HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C - Kemper Variance Appeal
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANALYSIS:
ALTERNATIVES
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
7C
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-101 DENYING
AN APPEAL BY DON AND MARY KEMPER OF THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A
VARIANCE
OCTOBER 7,1996
On September 9,1996, the Planning Commission considered a
variance request by Don and Mary Kemper to allow the
construction of a 4' by 20' deck addition to the side of the
existing single family dwelling located at 15097 Manitou Road.
This property is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential) and SD
(Shoreland District), which require a side yard setback of 10
feet. The proposed deck addition has a side yard setback of
6.77', thus requiring a variance to the minimum 10' side yard
setback. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 96-
30PC, denying the requested variance.
The Commission's denial of the requested variance was based
the following factors;
1. The proposed variance request does not meet the hardship
criteria listed in the ordinance. There are other, legal and
available alternatives to provide access to the addition. In
fact, the applicants building plans indicate that access to
the addition is provided by a stairway and landing on the
south side of the addition.
2. Any hardship results from design decisions made by the
applicant. The interior floor plan can be changed to utilize
the entrance on the south side of the addition as the
primary entrance. There is also access to this area
available from the interior of the house.
The Commission concluded that the variance is not required to
allow reasonable use of the property, nor is it necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The proposed variance would serve merely as a convenience
to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate a hardship.
1. The City Council may adopt Resolution 96-101, denying
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
., ~,.
RECOMMENDATION
ACTION REQUIRED:
ATTACHMENTS:
appealcc.doc
Mr. and Mrs. Kemper's appeal and upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny this variance.
2. The City Council may approve Mr. and Mrs. Kemper's
appeal by overturning the decision of the Planning
Commission and approving the requested variance. In this
case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a
resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance.
3. The Council may defer this item to a date specific for
additional information.
The Planning staff recommends approval of Alternative #1.
Motion to approve Resolution 96-101.
1. Letter of Appeal from Don and Mary Kemper
2. Planning Report dated September 9, 1996
3. Minutes of 9/9/96 Pia ing Commission Meeting
4. Resolution 101
/-"-1
PAGE 2
. , ,.."".
RESOLUTION 96-101
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A
VARIANCE APPEAL BY DON AND MARY KEMPER OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE, CASE NO. 96-083
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 7th day of
October, 1996, to act on an appeal by Donald and Mary Kemper of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a side yard setback
variance for property legally described as Lot 5, Kopps Bay Addition;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of
the City Code, and that the appellant has failed to set forth adequate
reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's
decision denying the request for variance was appropriate and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the request of Donald
and Mary Kemper for a variance to the side yard setback.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of October, 1996.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{Seal }
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
16200 1!N~~~~ve. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~. E fTe.~ tJ/~'\
10 C7 /~
I j ) I I ~
I 0 rn@~ OWl~f\1
II ~ SEP t 3:~ /;
L-.,4- I<-,ill 1:> .
. I i
To
clry
o F f /? ;' (J' ..Jl......
I::: /c 0 ~1.
(JeA!
~ 11 /f-I<- '7 L.. c:J~
I<-'~/'-"t /'~_ /(
/:)a 9 7
f~/oj,-.
~ Nt j:= _
)-1,A-Ai I ,e.; ~ I\. ,.0, -
1- /~ /< ~
fLt / /V /\I' I
,J~J 7 L..
WJ~
0' !..5 i-j
'/0
A- f' P~-+L
/C
T H t;.,
\
CITY
r-H-G
c. c L.{ /y- c.. / ~
TH-,C
O .... ' 1
I~ C- l..r /" " ^I
OF
f 1- A- N h / /y'C-
. . ,
G oH~7 IS.S/o/v
P-d~ A-
:I'
[,/ )J-f? I A- AI C/~
T H-.A-7'- W .A-S 0 E. -'V / ~~'J
A-r- /h.E
1'1 h. ~ T / jy 'c-
OP
cr /'7 j' rc
S / ~. c,{; ~L...)'
fJ\
o C<--- )'- Q4c..t.-7 :;L.-
~'//
Yu~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
60
CONSIDER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
DONALD KEMPER (Case File #96-083)
15097 MANITOU ROAD
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINAT~ /J/J
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
_ YES -X- NO
SEPTEMBER 9,1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Donald Kemper,
who is proposing to construct a 4' by 20' deck addition to the north side of the
existing dwelling located at 15097 Manitou Road. The proposed addition has a
side yard setback of 6.77' at its closest point to the north lot line. The applicant
is therefore requesting a variance to the 10' side yard setback.
DISCUSSION:
This lot is 105' wide by 322' deep. The existing dwelling, built in 1963, is located
on the east end of the lot, and is closer to the north lot line than to the south line.
The applicant is in the process of building an addition to the east side of the
house, which meets all applicable setbacks. The purpose of the deck addition is
to provide an outside access directly to this portion of the house.
Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all structures have a 10' side
yard setback. Since the proposed deck does not meet this standard, a variance
is required.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. The existing use of the property will
continue without this variance, and there are legal alternatives to provide
96083pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
access to the new addition without a variance. A stairway and landing on the
south side of the addition are included in the building plans.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
Because staff has concluded that there is no undue or unnecessary hardship
this criterion is not met.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Any hardship results from design decisions made by the applicant, not from
the application of the provisions of the Ordinance. Thus, this criterion is not
met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where
development opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a
property. This does not appear to be a property where opportunities are so
limited.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Because staff has concluded that the there is no undue or unnecessary
hardship, and thus that the Ordinance criteria are not met, staff recommends
Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 96-30PC.
- 2-
-
~
PARK
3
I)...,(j\O
\
~
, .
t
>
/ A '
, "
" \
\
\
4
./
/
f~ ~.
.F
a~
l .
~1 '
:rt
.
I
~
~
:' ~ ~ '~
.~=;.~
:>3-D
'0" _.
~ ~ ~ :
~~ ~-:
",. ..
'" ... <:>
c ...
:' V\
~ -:
~
;
3
~
."
~
;;>
~
11
:l,
'"
:l,
I
/
.~""...
I
I
/
I
I
'1 .4/ ' ''''.
I
~
.\.., I
~\ ~'\-""""'"
..~'\- .
, ~\,:, ~.~
......~._'C\\
\ -
.::.
~' \I'
lJi\.~;
i\\.
, '\
-~...
-~
~ ~':.'"
.....~. { ','...... :~
. ........ 0
--~. S~'-':__"""".j
~'~lS~~'~I" .... '.
o .. _."", '\ -;;- .
'~~~", .".:;~ ~t .
-- '- ~\,
-- ~~~:
~~'"
~. ~
't
~"'"
~
~~
~i \)
rn
~ \
~ ).
t~
,~. )If ~.~~.
~ '\-
/....,-
'"
':--
/
~,...
....
:S'
.--.
\ '.
\\
~'-'\
---: .:.
I
.-J.
-- ~.
- ."
e
~~
'lI~
I...",
i!'_.
......
. "::--:,;.
...........C\
"'..
"';;":'..\.-
~
~--,...
.....-I.~,
"1
'J,
.. '::..
,-, ~...
\~{'
J.,
VI
~;
....~~
,'"
~\
IJ ....1
/,.
t.~ \~
~;I
1\\
<:' ~ ~~;:-;.- ~ ;;-
'"'
,~
~t
''31
\)
'"
It
~
~~~
"
3 -:0:
... a. ...
::J ::J
-:l,;;>,
'" '"
. ... ~
::T."
_.~ ::r
....~"<
... n
j Q..'D
'< '" .,
.. ~:.
....., ....
, -.,,<
O::T
3 ~;
;;> ...
';~
;;> ::.~
:;),:,=:
'" ....'"
-~_.
~;wt
- ...
...-
::JO~
::.n.,
. QI':
~'"
;:,';:) Z
::J~
,. ....n
:"30~
--.,
:.-~
"" ?r-9
~=~
::J Q. '0
~~.~
.0 _.~
-- ~:
~E;
:<~~
-::J'Qo
-D .,.
Z ~~~
-, . .0.,
::I:
;'<
Q.~
...
-...
-;;>'
<1>
<
-!::J'
"'~
~~
<1>~
<1>-
~~
.,
~~
;;>'...
';
'" vo
.., ~
V>
n
'"
~ 0
.,
0
Z
c-
O
0
0
~
""
~
-<
,.
:::>
:::>
Planning Case File No. ~Va{~
Property Identification No. . ~- () -ttE-O
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230 Fax (612) 447-4245
,
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonine) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~) SET O~ ~AS 7?> SlOt:.- OOO,e
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance Or IIt7t1SF
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~ Variance Applicable Ordi7Janc~te~iOn(S): i:L (s/'dL
lAIJ lA _(J~ ~
."
Applicant(s): [)OIVht-O kfhl PIll
Address: /50'1/ /YIf:lNi TOU RoAD
Home Phone: ift./7-:14/'iz.... Work Phone:
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone: Work Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
ltn- 5 1 /'oAPs 81J~ IJ DIJ,'r/ON
P~Q ~ Z-S oS \ 00'50
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
i""l) .." ,-- 1;r'- 7 -30 - '7~
L/ c~ iLl \.~ /I~
Applicant' s Si~ature Date
1./
fl J /-1 ; - ,-/ 7 -Jo 'lL
. ,~"_ ..JJ I. /{~.A-'~~__ -
.
Fee Owner's Sigttature Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED DENIED DATE OF HEARING
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED DENIED DA TE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee Date
AUGUST 14, 1996
TO: PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MR. & MRS. DONALD J. KEMPER
15097 MANITOU ROAD
PRIOR LAKE, MN.
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. CONSTRUCT AND ELEVATED 4 FOOT WIDE WALKWAY WITH STEPS ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO ALLOW AN EXTERIOR ACCESS FROM THE FRONT OF THE
HOUSE TO THE LIVING QUARTERS.
2. THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACKS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE RANGE FROM
10.37 FEET TO 13.43 FEET. THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 10 FEET. THE
PROPOSED WALKWAY WOULD REDUCE THAT TO A MINIMUM OF 6.37 FEET TO APPROX.
9 FEET.
3. THE TERRAIN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS VERY SLOPED AND WOODED
WITH NO REAL USE BY THIS PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.
WE BELIEVE THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR SEVERAL
REASONS:
1. THE FAILURE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSED WALKWAY WOULD CAUSE
UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE RETIRED PERSONS USERS OF THIS ACCESS TO THEIR
LIVING AREA OF THE HOUSE FROM TH FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
2. THE NEED FOR THIS WALKWAY RESULTS FROM THE SEVERE SLOPE OF THE
PROPERTY ( A 40 FOOT DROP) THAT WOULD NOT CONDONE MAKING A CONCRETE
SIDEWALK PRACTICAL.
3. WE FEEL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CAUSE A HARDSHIP IN THAT
THIS ELEVATED WALKWAY IS CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE AND MUST MEET THE 10
FOOT SETBACK, AND THAT A CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH STEPS WOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED A STRUCTURE REQUIRING THIS SETBACK. THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME
INTENT, TO PROVIDE AN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
4. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE
SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. IN FACT IT IS TOTALLY WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
SINCERL Y,
DONALD J. KEMPER.
~
-I
-
o
z
II
lml
;~!
I'n!
,=:!I -I ~
iZ: ;0 ~
iGJJ-- m ~
i~l'--=--~ -
'<JI .-L~
i^! - \ /,
i I+-'~-~
j I -. v
i !
I
I
I
I
I
I I
~
! i
::
~=
~~
~ -
~i
- -
";" -
~ .....
,- -
- -
~~
:-- :::
=-5
~~
:3 '.':
!":'l ::2
... -
- ::-
~~
~sa?:~~
a 2 :=" ~ ~
~~~J~::
=- ._ .- ''';' _ in
~ ;.~~~.~
-. ~ ... '-
lHiij
~~~.~~~
~3~~~;:
~ ~ ~ ~[ ~.
"'IirI ~ ~'""
~ ~ =
::: ~
1;=
~::;
~
I
I
/
\
\
,~
,/
~
T
~
!
I' :
I I ,
I .
I
;0
m
)>
;0
m
r
m
<
)>
--i
-
o
z
I I
I J I I il I I i I ! I
! :! : I i : ..! I i J I I I r
-. 'j I I
- ! I
A r ." ~
I + A i
I I i
I I I
~ I
i I - - /~
~ j - .. J c..>>
I .- .1 ~
: -- r!
I ,. - !
I - .- i i :
I : I LJ
:..- .- .1
-y ..
,
I
-
.- .
~>
-04 !~
r~ ~
~-
1':- ...,.-
- -...
z;=:
(7"' ~*
~J
..-
~,
T
!
I
i
i
I
i+--:-- ~'
I
'T
I
I
I
I
CJ.!
I ,
I: ...
.1
TT
, I
l"l
!co
i " ,~
I I
i-\-
, I
I
:;;
-I-~
.
N
.-
.-
.
i"
I
I
I
!.
+- 2'8" . 11
.. ..:':~'
..:. .:...: '
.
~ ,===-_.
,,~ci ~ CCM2860-2W
~nv
,,((3
(;~
G
CCM2860-2W
2- 1 3/4" X 12" LAM BEAMS
, ;
I
I..
: :: J
~i
CLOSET
,......
-=..~ ~ -
---
--
.
f'
.-,
_/~
EXISTING BEDROOM
~~
~ 0
) .
1\
"2 N\;
"'"
~. v..
-,
C t,
l' ("'
<;:
\P
22'
16'S"
I
,{:
, 11
, I
~
+-- ~'~,'
~ ~::
.
'4-- ::8' ~
.'
---~ T
CCM2860-2W a "l
o~/: ~ ~
I
'1 -f
'"It,, T
I>J
~
-I-
, ------,
, .,
I
I oi '!'6~
J.
! ~
11 ,
ot3"
Itl, !
,-~
I ...:-- I.~--
! ---; -.-
~~'
DISH
"..~,..-~.
--.---".,
J..,
....,
1
-i CJ.!
I I
I I
I
i
7
!
.-
~
4'
.-
Q
~
!
.1
I
I I
i i
I ! -,
i . ..::.
-
I i :;t
~
::
~
-.;
~'
'. .
-
-
. "
:Jj
:;~
:7:
-
~
::
......
:!
-
...
C
-0
-0
m
:::0
r
m
<
m
r
~
-.....,-
51~%
>x~
=-:lw-
:"">:;>-=
g~~
~
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCE:
A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY
lOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY)
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire
Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish
Point Road), on: Monday, September 9, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Donald Kemper
15097 Manitou Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
15097 Manitou Road, legally described as Lot 5, Kopps Bay Addition
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to the existing
dwelling which will have a side yard setback of 6.77' instead of the required
1 0 feet.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the
following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property .
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of
persons presently having an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice
and is not contrary to the public interest
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing
should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or
written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and
requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: August 29, 1996
96083va\96083pn.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
RESOLUTION 96-30PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD
SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Donald Kemper has applied for a variance from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit the construction of a 4' by 20' deck addition to an existing dwelling
on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15097 Manitou Road, legally described as Lot 5, Kopps Bay Addition
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in
Case File #96-083 and held hearings thereon on September 9, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria in that reasonable use of the property
can be obtained if the ordinance is literally applied, and there are legal alternatives
available for the location of a deck and access to the new addition without variances.
5. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance would serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
6. The contents of Planning Case File #96-083 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance to allow a deck addition to be located 6.77' from the north property
line.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 9, 1996.
William Criego, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
96083va\res9630.doc
2
SENT BY: DNR;
9- 5-96 10:45AM; 6127727573 ->
6124474245;
#1
Project Review Worksheet
DNR - Division of Waters I Metro Region
Project N iUllC
D~
1C'~p-r
Si~a-.rJ
V~'iO--cA~ Iftot(--ahla~.
Project Type (check all that apply):
o Preliminary Plat
(] Final PIal
)(Vlriance
o Subdivision
OPUD
Cl Other
DNR. Jurisdiction (answer all):
Yes No
Floodplain 0 0
(M.S.I03F.10 1)
y~ No
Protected Waters 0 0
CM.S.I03G.245)
Yes No ~/).l
Shoreland ~ 0
(M.S.I03F.201) ~p,1.
~ e:-
Yes Nn QJ ~
~ .;)
~ e
Water Appropriation 0 D Q ""
(M.S. I 03G.255)
Comments ~ <:{J.~~~ t:- ~luvd~ ~t::2A~.
~~~~,%J V~~~A~/~~~ .,.:,~.=::;;:,: Z;'~:(zd.d~
..c~~~#J
,
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions
Ae. ~,.
~.-e~ _ St::A..~..,~ .'_ ~.....-.. ~
~C~~ 4 "~"~'4. ~.:J.....,...!~ ;1-..
Reviewer ?~. LcJ'~f... Title~hone ,"7:1-")710 Date .s 0/ IW;
where the house is proposed is located on a fairly str. t section of road with very good
visibility .
MOTION BY V
GRANTING A V CE TO PJiKMIT A 63 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE
OF COUNTY ROAD 12 INsr / OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GLEF AMIL Y DWELLING WITH ALL THE INCLUDED
FINDINGS AND CO ITIONS.
~
uykendall recommended the City Engineer to revisit site.
Vote t en signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Cri~~OTION CARRIED.
D. Case #96-083 DONALD KEMPER REQUESTS A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l
(URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLA Y) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated
September 9, 1996.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4' by 20' deck addition to the north side of the
existing dwelling located at 15097 Manitou Road. The proposed addition has a side yard
setback of 6.77' at its closest point to the north lot line.
This lot is 105' wide by 322' deep. The existing dwelling, built in 1963, is located on the
east end of the lot, and is closer to the north lot line than to the south line. The applicant
is in the process of building an addition to the east side of the house, which meets all
applicable setbacks. The purpose of the deck addition is to provide an outside access
directly to this portion of the house. Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all
structures have a 10' side yard setback. Since the proposed deck does not meet this
standard, a variance is required.
Staff concluded there is no undue or unnecessary hardship and therefore the Ordinance
criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial of the requested variance.
Comments from the public:
Tom Lubansky, 14915 Timberglade Circle, submitted a list of neighboring properties stating no
objection to the variance.
John Osness, friend and builder for the applicant, said the proposed deck is for an entrance to the
upper level. The applicants are making an upper living space for the parents with the lower level
for their daughter and family. This is the entrance for the parents.
MN090996.DOC
PAGE 6
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
· The closest point to the side yard is 6.7 feet. We have granted a 5' side yard variance in the
past. It does not encroach on the lake.
· The problem is the size of the large lot. There is not a big encroachment on neighboring
property .
Kuykendall:
. Mr. Osness explained the ground clearance as the shallow area being 4' and the slope is 6 to
6.5 feet.
. The elevation of the land is not reasonable use.
. Multiple family dwelling opens up possible problems.
. Rye indicated the special exception portion of the ordinance states "In RI districts renting
out of an accessory residential unit is considered a permitted accessory use." That allows for
a "mother-in-law apartment".
. Osness said this is a privacy issue. There is access through the home.
. Added safety benefit with another exit.
. Approve variance.
Criego:
. Mr. Osness explained the sharp drop on the property to the home. A sidewalk occupies the
current space.
. The commission in the past has issued side yard variances on substandard lots. This is
almost three-fourths of an acre. It is possible to enter the addition through the home.
. Agrees with staff there are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
. As an alternative, build a retaining wall and have a concrete walkway. A way to work within
the system is to build another wall. Reasonable and less expensive and add grade structure.
It is practical, the structure needs an entrance.
. Mr. Osness explained the problems of going through the home.
Criego:
. The 4 hardship criteria have not been met. If the floor plan was changed it could be done.
There may be a hardship with the interior design or a second family coming into the home.
But there are logical alternatives if the floor plan was changed to accommodate.
Rye said the definition of hardship is denial of the reasonable use of the property. There is a
single family house there today, it is legal and that constitutes reasonable use of the property.
The circumstance is giving rise to the need of variance is due to the desire of the property owner.
It is not a condition that has existed for years and years. One of the criteria for approving a
variance is whether it arises from circumstances which are not the actions of the property owner.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE VARIANCE BASED ON THE REASONABLE,
PRACTICAL RATIONALE FOR ONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VERSUS THE OTHER
RESULTING IN THE SAME IMPACT. NO SECOND.
MN090996.DOC
PAGE 7
Tr
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING.
DUE TO THE FACT IT DOES NOT MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA. THERE ARE
OTHER AL TERNA TIVES.
Vote taken signified ayes by V onhof and Criego. Nay by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED.
7. A ouncements and Correspondence:
uykendall will not be present for the October 14, 1996 PIa
The City has hired a ne
Rye said his proposal for the zing ordinance is to run S cepts through the Planning
Commission and present them to '!Y Council. 1 work out a meeting schedule.
As a body, the Commissioners would 1.
minutes at every meeting.
cuss policy and long range planning for 20 to 30
Any items submitted by apH . ants are the property an ermanent record of the City. If
applicants walk into mee. g and present different items n originally submitted to staff, the
applicants should re-s mit an application.
Y KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJO
THE MEETING.
V 0 taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, V onhof and Criego. MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN090996.DOC
PAGES
AUGUST 26,1996
~l.x.d o.;t ..; !cUlIU.:1'-5 (crnmiS&tCn
!--I.u:l:1A'j q /q (q "
TO: PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MR. & MRS. DONALD J. KEMPER
15097 MANITOU ROAD
PRIOR LAKE, MN.
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS AS FOLLOWS:
CONSTRUCT AND ELEVATED 4 FOOT WIDE WAL'rWVAY WITH STEPS ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO ALLOW AN EXTERIOR ACCESS FROM THE FRONT OF THE
HOUSE TO THE LIVING QUARTERS.
THE UNDERSIGNED PERSONS ARE LISTED AS BEING WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WISH TO STATE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION
TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE KEMPERS.
~ N~ ADDRESS
.~ h-.// ~ . - ,
1 1(6/ ~~ /=9// ~~~
~. JL~n/\
'--- I ': I, \ \ \'---. / j /.- J' ~,-,rr; A". - 1 r7.h
2. /1 ~ \ M ( .. - "', .-To.W--- -..J ~,..jlO! ~ \ y \4 'l . -').) f"::""j
~ - (~n
.1-' <rJ- '/l /J
3. X~~.(L/'_2.",t-' 1/ ~ ... (<J:.4~'1';'~
,.-,.1-. \~: /
y ~---_. '-""<-i'- ...-,./~,:t.--~...-v-;'-'-
4.
/I
~47
~-V
f\ ..--.
i\)'t:-
/5^/ICp I~~-v ;?j
, .~ f ..,7
I:; J //,9 /YJ.4 AI .' / c/,;,; t~
i
/
5.
6.
7.
8.
) .- :. - - ,/': /
, ......I. ~. ( _'
'\:;' 0 '..' " ..' \!, t' I _ '.
\) , ""...
IS DI?1 j11Li)1 L~;;>/"'L/ ~p~tU
'-
/ <'I ~ /
/-, ,(,;, /V1~Jt/. ;",/ -1~ -1' C
I __ _' '\ _ .
/ '-~./ "A<~,/
."'l//i 'l-" '
/jO'/'" ,
t I j' ;..' l 7': ) t' .'
. ':/"" '_ . "," ., o-J'
f//'/ , .
." ,/ .
-