~ (/)
o:JG_......OOQCI~ 00(')
~'fI~g~g~~~~~ al='~
~ !~=~..G3o Q:~"'"
~ '<oioo2.o!- o5:&>
'0 Q __ -- -.. :f-o C
:J g_~~~~~~~ ~[~
co .gP.NO .....,(.oIQ ':<
~ _~~~t:O~3'~ 2. 3::
.:T _mlO- 5'
Gi'r_.:CIi- 0 J~
~~2.;'~:!!:"~- ~~
~o:::j--:r;:~ 9. S; s-
~_...o;!!...Q. 0-
,<::r_-:1nn:r~ 2-
oGi;~.(lCD~ >.8
a 5 g 5" Z W g' ~ w. m 9=
,.::1<1(;~c:~s.:T rYlG
o::::J"z...,_:;:::r:::rG ~~
s.~g::::r UI!.~ :r~
;- ~ :; a g m....,~ · .. : g
~g~gQ.~g.~W &.;:
=3 (JI;f~~~;s.. o' 0
:Jcaa.-...,.at:1:T n_
:.,~s:::::~o ~-a
0-' (II :J- _0
~-tt:~.Oi~oQ. o~
C8 ~ QI -. _CD 0
~a:~ s:~ 9.:
. (I 0..:T
..
z
~
t = ~ ~
"'xGl (4I &/):%
~ U ~2 E~
o ""'" Mpt
~ ~ i ;: :~
~ ~ : ~: ~~
- .. ::v p.
'111 '" "'~ utQ
.. :II ~ ....g 1'1",
B ~ !: ~PI 0:0
~ 0 Z 1;0 [;7:
==oxzx,-
OO~.r.o
g i ~ t':~ ~:
~ t : ~;o ~:
.... ..
0: 0 ,.. '0
Z < '-
.. .. 0
~ t ~ ii
~ ~ z
~ p
.. ..
" <
~ ..
0"
" 0
.. z
Z
t;
..
...-
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - -'- - -I
--
33.4'
/
..
iii ~/
~ ,
/
/
I
/ lJ)
I 01
/ (ON
'..IN
OIl"
-t.!
I ~ t.!
,\ ·
I" [f1
: '---\
I '
--------------- \..
" \ ~
" \ 0
___~_'" v---u------ ALLEY
, ~\ C') 1 r~-=-'
\'\ ~! '
\ c-\J I '~7--
I' \ S') I / ---.!'"
\ t / ---
\ \-........ I! ----
t \... ~ \ " I
I~ I I
I I'"
I I I~~ /
I I 1,:p.1i
I ~~
H-------J. -< r
I I
\ I
I \' \ /
I I I
WI \1
I I I
I I
I I.
I
I
I \
x
~ \:I
~ ~
.. li
~
-~
(()
Cl
:::0
>
"tl
:J:
o
en
(j
>
I:'"'
t<J
;;
!i
"
!I
'"
;;
Q~ ~~
..:c;~
~ .g
z ~ n,
I\) ~ i:w
.0 "-
~2 :
;Jil ~
.... x
S-x .
o z
=~ ::
~
..
.
og.2 ~;
:IE --...,.
Jlot'<Q.~'"
o C =;"'< ~
-n~~,<
,..g,..o (')
:T. foOG
~ ~~ -g ~
\ "'''''~-3'<
5!.Os.o_
~- G ~!!. ~ g-
o Oa._
l -~~ a~
!:~ g~ ~
",,5~Q.311l
:"';:-E
S-~~~~
.o..-CQ
~Q~."
~3ca.
=r -..,
..Q ~
~o "OlD
"'"ll~~.....::oc
>:r.....-"'.ITI-
X. o~z"05
'"''iO::O N z ?o Z
OIUI'__ITI"
~N)>5(/)o"O
...,..., ^ C I'TI
OI-IIoI'TI> '"0 6::0
-IIo-llo~ol'T'l ::o~
U1.....Z0:;:O..-f
I I. z
mg(JI>:;:O ~
~ :: S'! lD I'T'I ::0
m ~:::jI'Tl:;:o ~
N~ -<
:r
~<
m>
mr
~f;:j
"O;tJ -<
~~~~(/)
x. ~^C
...... ,
'""'coCO'z:;:O
U1> <
~~~ill'T'l
........ >J
-IIo-llo~-....:l
-110 -IIoz, z
.....1'. lI>C)
INUlf'1
~U1~ (')
.....~.....lI>o
~ NC
~.:
",:t'
~?>
~
::D
-
)>
Z
o
m
=tI:
o
I\)
I
o
0)
CO
~
- .. ...
t l!l li: "x
"'Xbl tIlz -to
! 0 ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~'" -I
% Z 0 :11'- .31'"
~ ~ ~ .....g ....~
l"I PI III ~. 1:::a
VI fI) :a):oo
"'0 ;: ~ ~:; =:
~ ~ ~ ;1'"' ':0
(Joz~o~z
~~Q"'Z;ll;r
o~::b~~
~!~!".~!!.
~ ~ PI ":.C1 -Ill
...... ,..
~ 0 ~ ~
Gl ~ 0
~ g g iii
! ... z
:: J!!
f'; ...
... ~
'i ;j
>> ~
z.
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
f!J'Jy
"'~
!J~
..~
~
-f/:-...
& ~'
~
/
/
- --1
/
..
..
/...--,,1-:
~ ~#.
!
I
r '
I \ /
, _0 I ;'
v. -J ..~ ...
L-L- >> (; '" .. _.-rr;;L
'It ~ -2~-J-~
ro. 1\ 91 ,'I
--~f------~--~~~----
-~
(_ll
L - - - -~--
f~-----
..---
'/ ]--r ""A 192:2.91
----t-4;------
/;
\
1
-i_
~
.~
,
I.
7-'-.-
~
'9. " t',...
'l.t.'il ...
~_l,l ,~.
~~-b ~
/ .,..l"\
.~/_. ,[
-----------------------
--
'"
o
N
IL /
-I ,._..
'" "--
~l~
-b 31.5_l
-. . .-;.m~-l -~ ::
-------.r- '. . ~" 6'1..
-------- .L3:~'~~_
Q'&; "--
.-/ -~
~
---------
--------------------
(SZ7.7:-
-'--;~;:-:=:;- /
I
V
i
-----~~----------
SOl "26'27"E
107.59
"f-
1'. '"
0;>';
...
~(f\
'"
/
/
';J i
~~-'~~7 .~
~ ;, ~
.. J/ ~'
~~~ /:! ~
~~'" I
r'I en:&! J
~\~ // ~\S
i'?~ J/ ~
S-g':. "
(; l/." I
Ii ~ 1;, I,'
:;/1
I / ~
/ / V
/ -r.~
I / Ovi,
/'//~Co '
\'~ ,,////////>> (\~ /
\ /' . .,J /~
,/// /
--' // /
....._--..../
41-/.
~..)
6
'!!~
. ,
.."
NX
'"
o
~-J
,...."
,,-'
"
"
/
"
-0
;lJ
o
-0
m
;lJ
-<
-<
o
m
VI
o
;lJ
'ij
::!
o
~
orr3"333~"'al r",r
g ~ ~ 5' ~ 5" 5' S' : Q) ~ 2. P 2-
[~:j~~~~~:2.~' ~8~
5'. .'U1,<mmm;~5' .. 0'''
fQ O":T 0 G .... -. (.ol C;IO 2. 0 . -~
cD-g Ol~'-J<.H~~CD ~ en"" ~
.. :TnUJ~cnctJct t-.J c~c
~Gct~!!.~~gg.-.J~ O:i'~
o-g fII g g g g 5. Q.Q) CD "Q.:E 0
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 : ~. b g ~ ~~ ~
g i ......1T11'T1g"....:JS,. 0.0
~2.::1.~:TQ~~:::j~i =UJ~
_CT"<~.~- .. fTtG ~~>
:~gQ5QOco~~ tTO~
,....~.Q.Q.:le:9:~9:.:-'"o ~~...
OS': ~i~~oS-g 3 00 W
~'P~g~g~~5~~ CO:;'g.
S !.~s:~.~G~2. ~Q.;;
~ '<oG2.2.-ao. ~c.o
g ~:2._~~~cr~ ~]- [
co ~Pfl)~~~UI~"" .....~
~ .....~~o.~o......s.:::j 2.~
. i;'r-:...il@~ ~~.
(I~s.:~';!!"Q.- ZQI
~__"""'r+.....g~ ~~
;-0 ::'o:riilO a: l;p
~s:-s:!g~g:~ 2,...
Q (I i ell ~ Rl (J ~ >~
E.5 ~ 5'Zg'gg'" CD S:
fA~."oc,....._ET f'Tl(ll
o :rz... ~:T:T:rG i!;'"
s..ao::r 01~~ ::I::E
i~9:aom......'<CI ..as:
~ 00 Q..V) C
'<~~:J~~~~g ~St
=::::1 €.occ..,CIl.- 00
:::J~Q.._'..,QlCll~':7 n.-
3 .g;;:::::a.o ~"O
0""".-- ~- _0
a....,:i....o;~oQ.. S;:1.
CD ~"- _CD 0
e.a:~ :;:~ e.:
a.. CD G a.. :r
..
.
'if
~
o
:
g
l:
g
c
3
..
~
...
g
:>
0.
o
o~
~..
,,-
'"
Q
:>
0.
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
/
/
/
'47"E
_----- -J
33..' - - - - -
--
/
______________'" \ Et~~~~
", \ /"-------------=..-----------------------
------- >" \ / - - - - - - - ==tJ:----~--===Q--==---
'1\ Q i ' \...\.
\ I ~
\ 1-..,..2: /7-~"~.!...
\ ~ / --
\ ~ \ / -'---
\ ;-~J I " ,
I I I
I I I
I r-...... I I
I ' '......J \ i!~
1 \ '{.i
I r-<
HI-------l
I I
I \ I
I I
I' I
W\ \
I I
I I
\ I.
I
I
I
I \
NOO"41
2.51
11
...--.
~
"
/
/
.,
; \(ft,
:.: \~i
I ?'!.'-
lY'
f'C-- ---
. . ~'--'- <
C,:::,:---,-,
r-- _:<-\-GL-'
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
'"
"
~ ~
/
2 '"
ICl Il
~ ~
> ..
~
-~
C()
~---_. "~
;.-- ,
:: .-z;r:~--=----J
::a
~
::c
o ()
CI.l
()
:>-
&:i
;;
~
51
9
"''''
x...
;:
z,
"N
.~
~:;:
~a
ai
~..
~
o
:::