HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Stolcers Variance Denial
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANAL YSIS:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
.ere
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-108 DENYING
AN APPEAL BY MARIS STOLCERS OF THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE
NOVEMBER 4, 1996
On August 12, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and considered a variance request by Maris Stolcers to
allow the construction of a 10' by 20'7" deck addition to the
lakeside of the existing seasonal dwelling located at 5395
Shore Trail. This property is zoned R-1 (Suburban Residential)
and SO (Shoreland District), which require a lake shore
setback of 75' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The
proposed deck addition has a setback of 0', thus requiring a
variance to the minimum 75' setback. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 96-26PC, denying the
requested variance.
The Commission's denial of the requested variance was based
on the following factors;
1. 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 legal alternatives exist for
the placement of a deck without a variance. A deck
meeting the setback requirements may be added to the
side of the dwelling without a variance.
2. 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.
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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
August 30, 1 996
erN ~iGRIS. OFFiCE
CIT'(CF FRI0R L;l.KE
\0) SEP . 6 t.~9,.6 ~
\ffi Jg~~Pi~ lW
NOTICE OF APPEAL
City Manager:
This letter wi II serve as my appeal of the Board of Adjustment
decision denying me a variance to bui Id a deck. at 5395 Shore Trai I
NE, Prior Lake, Mn. (Resolution 96-26PC)
My reasons are as follows:
1. I showed through overheads, pictures and graph i cs that
reasonab I e use of the property cannot be made without the
var i ance. The board never def i ned what is "reasonab I e" to
them.
2. A hardship is created in the sense that I cannot enjoy my
property the same as others on the lake who have decks just
as close to the I ake as mine wou I d be. Another add i t i ona I
hardship is that my elderly mother-in-law would not have
access to the deck. at a I ocat i on elsewhere on the property.
She is disabled and cannot get around well. Have you seen
the hi II that she would have to cl imb to get to a deck elsewhere
on the property??
3. The board of adjustment gave absolutely no consideration to my
arguements and had their mind made up before I even approached
the podium.
4. No one to th i s day has given me an answer in terms of why I
can't bui Id a deck there. I have been put on the spot to come up
with "reasonab I e use of the property", "hav i ng a hardsh i p
created" without having these terms defined. These terms are
a bunch of subject ive phrases that shou I d be cons i dered in the
most favorable I ight to the appl icant. Obviously they have not
been.
5. I feel that I have been discriminated aga inst because I am a cabin
owner (the little .guy) One of the members asked me if it is a
seasona I or a year around dwe II i n9.
6. The grant i ng of the var i ance wou I d be in the best pub lie interest
as it wou I d enhance the appearance of the property and add va I ue
to the property (h i gher taxes).
~d~
Maris Stolcers
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
MARIS STOLCERS
5395 SHORE TRAIL NE
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
_ YES -X... NO
AUGUST 12, 1996
The Planning Department received a variance application from Maris Stolcer,
who is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing cabin. The proposed
deck addition is located on the south side of the cabin, resulting in a lake shore
setback of 0 feet. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the 75' lake
shore setback.
DISCUSSION:
This property was platted in 1950 as a part of North Shore Crest Addition, prior
to its being annexed into the City of Prior Lake. Like many properties in this area
the site was developed with a seasonal cabin in 1956. At this time, the applicant
is proposing to add a 10' by 20' 7" deck to the existing cabin.
This lot is 280' long on the long side, 50' wide on the north end, and 36' wide
along the lake shore. The existing cabin is located at the south end of the lot,
just 10' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The width of the lot and the
cabin's location make this a substandard use, defined by Section 9.2 (8,3) of the
Zoning Ordinance as "any use of shorelands in existence prior to the date of this
ordinance which are permitted within the applicable zoning district, but do not
meet the minimum lot area, setbacks or other dimensional requirements of this
ordinance". This section goes on to state the following regulations for deck
additions to substandard uses:
a) Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting
the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following
criteria and standards are met:
96068pc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
_"~_-,~"~""""""~~"",,,,,,,,.~""__"'m._<.">"" ....>~..... "~"""_~''''__.'_''_';'~_~''''''_'''' ~""'~"<"""~.'"_""'_""""'""'__~""'..._,..'~'"____",'_...._,.,_,.,_........_~,_*,"""'_~'..'.M..._O......~"".,.,__"...,___.;.....--""'_~.__
1. The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;
2. A thorough evaluation of the property and the structure reveals no
reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary
high water level setback of the structure;
3. The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not
exceed fifteen (15) percent of the existing setback of the structure form
the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than thirty (30)
feet, whichever is more restrictive; and
4. The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.
Since the proposed deck does not meet all of these criteria, 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. Furthermore, a deck meeting the criteria in
Section 9.2 (B,3) could be placed along the west side of the cabin.
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.
- 2-
The proximity of the proposed deck to the lake shore is inconsistent with the
intent of the Shoreland District to preserve the natural environmental values
of the existing lake shore.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that the applicant has legal alternatives which
would allow reasonable use of the property, and thus that the Ordinance criteria
are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
If the Board of Adjustment finds that this request meets the applicable criteria,
approval of this variance should be subject to the condition that the deck addition
be drawn on the certificate of survey by a registered land surveyor, along with
the dimensions of the deck, as well as distances from the lot lines.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9626PC.
-3-
SENT BY: DNAj
8- 7-96 7:41AMj 6127727573 =>
6124474245j
#1 /1
Minnesot.a Denartml;Ill of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 W amer Roa.d~ St. Paul. MN S 5106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
7671
~o.
AUb'USt 6, 1996
Post-itlf Fax Nnle
To Co
CoJOQPt.
Phone "
D.11"
pnon4Ot If 7
7 Z' . -, I.")
F it,d'
.Mr. Dun Rye
Dirednr of Planning
City of Prior Lake
16200 EaKle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake. Minneso14 55372-1714
F"lJl 1#
RoE: DA vm SMITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE V ARJANCll REQUEST (SPRING LAKE).
AND MARlS STOT .CERS SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (pRIOR LAKE)
Dear:Mr. Rye;
Please ineort'oralc: the: fullowing DNR comments into the record of the Planning Commis:sion hearing for the subject variance
requests.
DA VlD SMITH ll\4PJ..::,K VIOUS SURF ACE COVERAGE VARIANCE RliQUEST
I did nol receive a site plan or survey for the Smith impefViou.~ surtac:c QOvcraie variance rcqw::st. However, 1 know the lob in the:
Butteluut Beach Subdivision were platt.ecl many years ago, and contain many existing substandard lots.
Is the Si7.c of the proposed sarage addiUoD and the width of the propullCd driveway the minimum n:quircd to alleviate the hard.oihip
the applicanl. must demonstrate? Is il a three-stall garage on a lot more suited for a single or double garage?
Withnut the benefit of a site plan. it is difficulllO provide any recommended alternative to the: proposal which may reduce the
variance. lL should also be noted tha~ although the applicant is reque:cting a 4% variance from the city's required 30% maximwn
impervious cov&..-ragc:. Minnesct.ll Rules 6115. 3300, subpart 11. limits impeIVWWI surface to 250;" of a lot in the shon:land district.
Thi~ i~ lo minimize the impact., of slcrmwaLc.T ronoff on surface water features.
All tlull beiug said~ I do not have adequate information on whi.;h to provide a DNR RCOmmendution on the pToposa1. I U'U5t the
Pbuuling Commission wilJ considt:r 1111 tile facts, including the hardship which th~ applicant is required to demon3tnltc. Plcase
consider the questions I raist.-d with respect to the garage/driveway dimensions as lh,-"'Y relalc to the ovc::rall can.st&"si!lts of a smaUlot.
MARlS STOLCERS SnmACK VARIANCE
It appears there is ample space to locate a detached deck mcetini the Il:qu~~ struclUTC: setback. If it must be attached. it could be
attached to the: rear (north side) afthe =xisring cabin. That. too. would require a sctbsc:k variance. althoup significantly less than
the zero setback requested. I would be most interested in hearini the hardship argument on this one. The DNR is very much
opposed to the if"anting ofthi~ variance. lU1d urgeN the Planning Commi:li~inn tn deny the reque:ct. before them. Several nptinnll
.:xist which either eliminate or greatly reduee the neecl for a ~thac;:1c v.,;anc:e. This one seems so blatantly counter to the intl!nt of
shol'eland zoning. T need soy no more.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the two variance requests. Please forward a copy of Ule d.e.;ision mad&: un
lh.cx matlcni. Call me at 772.7910 ifhave any ql.lt.."Slicns regarding the DNR conuncnts submitted..
Sinc&..'Tcl y,
,. "[.. ~~ .-.
;:t;~J':'(~@----- .
An:o Hydrologist
llNR Illfmlll;&lillll: (ill-1C)ti-hl.~7. 1-~r)().7f)()-fl()O() - Try: ()Il 2'1h 54X-+. I l'$l.IU (,.i7 .~1I2(.1
'\11 I~.~u"d I)","".,c,,'t'!il) 1,:".,"plu~,,'1
Wi'll' V.\I II," r li \.\.,',il\'
ft. l'rilll..c1I':1 H",')d,'!! I';lfwr (."lIl.lilllllr a
c.., \1illi",lI~l1 ",' IfI'.'~ "1...1 l:1l1l., Y III"' , W;,',IL'
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAl~D USE APPLICATION
q~-DW
-r~-g.::].
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
~Variance
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
A n \\ /v I )t ..).0 17 'f 1)C:0<:- TO
G'-L15T/Nt::' CI4/$/N
I Applicable Ordinance Section(s): 9. '3 (/1-,;;L 1
I
I
Applicant(s): M A ;< r s S T C) L C-I:: IZ.s
Address: 4L ~ C) L( ;:= Jo- L/' rn d'~ L~ .-S:;- /1/ E.,
Home Phone: ~ I ;L - 5 7 / - ~ Go kO Work Phone:
~/ ~ - 7 g-S--~ '/9j~
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ~
Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet):
~OT ;;L) A t...-C/cK., ~/ _ ~(~~l7+ Sffr-;&'-6 (' ...vG"rl
t ._~. " '" ' . -- ..1_ : _ I _' -. -
To the best of my knowledge the information procided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, ( 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.
711'11_~~ S~ 7-/~-7C-
Applicant's Signature Date
Fee Owner's Signature
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DA TE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
Date
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOllOWING VARIANCE:
A 75 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF
PRIOR LAKE OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY lOCATED IN THE R-1
(SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 5395 SHORE TRAil NE.
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, August 12, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANTS:
Maris Stolcers
4654 Fillmore Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421
SUBJECT SITE:
5395 Shore Trail NE, legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest
REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to construct a deck addition to an existing
dwelling in the Shoreland District along Prior Lake. The proposed deck will
have a 0' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of 904' instead of
the required 75' setback.
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: July 31, 1996
96-068va\96068pn.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL:--;ITY EMPLOYER
I .~.~"
----=roo
\ 5
--
1~3q C;
I
UJ
::::a
C(
tn
U1
c:i:.
'->
iO II
~K 5 ~-rO i~ "0 55{O
Af'Il5LSWOOD OR.
5"~3 ~.Q5 5.11\5~1"23
:3 4 3 6 7 8 Q
1'-1 O~
A \ 10
rr~. ~~
14 II 10 \ 9
\ !~
.. /J 0 IC'~~
~9 5\o\ORE. l..N. ,j .., ,
~ r' r\;~~;i:~r0 . .
'-
" r
OUTL
... \ "'~:Z\
I
- --'1..:377~--~'-
C";i'L~T F
,..<",,( ",,,,, '~
rr \ Abc{r~' -:-,~g I
\4~5 ,6 7
56C'n..Ift.L'l.NZ,4.. 5"'" .
-. - --...---- .
CF'R~\AeE. "",\\...L ~D.
::" \
PRIOF
u.
~
.
<<t
o
.:,
r
L
*'r
?
,~RIOR
Valley Surveying Co., F? A.
SUITE IZO-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA '5372
~ELEPHONE (SIZ) 447-2570
------ TRA' \..
SHOR E.. 0 ,...."'..
-----
~f. _ _ U"k.
I I.- ..50.00--
_____i9.1~
/ (
I
" I
/ I
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MARIS STOLCERS
4654 .FILMORE STREET N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTSy MN. 55421
--
I
.. .WI :
~ ;C/o
o. 0
~/N
~I~
~ 0,:
. ~ I
/ i \
/7
/ I \
~ r'\ \
..
I i I \ \
~ \
II
, I
\ I
J I
J
I I
I I
ri
(.....
~
.0"
\
\..
----
.~Q(;
~
~l :
... ( ,
~l. ~
.. .
; 0
II)
~ g
c \ g
l\I
~\,.~
". \:Q~"~
..,.. ~-
OICIC
0",
\
\
\
'104
OM COMe WAl.~
pR' OR
E\. ')02 8
4 1 261 96
PI~P":RT'l I)F":iC.'H I p'r tOO:
{.ol: 7., IHoc:i(~, NOR'MI $IKJHI-: CW':'''l., :;,:ot:t <;C'lflnt.',', ~lil1ll"l'()t..l. ^l:'o :lho"'\I11' ,.II
visihle i.nl\Jcovetnen~ imd t'!nct'oachll"~lt:i 00 to 0C' Ol t Lt'U" :\,1 ICI tJt'o~~t.t:'{ i r ,liP".
and thl! loc:ation of the elevl1tion C).l4.U conCollt' li.na.
o
i
SCALE
30
60
....,
IN
FEET
o O.nGf.. '/2 ,nelt . '4 ".cn' "on
_It' I.' """ """_.oJ II,
L,c,n,. No '0'8'
. Oettolu Ifon ."onu",.n' !ouna
'7 llenOl..,. K No.' 1.'
,..,..t.t, cpr'.'" tftO, ,"', \tJl...., ...n ~'.I)OfPtJ
0, .ft" ,.., ,JltdH "." f.ht<<, 'UO"\fI"on tJrttJ ,nu,
. 'J'" , .,,,,y 1,..~'ftfJ Lon" ~UfVry.l' yndet ,,.,~
...... ", ,,.. S/or. ," Ilt'ltn.to.u
/
~IU'" ~
L'r.''''~ '4" t,;fa ~
r". "'
~~'3U
",
l'(Jt.~
1'11/; E
~ d :Pc. ~ <;ilr~1~~
5+0 \C:1~
August 9, 1 996
My response to P I ann i ng Coord i nator's response to V ar ~ ance Hardsh i p
Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
The P I ann i ng Coord i nator's response is tota Ily without mer i t. Of course
the property wi II be used without the variance. I personally cannot
th i nk of one instance where use of property wou I d not occur where the
Ordinance (as it pertains to decks) is I iterally enforced. The response
goes on to say that a deck meet i ng the cr iter i a co-u I d be p I aced a long
the west side of the cab in. The west side of the cab i n st i II does not
meet the 751 setback. Also in order to place a deck on ~he West side
of the cab i n wou I d requ i re me to tear down an entry way that is conc-
rete based.
I would I ike to add that I iteral enforcement of the Ordinance would
resu I tin an extreme I y undue hardsh i p. Everyone likes to enjoy the i r
lakeshore property. One of the most enjoyable uses of the property is
to sit out on a deck and soak in the surround i n9s. To deny me th i s en j 0-
yment is to deny me someth i ng that a I arge number of property owners
on the I ake have.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
The P I ann i ng Coord i nator's answer aga i n makes no sense. Because the
answer to quest i on number one is No, quest i on number 2 does not have
to be answered????
My answer is that the circumstances un i que to the property do cause
the hardsh i p. The circumstances are such. The cab in was bu i I t many
years ago. The I ocat i on of the cab inputs me in a post i on that causes
me to seek the variance. Simply put, the uniqueness is the position of
the cabin. It causes me to be in a situation where I hav'e to get a
variance.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
resu I t of act ions of persons present Iy hav i ng an interest in the
property.
Again, here I don't understand the Planning Coordinator's answer. The
Ithardsh i p resu I ts from des i gn dec i s ions made by the app I i cant......
My response is that the converse is true. It is the Ord i nace that is
caus i ng the hardsh i p. I f the ord i nance is not there, I have no hardsh i p.
4. The var i ance observes the sp i r i t and intent of th i s Ord i nance, produces
substant i a I just i ce and is not contrary to the pub Ii c interest.
I totally disagree with the Planning Coordinator's comment. I am not
go i ng to comment on anyone's intent ions as I do not know what they
are, be it the Shoreland District's or anyone else's for that matter. I
wi II say this. The deck is consistent with the Natural environmental
values of the existing lake shore. It enhances the beauty of the lak.e
shore. I f we are ta I k.i ng about a tota Ily "natura I II envi ronment, then
bu i I ding perm i ts shou I d have never been granted to the maj or i ty of
property owners on the Lake. If you wi II closely examine my material,
you wi II see that I am not infringing on the lake at all. The deck is
totally on my rightful property and has absolutely no negative impact
on pub Ii c interest.
Add i t i ona I Comments:
I do not know where the 3-25-96 date on the Planning Report means
Reso I ut i on 9626PC is adopted by the Board of Adj ustment on 8-1 2-96
a date that had not occurred when I received the letter. Part of the
findings state that Board of Adjustment held hearings on 8-12-96.
How can this be when I read the letter 8-8-96 and it was postmarked
8-1-961111
:2J
Also in the DNR letter dated 8-6-96, the author talks about attaching
the deck to the back of the cabin. Obviously, he is totally ignorant of
the circumstance. The North side of the cabin is bui It into a hi II. I
have yet to see a deck that is enclosed by dirt.
Finally, I would I ike to say that there are many decks on the lake that
are within the proximity to the lake that I am requesting. I should not
be treated differently than others.
Thank. you for your cons i derat ion.
3
~
..
_1. \. '
i
~
~ -:;i~..,.~:_-=~:..~<C-'~
-'
::J
G
. ..
..
..-.;;... ".
.. ...
~..., ... .J-"
~.,T . :..,~~~..~. ~...., ..
."
.. .,":-=:"
..
~ ~~t;..-;.~:;:~.~..;..~ :'.:.~...:'?:.'.~..:...,'_.;.;..~..... .. ::.::... . ... .' ........ ..0....: ... .. ..... ....
".. .' ". .. .~;;,~;: '~;:.i.~':~~;,;:;~.{ ~~i~';:'~:;:: :~;'~~::;~t~: .;;j,}!;~::~:':!1f:j!!~:.;;: :;:: '.~ ;::
.. ,
... - .,..
.... - ---.... ...
;~..~:~~..~::.:.;.i~;::;;;':::-: : :', ~.._:'.... .... . ':~.".".' -.. ..-
0... ." : . ".:' :::'~':.j: ~~)1: [,~;~~:':;::::;':~~:':,,i;
"1
-- .~ 1',- j 0
1010\' en
~:z: : ~ 0
~ \ v 0
:l 0
/; en II: d
\ CD ~,~c;
/ i \ N
, ;..,,; c;~
, ~ !\ \ ~-
J '" 9:9- ~ y.OV
:> \
4f I
a: I \
<:I I
I ~I \
I I j
r ,
I
~9 .9"
: PECK
! 0
pp
~.
~.
~.
c,~
I
/
PROPOSED 10' x 20.58 DECK
904-
PRIOR
N?3~~' 83_
sctJ", li~ 4<'05" - - EI.. 9~
Oflo/ < W
LAKE
ON CONe. WALL
SHORELINE'
902.8
"EL .
4 / 26 I 96
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2, Block 2, NORTH SHORE CREST, Scott County, Minnesota. Also ~
visible improvements and encroachments on to or off fcom said proper
and the location of the elevation 904.0 contour line.
Revi sed 5 {
o
I
SCALE
30
IN
60
I
I hereby ce:
by me or un
I am a duly
IaW~" the
tA~
Date b- --
FEET
o Denotes 1/2 inch x 14 inch iron
monument s.t and marked by
License No 10183
. Denotes iron monument found
~ Denotes P K Naif set
8'
FILE No.
8zse
~ . '). ,
RAIL ~"X If''
~
nl' ;f,(' ;
.1 .
! I I.,
. I. I
:,.1. I .:
. I. .1
.1' '1 I' I
.: ! I 'II I ~I ; ;:
~~t~~Ja~l ",
.1
381.
l'
BEAM
~-~'X/O"
SO ;T,t
l'-1A~u~Ac:-r-UQ.f.~ :;... x8
BE-A.M Su PPoa.--=-
7~'
POST
~ /I 'f.. (P "
BROWN
TREA TED
BU!.LDI.~e
:>
P:tN
G-RAOE4,
~If
1
rJ~i~
q
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 12, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The August 12, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall, Wuellner,
Stamson and Criego, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John
Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Wuellner
Kuykendall
Stamson
V onhof
Criego
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE THE
JULY 22, 1996, MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson.
MINUTES APPROVED.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case 96-068 - Maris Sto1cers, requesting a lake shore setback of 0 feet for the
construction of a deck to an existing cabin at 5395 Shore Trail NE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report
dated August 12, 1996. Staff recommended denial of the application because the applicant
does not demonstrate a lack of hardship and has legal alternatives allowing reasonable use of
the property. The DNR recommendation was for denial.
Comments from the public:
Maris Stolcers, owner of the property, passed out a written response and photos regarding his
hardship. Stolcers explained how the proposed deck would be constructed on the 904 lake
level. He does not believe the DNR response is accurate. He feels what he is proposing is
not unique to other decks on the lake. Mr. Stolcers is willing to decrease the width of the
deck by one foot to 9' x 20' .
! ."
MN081296.DOC
PAGEl
Andy Valdmanis, 5405 Shore Trail, a neighbor, stated he had no problem with the
applicant's proposal and feels it would enhance the property. There is no other place to put a
deck. He feels the DNR sends out form letters and do not come out and look at properties.
Comments from Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Applicant was well prepared with his comments on the hardship criteria.
. Clarification on date of report and Resolution.
. The variance hardship criteria are not met on 2 or 3 issues.
. There are other alternatives.
Kuykendall:
. Concurs with Commissioner V onhof.
. Comparisons by applicant are not similar. The photos are not applicable.
. The DNR is correct - there are other alternatives. The deck can be detached and accomplish
the same as having a deck.
. Applicant can build on the slope.
. There are alternatives, it may not be convenient, but can be accomplished.
. Support staff recommendation of denial.
Stamson:
. Concurs with Commissioners.
. There are other alternatives.
. Not being able to build a deck is not a hardship.
. Agrees with staff:
Wuellner:
. Questioned applicant on the level of the home on the survey. Applicant responded the 904 is
at the concrete wall. The home did flood in 1965.
. The 904 high water mark was broke in 1993 and there was a lot of property damage.
. Possible damage with an ice-out.
. Concern for another high water year that could damage the home.
. There are other options. Criteria has not been met.
Criego:
. No additional comments.
Mr. Stolcers feels the Commissioners would help him enhance his property.
Kuykendall explained the variance procedures and the problems with a home being on the
high water mark.
Criego suggested going to the City and find out what the platform deck requirements would
be for his property.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-
26PC BASED ON THE FACT THE FOUR VARIANCE HARDSmpS HAVE NOT BEEN
MET.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 2
V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case 96-071 - Dave Smith, requesting an impervious surface coverage of34% for the
construction of a garage and driveway for the property at 2950 Spring Lake Road.
Kansier presented the information from the Staff Report dated August 12, 1996. Staff
recommends denial of the request due to the lack of demonstrated hardship. The DNR report
pointed out Minnesota Rules limits impervious surface to 25% of the lot in a shoreland
district while the City allows 30%.
Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, said the neighborhood lots are similar. The lots were
platted before the City Ordinances were in place. He also pointed out he lives on a sharp
corner where there is heavy traffic and is safer for him to back around in the driveway. The
garage was approved.
Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, a neighbor, explained Mr. Smith's situation. He
pointed out neighbors have had variances granted and Mr. Smith's request is consistent with
the neighborhood. The hardship is from the aspect from public safety. Many people speed
in the area. He is aware of the DNR criteria. Mr. Smith does have a home business and the
neighbors would appreciate him storing his equipment in a garage. Mr. Smith has worked
hard to improve the property and the proposed addition would further improve it.
Comments from Commissioners.
Stamson:
· He understands the applicant and neighbors, but the standards have not been met.
. The house and garage meet the livable use area. There are other legal options.
Wuellner:
. The property is substandard. The Commission approved the garage because it was consistent
with the neighborhood and would not detract from the properties in the area.
. If the Commission had this same information at the previous hearing the design would have
to be changed to meet the impervious surface standards.
. The garage area and driveway could be reduced. Impervious surface coverage is important.
. Kansier responded the City requires a paved driveway and a gravel driveway is still
impervious surface coverage.
V onhof:
. The City did not see there was an impervious surface issue and did not address it at the first
meeting.
. Impervious surface is a big issue. If there is some way to reduce the size of the driveway
and get it down to 30% the Commission could look at that more favorably. The City
standard for impervious surface is 30%.
MN081296.DOC
PAGE 3
RESOLUTION 96-108
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL DENYING A VARIANCE
APPEAL BY MARIS STOLCERS, CASE NO. 96-068
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 4th day of November,
1996, to act on an appeal by Maris Stolcers of the Planning Commission's
denial of a request for a Shoreland setback variance for property legally
described as Lot 2, Block 2, North Shore Crest 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 Maris Stolcers for a
variance to the Shore land setback.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of November, 1996.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{ Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
R96-CC.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER