HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Ramsey Appeal
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 19, 2004
7A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS ON TWO CONTIGUOUS
(Case File #04-89)
Historv: On June 14, 2004, the Planning Commission
denied John and Iris Ramsey's request for variances to
construct two single family dwellings on two contiguous
nonconforming lots under common ownership located at
15966 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 16, Sunfish Bay) and 15979
Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 17, Sunfish Bay).
The Commission found that there was no hardship
involved. The Ordinance requiring the combination of
contiguous, nonconforming lots held in common
ownership is intended to reduce the number of
nonconforming lots. It was written with this type of
situation in mind. The combination occurs by operation
of the Ordinance. To allow two lots to be created would
violate the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Commission
also noted this Ordinance was written to comply with
State rules. The City Attorney has noted the decision to
deny this variance is also consistent with case law.
Where the Ordinance was adopted in 1999, property
owners were given nearly a 6 month grace period to sell
of the parcels, since the Ordinance did not become
effective until May, 2000.
Backaround: Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance
permits any owner of affected property within 350 feet of
the subject property to appeal the decision of the Board
of Adjustment (Planning Commission) to the City Council.
On June 18, 2004, Bernie Mahowald, on behalf of Mr.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramsey\cc repow.woccityofpriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
and Ms. Ramsey, appealed the Planning Commission's
decision.
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1
(Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland Overlay
District), and is guided R-L1MD (Urban Low/Medium
Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Map. The applicant owns Lot 16 and Lot 17,
Sunfish Bay, which were platted in 1925. A small cabin
occupies the property. Prior to 1997, there were two
cabins on the property. One of the two cabins was
destroyed by fire, and in 1997 it was demolished.
Nonconforming structures are not, by Ordinance,
permitted to be rebuilt if destroyed by more than 50
percent.
The subject property was platted as two lots. Each lot
has a separate tax identification number, but they are
under common ownership. The applicant is contending
that since the property was platted as two lots and there
are two PIDs, they are entitled to two dwellings. In 1983,
the property was assessed on a front footage basis
rather than a per lot basis for a City improvement project.
In order to construct the two single family dwellings
shown on Attachment 3, the following variances are
required:
1. A variance from Section 1101.501 (3) c. that
precludes the subdivision of two contiguous
nonconforming lots under common ownership.
2. A 36.01 foot variance from the 86 feet of minimum
width required for lots in the R-1 use district for Lots
16 and Lot 17 (Section 1102.405(3).)
3. A 3,862 square foot variance from the 12,000 square
foot minimum lot area in the R-1 use district for Lot 16
(Section 1102.405 (3).)
4. A 4,140 square foot variance from the 12,000 square
foot minimum lot area in the R-1 use district for Lot 17
(Section 1102.405 (3).)
ISSUES:
The applicant would like to construct two new single
family dwellings on two contiguous nonconforming lots of
record under common ownership. The Zoning Ordinance
precludes the construction of two dwellings on one lot.
More important, Section 1101.501 (3) c. of the Zoning
Ordinance states:
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramseylcc report. doc
2
1. if 2 or more lots or combinations of lots and portions
of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership
are of record at the time of or subsequent to the
passage or amendment to this Ordinance, and
2. if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements
established for lot area and width, [then]
3. the lands involved shall be considered to be an
individual parcel for the purpose of this Ordinance,
and
4. no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a
manner which diminishes compliance with lot area or
lot width requirements established by the Ordinance,
5. nor shall any division of any parcel be made which
creates a lot with area or width below the
requirements of this Ordinance."
Both Lot 16 and 17 are owned by the applicant, and as
Table 1 indicates that neither Lot 16 nor Lot 17 comply
with minimum R-1 use district requirements.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF LOTS 16 & 17 TO ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Lot 16 Lot 17
Requirements
Lot area 12,000 sq. ft. 8,138sq.ft. 7,860 sq. ft.
Lot width 86 ft. 49.99 ft. 49.99 ft.
Thus, Section 1101.501 (3) c. considers the property one
parcel of land, regardless of whether it was platted as two
lots. And it precludes the subdivision of land for two
dwellings.
The survey submitted with the variance application
indicates the two proposed dwellings would comply with
the minimum required setbacks and maximum
impervious surface standards should the requests be
approved.
Variance HardshiD Findinas: Section 1108.400 of the
Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment
may grant a Variance from the strict application of the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that:
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
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramsey\cc report.doc
3
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.
There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions
on the property to warrant variances for the
construction of two dwellings. The property owner
has not demonstrated an undue hardship because a
single family dwelling can be constructed on the
property without variances.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in
question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use
District in which the land is located.
The conditions applying to the property are not
peculiar to this site. There are numerous parcels of
land in the R-1 use district that contain multiple lots of
record. It is common for lots that were platted prior to
the 1930s to be combined into one parcel for a larger
buildable area. The combined lot area of 15,998
square feet and the combined frontage of 100' are not
much greater than the required 12,000 square feet of
lot area and 86' of frontage.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a property right. One
single family dwelling can be constructed on the
property without relief from the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the proposed variance will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent
property.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramsey\cc report. doc
4
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 variance will impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood
because it will permit the construction of two single
family dwellings on property that is entitled to only one
dwelling.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be
contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "provide
for the elimination of all nonconforming uses and
certain other nonconformities." Permitting the
subdivision of the parcel into two lots would violate
the Zoning Ordinance that was specifically adopted to
preclude situations such as this.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve
as a convenience to the appellant but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The granting of the variances will serve as a
convenience to the applicant. It is more convenient
for the applicant to construct two dwellings on the
property. Since one dwelling can be constructed
without variances, the requested variances are not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship
or difficulty.
8. The hardship results from the application of the
provisions of this Ordinance to the affected
property and does not result from actions of the
owners of the property.
The alleged hardship does not result from the
application of the provision precluding the subdivision
of contiguous nonconforming lots under common
ownership, but from the property owner's actions.
1:\04 IIIesl04 appealslramsey\cc report.doc
5
CONCLUSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
REVIEWED BY:
9. Increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for
granting a Variance.
Economic considerations alone can never be the
basis for a variance. Increased development or
construction costs are not the basis for the variance
requests.
The applicant would like to construct two new single
family dwellings on the property. In order to do so,
several variances are required.
The strict application of the ordinance precluding the
subdivision of two or more nonconforming lots under
common ownership does not create a hardship for the
property owner. One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is
to eliminate nonconformities. Allowing the subdivision of
the combined parcel is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance.
Moreover, the property owner can construct one new
dwelling on the property without the need for variances.
Based upon the findings in this report, staff
recommended denial. The Planning Commission
supported staffs recommendation and denied the
variance request.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and
deny the appeal.
2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and
grant the appeal. If this is the case, the Council should
direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact
approving the variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This alternative
requires a motion and second adopting a resolution
upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to
deny the requeste Variance.
1:104 lilesl04 appealslramseylcc report. doc
6
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 04-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRECLUDING THE
SUBDIVISION OF TWO CONTIGUOUS NONCONFORMING LOTS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP,
A 36.01 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 86 FEET OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR LOT 16 AND 17, A
3,862 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR
LOT 16, AND A4,140 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT
AREA FOR LOT 17 (SECTION 1102.405 (3).)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, John and Iris Ramsey are requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance for the
construction of two single family dwellings on property located in the R-1SD (Low
Density Residential Shoreland District) use district at the following location, located at
15966 and 15976 Sunfish Trail SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16 and Lot 17, Sunfish Bay, Scott County, Minnesota
and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case File 04-52, and held a hearing thereon June 14, 2004; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 04-52 and Case File 04-89, and held a hearing
thereon on July 19, 2004.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) 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.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld, and said variance should be denied.
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramsey\uphold resolution.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
a. Bernie Mahowald, on behalf of John and Iris Ramsey, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on June 18, 2004.
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal 01 the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 04-52 and Case File 04-89, and held a hearing thereon on July 19, 2004.
c. 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.
d. There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the property to warrant Variances for the
construction of two dwellings. The property owner has not demonstrated an undue hardship
because a single family dwelling can be constructed on the property without Variances.
e. The conditions applying to the property are not peculiar to this site. There are numeroUS parcels
of land in the R-1 use district that contain multiple lots of record. It is common for lots that were
platted prior to the 1930s to be compiled into one parcel for a larger buildable area.
f. The granting of the Variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property
right. One single family dwelling can be constructed on the property without relief from the
Zoning Ordinance.
g. The granting of the Variance will impact on the character and development of the neighborhood
because it will permit the construction of two single family dwellings on property that is entitled to
only one dwelling. .
h. One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "provide for the elimination of all nonconforming uses
and certain other nonconformities." Permitting the subdivision of the parcel into two lots would
violate the Zoning Ordinance that was specifically adopted to preclude situations such as this.
i. The granting of the Variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant. It is more convenient
for the applicant to construct two dwellings on the property. Since one dwelling can be
constructed without Variances, the requested Variances are not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
j. The alleged hardship does not result from the application of the provision precluding the
subdivision of contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership, but from the property
owner's actions.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 04-52 and Planning Case File 04-89 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of July, 2004.
YES
NO
HauQen Hauaen
BlomberQ BlomberQ
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal)
City Manager
1:\04 files\04 appeals\ramsey\uphold resolution.doc
Page 2
Location Map for
15966 & 15976 Sunfish Trail SE
); I
\ 1
11,-___
1 LL
E
~
:-----.-
--~,- [
_____ I
200
1
o
200 400 Feet
1
~<;;
~- ~
Property Locatio~__n
! - -J .
mil C)
I r--I- I ---.
-~-- LCl
N
+
----------
-----------~
_______~ 1
._-------_...-,_._-.-._~-~_.,._~-..._.__.._,._----'_....--- -_..- --"-,--,-,,,-'-'--'-'-"~--'---'-'-'-'-'---
TOPOGRAPHICAl BOUNDARY SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
MAHOWALD BUILDERS
7877 WEST 150TH STREET
PRIOR lAKE, loiN ~J72
PH. (952) 447-
VALLEY SL
16670 FRANKL
PRIOR
PH.
FAX
; I
L.
,.,
V
[.0'3
1 ~
I :J
~,
"
~
~
.....,
...."
,
"I
I
I
I
....
Go
.....
" ....1110 III _ noo_
. ~...._[O ,
. ... ../ ",
'- \.~ · "6 '"
;'\C~ ; I ~-d-1 "
U\\":\t \ J7l1~ ~:~:[O " 1'~ ~
,,, ,,' ~ ---Jr'.() ~ ' \...~ 'I ~ ;;S
r..F~ 1 '(:-~ 1..;_- u:,-- ~ I " . -:)_ (~.? L-__ Ql t'"
HH~tlO~ t ' ~-~.'j"'--....:...o.-7~~ "''-l
,........ ;* 1..,'- S:
,"~ "0 I . 589-2' . ~, ,
~l"" ~Ol"'" >.J
l:';~o ..'(;;,;--.....--0 '. ' '8, .
l~~~~\,;\~ ~ .. \.....,..... ~f---.\~
',. (. l,y'~A~) r: I '~-~l
. \ "' .'\" ,- 10 ~::~o:tOI I..~
\ \ i'r" ~lL' ....~
;.l,\:i,"'~-' :'H ';;"'ll
\:'1' -<:'..7' 0 -------l._- / ~"';';
/,.::. ~ r ~: I I ~I \.... _ .i
\~,j,.Li \2: ,~' I _ ~ . _
...............--.. S89'5~'J~'[1 753.68 , ., '''-'''ir'''''-''
I '
, I I I
..,-,
I
.
.
...
~
~
~
Vi
';l::)
~
~
~
S>
..,-
I
\ I n
\ L. V
\ "
\
L-
\ I n
L. V
\
---t- \-1-
I
J.
l _..: ' ,
.~- I I
SC<U '"
60
1
nn
. DCNO~ IItON AlCW()J.lCNT FOUND
o DeNOTeS IRON AIOMIUCNT SCT AND /JARUD
BY LICENSe NO.I018J OR NO. 42J()g
800k 246 Pog. IJ
filii No. 9SJ8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2004
Kansier clarified staff's setback recommendation with the overhang.
Stams n explained to the applicant he could come back with a redesign, accept the
varianc s or reapply.
McGuire id he would like to table it to an indefinite date. Kansier sai
to appear b re September 8th. Her recommendation was to table to
in August.
e would have
e second meeting
McGuire would I:i e to do something within 30 days or ma
renovating the cabi
Stamson asked if this ign was custom designed. cGuire said he has talked to 3
different architects to co e up with this type of ign. He's not sure ifhe can redesign
it. He would rather table it or a month and if' s not ready table it again.
Stamson explained t idea of tabling is to co e back with something close to
recommendations. f the proposal comes back astically different then deny and start
over.
He will
Kansier suggested it would be
indefmitely. Instruct the applic to
have to sign a waiver. Staff needs
McGuire said 6 weeks would
9th.
emke, Second by Stamson, to table the p lie hearing to August 9, 2004.
Kan . er explained the publication requirements.
ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
~
B. #04-52 John and Iris Ramsey are requesting 4 variances to construct two
single family dwellings on two contiguous nonconforming lots under common
ownership located at 15966 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 16, Sunfish Bay) and 15979
Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 17, Sunfish Bay).
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 14, 2004,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
John and Iris Ramsey are requesting variances to construct two single family dwellings
on two contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership located at 15966
Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 16, Sunfish Bay) and 15979 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 17, Sunfish
Bay).
L:I04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinuteslIune 14.doc
6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14. 2004
In order to construct the two single family dwellings the following variances are required:
a) A variance from Section 1101.501 (3) c. that precludes the subdivision of two
contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership.
b) A 36.01 foot variance from the 86 feet of minimum width required for lots in the
R-1 use district for Lots 16 and Lot 17 (Section 1102.405(3).)
c) A 3,862 square foot variance from the 12,000 square foot minimum lot area in the
R-1 use district for Lot 16 (Section 1102.405 (3).)
d) A 4,140 square foot variance from the 12,000 square foot minimum lot area in the
R-1 use district for Lot 17 (Section 1102.405 (3).)
A small cabin occupies the property. Prior to 1997, there were two cabins on the
property. One of the two cabins was destroyed by fire, and in 1997 it was demolished.
The subject property was platted as two lots. Each lot has a separate tax identification
number, but they are under common ownership. The applicant is contending that since
the property was platted as two lots and there are two PIDs, they are entitled to two
dwellings. In 1983, the property was assessed on a front footage basis rather than a per
lot basis for a City improvement project.
Section 1101.501(3) c. considers the property one parcel ofland, regardless of whether it
was platted as two lots. And it precludes the subdivision of land for two dwellings.
The strict application of the ordinance precluding the subdivision of two or more
nonconforming lots under common ownership does not create a hardship for the property
owner. One purpose ofthe Zoning Ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities. Allowing
the subdivision of the combined parcel is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. Moreover,
the property owner can construct one new dwelling on the property without the need for
variances. Based upon the findings staff recommended denial.
Lemke questioned what the affect would be ifthe assessment was done by two lots and
two different owners in terms of money. Kansier explained the process of front footage
versus lot unit. The assessment would have been the same.
Comments from the public:
Applicant John Ramsey, read into the record his memo to the Planning Commission
dated June 14,2004.
Craig Chisholm, 15981 West Ave SE, noted the entire neighborhood only had 4 homes
on 50 foot lots. Chisholm stated John Ramsey told him at an earlier time he would put
only one home on the two lots. Chisholm would like to see him follow through. It's too
crowded for the area.
Rick Rybek, 16000 Sunfish Trail, questioned what the properties would be used for. If
L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc
7
"....___..._'.._m_~,~~___..,_..~____,_____._____....~...________.______.. ______."...__"__.___~_____~_.._._____.._. _.._..._.. . __._________.___..__
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14. 2004
they are going to be rental homes, he wouldn't want it. The house/cabin referring to was
condemned. How did the City let that happened? The neighborhood is trying to clean
up. The neighborhood is zoned R I, all the lots have lake access. Rental property is not
conducive to the neighborhood.
Bernie Mahowald, a builder said the point is not whether they build one or two homes.
The plan was to build two homes, one for the Ramseys and one for their daughter. The
point is, the Ramseys have owned these lots since the 1930's and paid taxes on two lots
and should be allowed to build two separate homes. Call it non-conforming but it is two
separate lots and they are entitled to have two homes. It was common to combine lots for
one larger single home. That is not what the applicant wants to do. The applicant did not
do anything to make them non-conforming. There is a hardship. Mahowald would like
to see the Planning Common use a little bit of common sense and grandfather this
property in.
Chris Ramsey, the applicant's daughter, said she plans on living in the house next door.
In the 70's their parents owned 6 lots and sold 2 lots to pay for the sewer and water on the
other four lots. That was a lot of money for her parents to absorb because the City wants
one house instead of two.
Doug Hadac, 4308 Bass Street, said his concern is for the neighborhood. They are
currently living in his in-law's homes built in 1957. The neighborhood should be in the
best condition and usable to everyone. Putting two houses in a small area is adding more
congestion. Hadac recommended staying with the current ordinances. He said he has
nothing personal against Mr. Ramsey but felt two homes would not benefit the
neighborhood.
Iris Ramsey, said most of the homes in the area are built on 50 foot lots. They will build
a nice home and landscape the property. The applicant would live in one house and their
daughter the other. The Ramseys have separate tax statements for sewer and water.
They are fighting the ordinance. They just witnessed the previous applicant, Mr.
McGuire build on a smaller lot. There wouldn't be a problem if it were not for the
adjoining lot ordinance. They need two lots with two homes. It is not a matter of them
not wanting to comply with the City, it is a matter of need.
Rick Ryback, 16000 Sunset Trail, asked if the applicants still own the rental property
next door. They already own two more homes next door. That would take care of it.
Another thing to look at is there really two separate water and sewer lines to each lot. If
it was assessed for one lot, that is it. That should be checked into.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Obviously there are emotions in this matter with Mr. Mahowald using remarks to
L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute.lInne 14.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 2004
use "common sense".
. Agree with staff's Findings - the hardships are not met. The City is trying to get
away from the nonconforming lots.
. Based on the ordinance - agree with staff.
Lemke:
. If these two lots were owned by two separate individuals it would be the same as
the previous applicant. Kansier agreed.
. Understand the intent of the zoning ordinance to reduce the nonconforming lots in
situations that we can. On one level I can agree with that but it doesn't mean I
have to like the ordinance.
. Mr. Mahowald had excellent remarks. Can't argue against him.
. I would feel the same but I can't change the law. As much as I would like to
support this I can't.
Atwood:
. I agree. The congestion in the neighborhood is not a reason to grant their request
or having rental property is not a reason to deny, but because this is mandated, I
cannot support this.
. Talked to staff and this ordinance was adopted in 1999 and was State mandated.
It was nothing the City did. It is State issued.
. It is with deep regret to deny the request.
Stamson:
. Generally when we look at variances and hardship criteria, we are looking for
unintended consequences.
. In this particular case the ordinance was written with this exact situation in mind.
. It was not done lightly, the City was resisting. The State mandated it and we had
to require that substandard lots owned by the same person could not be split.
. We can't grant an ordinance because of the intent. This is a buildable lot. The
intent is doing what it is suppose to do.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
. Asked what the grandfathering was. Stamson said there was no grandfathering.
The intent of the ordinance was to take all the small lots and combine them. The
intent of the ordinance is doing exactly what is happening in this request.
. There was a great amount of discussion. Everyone knew it was not going to be
popular.
. There was a 6 month grace period before the ordinance went into affect in order
to provide people an opportunity to deal with it.
. We do not disagree with the intent but the problem is that it created a situation
where we treat a single person differently owning two lots versus two people
owning one lot.
L:I04 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc
9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14. 2004
Stamson disagreed and explained.
Motion by Perez, Second by Stamson, adopting Resolution 04-03PC denying variances to
allow for the subdivision of two nonconforming lots for the construction of two single
family dwellings.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier pointed out the 5 day appeal process.
A recess was called at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m.
C. #04-71 Patty Simberg is requesting a variance to cons ct a porch addition
to an existl single family dwelling located at 17256 Horizo Trail SE (Lot 9, Block
6, Woodridg states 2nd Addition).
Planning Coordin or Jane Kansier presented the Planning eport dated June 14,2004,
on file in the office f the City Planning Department.
Patty Simberg is reque . ng a variance to construct a orch addition to an existing single
family dwelling located a 17256 Horizon Trail. In rder to construct the porch a 7.7 foot
variance from the required foot rear yard setb is required.
The lot was platted in 1993. T
park lies between the property Ii
family dwelling was constructed. deck i attached to the existing dwelling, but there is
no record of a building permit issue
The strict application of the 25 foot re ard setback does not create an undue hardship.
A single family dwelling with three- all age and a deck is present on the property.
The Planning Commission has not onsider a porch an essential element for a single
family home. Based upon the fi ings in this eport, staff recommended denial of the
variance request.
Perez questioned if the orig' al plan included a dec Kansier said it was not part of the
building permit nor on the urvey.
Comments from the
Patty Simberg, pre nted the proposed porch plans. The rea on she decided to enclose
the deck is beca e it is so high and enclosing it would be a jj tter use of the space. The
deck was not 0 the original plans but the deck was on the house when they purchased
the home.
The public hearing was closed.
L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc
10
FROM A
FAX I-D.
Jul. 05 2003 01:03AM Pi
JOHNB. AND IRIS A. RAMS
i
I .
@
561/9 12tl, .,1vei'</.II! South
~ltlil1H.etl:)()lis, 1~1i1{Jle$Of{I~ 554! l?
(;::>823-5875
/' :,.,.',:::,:::.t~'.'."!I:.~~f:~~~0:~i:;.
. ..... ,..,.~-" '(
,.<~; " r' ,':'. :;.,,',., ,<";, ,'" , ,,'.,,.. . /. ;0"',;' " '
"",,1.,. ""~""''''''''''''''''''_I l',.!j;~~ .
").D!:'fj~.t~:~~;'Gt. ~;~!'.J;:~';'
'~'l:"~'i:W::il,:",..:..:t,~
~'}'" i ~~).:t"'~J(,'1
';""'!"~l,r.>iII',...-
d;~..::_~'Ji:"".,,"
,,"';I' ...,..."'.........
-::;I
~/17/ 0,/
C!. i"ty ~V.w(:.I'-
c:. t"ty L
~r 1"'1f'!,'n I..A~~
/ (,;J.DO - .C!.A~1, ~
F ~ PVi5 S,G
;etOIC LI"IV& 'P';/ .... '
~ SO] 7.2. -/71'1
wi- WCVLIP J,.I/L~ H AJPI"~L (,/# O(;.<4.0<lH <)tf.
THr fN'/'lIVNIN/... e..iA7/>>Jfl'l'wJ, /'<'4..1(:- ~H6- Ih-L{) c.-.' :r/i1".,;;!
11(,) (#6'f~ ,t:.l) 1..;... '" "'i/4-
- .to flC'{i! To ~ I",,r...
r~ 7".. <!-I ry Cl1vIV(:./{.. ,:. 'THlf ~-.- - -.! 1::1(-<:1.s",,"';
hl>."""'.....t
~u~~~--
~n.: a &e
~
F,S.
111'1- s./tc..,..,p h.Vle ..~....'41 Iff. ~~..1'?6? ,ir "I'/'t p-""",~
..., i'".~ IiIr.."I
t:"~I$7"".1I JeA",rry _ ~ PNtll.f. cHI( If, ",,,,.oj Pl',....~(p,? ~""'v
/.i'~J'l,jj AS ~ 11:7/_w-r "f~' €-fW "~r'7> 7''''~ 571'p"",Tf J"" ....,.,-:.
I'tlrc( "11J1(;~ S(.,hcx. ~t"."""". ~"'~ d v....y ~.~J"Wi!'/;""~ A_ ~^,i"C_
/;/ Ti-/'f )>i,"'H~U..r ~<i-Iv>" :>'Isn",~ .,,'. H",~,.,r"Att,___;I""r$p7JrG ,,,n77...J )'",7".
re l fior..u ",~"'H/IWIALP
FROM A
FAX f-O.
J~l. 05 2003 01:03AM P2
I
JOHN B. AND IRISA. RAMSEY
~c7'S ...'/tt:w $1#1_"" ~.r fI~t!!! ...,...,$
.1''' (-1 ,,,, """,7'"11. C ",... .t:>fw",?,) "9'" ~ ,."....,)
C!iJ li'1'1I"vL ....".. .". i/?"""'1">>#LFy ~,.''''' H' It./) v""'*' wlft-rle.
c.rh>~ W_S I"''''''' .......,a F~/l. IN. i<!1rrf..H'fI1'....-r-
(J) 111~," /If "',.. """,1"'1"'/ ~ ~T S'I '-6. 1.,,-"'$ CH;thl-r-, 7'>> 7' $" r r
w.-. "'U{! ..,...., w,- ...._IP &"'...IF F~- ,,IV., ,. 'I
(J, T'r' """''''N'fn.S {,..,It~u,tl<P ...In.. AI_"'''''' ~"r ,,'Z.~ w..... TD ~r)
(!!) I'1'I1t? ,.,..,( u, t:.",~#tIs 'f$A "'kJ.. 1+""SI1<-J1 p*r
'fA ttIJ ":1...,,, tfl''''lI 1"'11'$ ?'b4 7wo S___r4 I-o"-S,
<!"_.. H.......c. - ~_ ~/1tI''''''''''J
(t) T~v. ,,,r,f: f'o.-L '1ft,1It 1,.,,11.+ WDV"'" 111.. J-ISS ':'1<
OYII{Z- 1'10.J'~ ps a.""~ T~ .,..... 1-1.".....5.
fI) it."" "",t.M ,.$ CiJlC 7';tl,~.,.~ ~"V"I.~ B t I2..Qv<:.""'''-
I. n Ori~ /...7", fiNP (f)n'1/I. 1+."1$ ~!
(!i) ""',, HTS 'n' SIl~f'(HI /11"'1 ",,,,,,'T,,IV,",, j/lICl! p..orTIe1
'" .. oS ",.if, IJI'f to"" r P&1"'$.
6"c p'r J. .Tt, ,AN>? ",,,..1' pH.._
S6~:j.~~~ ) .1(h t~~venJ.lf! S~;uih
lldil!llefipoli:" JlUmW;ii)i'{j 5S4 f 7
(;'J :2 -,t:23..Sl.~ 75
}JnsrnseJ'(?t,H,$f(..fO;'fi
.,... v,~_
I r -"''/ tJ"rl~"'"
')
(J) fll~~tff~"
STATE COPY
CNGLOSE THIS COpy WiTH
FORM M-:~R WHEN Fil.ING
i=O~ A ~E r.UND rROM THe
MINNesOTA DEPARTMENT
OF R!::VEI\UE
il (hi$: DoK io ch~(l~, Yi)\l
;jWOOQ1il'tQuCr'ltt:\'iR!l.
n
'--.--J
..:::---
;j
(PROPi:nT'( 1.0: (: R 250430110
'..
TAXPAYU'I JOHN B & IRIS A RAMSey
5609 ,2TH AVE S
MINNeAPOUS MN MIl17-2ll20
--- - _.-- --. --~-- .....,,--. ._~.- - ...... -. ... .... --_."
,
"/1'1/ "if
~.ry . f. "''''''K ~"'K.r
,"u'" ~"'.. I.&>r II, "t /1
lit..U.... JtV'7' .ltI,.,h;;1o ,,;<tot fft.
--'L-
STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAX PAYABLE IN 2004
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
2003
20.000
,
.
I .._
I Eiitimilttd Mil.ri<.l:t Value:
I N,vJlmpro\l<<nltntli:
, Tt~i.I~ll<.1 Ul""~M VslUi:
Ilmpro\llment;E.lI.r.:IOJdad:
j M.1pn Un.1 A.rnal.r11:
1 M-l PH Ljr1i12 Al'l"iOl.I"Il:
I :::::
2004
~1
I
I
I
I
2(),OOO
15,800
NIA
17.700
Nil>.
~SROO
274.00
R.S. NON.HSTD
Il€S NON-H!lTD
\
\..._--- ..
I
-)
_."_.____.__._____w ."_ _..,~.._,..._~,."..__...._ ..'. ... .____.__.__..__.__...__,__,_____~__
..,... ..,".."1""1"'1 ..........nv
f'HOf'EttTY 1M :liHUtMtN I t'AYAllLt 111 il:UU..
.........-AUT0**3..0IGIT 554
TAXPAYER,
JOhN a & IRIS A FlAMSEY
ijfJOe 12TH AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55417-2520
1,1.1..1,1"1..111I11I",1..1,1,1.1".1.11I",11",1,1..11,,,\
PROPERTY i.D.: (1l2504.30,TO
TAX SlJNR&H BAY
CESC-; LOT-01$
(.i~ UIt tI'I;f1l.n'IO",I,l on FNI"!! :vI,.~PRto l;~lI1if yrJU'rtJlJligitJlCi'C.r ('I ~p~rtytll~ t"llttund.
~ r:;I<j,\I~,,~ll!N,.;i, ~f,.I{ lI'il; bei": i~ ch;;i:kFld: YOu 0,"". d.Iir\QU4i'ntt~t",ll.nd OLr~"r.\.I~ clilJibliJ,'
! .2. U.,. thi~ ~moun~ lor lnt.' s.p::c:i.\! :;lr(l!~~!~lytai r~lltl/J 01'1 ~r.hf!dUle 1 of Form M,'PA
I
I
I
I
I ",,,.,,
I, ~: ~':;:!fJU~J;~'~;~1 trw PRIOR,LAKE
I ::
I
I"
Your P,oper1:1 Tax And How It Is RedUQed By The Slate
~. YO~r ;l~~:X>rTy \~ ~IQrl.) !'t.1(!,:~:ti",~ l"IY ntAtA'P~Cl Aid~ a."ld QrtCi'ls
~" Ak; p.:.\;o:I bv ,!~,:.' ~~~: ,(.1 MI,:'u'~'Ml;) tr. r'lld~~ ,your ~rCl~rt'J tA.\:
5. Crt;oits pa;d by lhtl ~lllie Qr MirlrltlU(l(C\ to i'r.d~loo )'OI,U' pmf';;rty tAl(:
A. H()11i~h~l;d ~nd .J.Clr:.::~I!I,Jn:tJ Ol'~di\r,f
e. 01i"iOr'Crelji~ .
~. Y"'.;f,;~l~:'~ l~ 3t':1!!1 rl!Ct.:C1Lon ~y 11R'9Iid aid, ,1lr~.~.~:,?,:\Y.
Where Your Propertv Tax Oollat1t Go
SCll0tll cll~llkl: 0719
,\. VCi~; atlprovec isvlsi
G. 011'"",), 1r.;Cli 11~\lie!';
s~~c:..; :~ir:tl d:r.trl~t A. ~li.;p.HIalTII&I.iD& Din-icts
,Ii. OUltPS~iIlTAltiDQ: D~,lrii
CT!&Ioltl~1l1 '
D._IDI.JICII'llY
'^
,~.
,
\14,
\itl~i IK:~"~~": "O",,;,~ :'Pi-l O'II~I:! !'..:I~;I(Hl..::a :C:,,:ii~t1
To1~1 r,rG~~Itr' 11;( bet('I~ ~~iil!' a~Sf!3:irrl'::n'i%.
SP"',ci,cd M~!'!~Ui'\1Qr\t~
Printlipal:
o
Inl"rcot:
\ 15. YIJUI=i iOTAl.. PRm)l:;R'f't' r;:.x ANti :Jfec;.lAL "'~I:~lWC:t.l"t~
I
\-
. ,
. .1.!AI!\tIl\I10l we referenee.
"
)
a
1{'~" .
..'C!~
l J.l.J''-'ltlt
PAYABlE IN 2003
[ ,N.;lmprollUfMnI-:;;
'j ~It\),~~~d_ ~.r~lt. VallJt;
, laxable MarKet value,
I P[C!Q-tr1y qJ~~;:
I
J
@l,~
15.800
.RES.. .~.N:HSTD
~
"274".00
.~ .1.\,
~~t)l!~e
.;<<::o.:\~Q!rt t::. ~~t.c 0\;\ M~ ;:~ ;OQi'\~.
I_.--_T...n ......~. I
SCOTT COUNTY
200 4~h AWl""" West
SI)akopco, MN 55379-1220
(952) 496-8150 FAX (9021 496-3135
PAYABLE IN 2004
201000 l
17.700
RES. N()N.fjSro ..
$ -- 286.00
~MAY"15- \43,00
OCTOBER,6 '43~~~7t>~1
FROM
A
FAl, f-lO.
STAYt:: {;OIPY
: : ,j'. : I, . i r I I! .:. I, :~:, '~ '..~' I , '
'1Ini',A 'J lil~ \-\'llf~j I I: IV'~
(")i'l A. Iii !.'Nll! >K)lvl lill
tv1lT~~l:;.! 1.4 DEcARTrvIF!':i
;;r' ,=t('i~MJf
I ~ l' ,', !,;. '.',,~ ! J '. i I Ii'~ I" .'.' , :",1:.
, ....." ,'..':1",., '" l. ,~,.....
,.
! PROP{ ~ I'Y UJ : \ R 200430111
\._ ..._.______~.4.__~."..'_
'\
)
TAKPAVER JOHN 8 & IRIS A RAMSEY
5e09 '2TH AVE 13
MINNEAPOLIS 10.1" lili4' 7-2820
PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT PMABlE IN 2004
.........-AUTO..3-DIGIT 554
TAXPA't'ER:
JOHN El & IRIS A RAMSev
5e09 ,2TH AVE S
MINNEAPOUS MN 554",7-2520
1.1,lul.I..I..I...llI...I..I,I.I.I...I,llIlIllI,"I.IIIIl,"1
r-'
PROPERTY LD.:~~;.,
TAX SUNFISH BAY
"ESe: LOT-017
..---)
'., - .,
('"7:-U;:;:;U;'.I:I:;~~~t~~~:.r't;, ~"'.H~r= k)~l,;.; ,:; ycu':':~"~i'~~;;i;'!;;'.. ,~Ifl~~; u;."rl;~/'ld:
Flh1 L'YA\.'\,liJ~!, ~o.,lf tIre box i~. :::;'(:C;"l.:~i" "~I,,; ~1'.'I'.".iir"~\l'w:~ ~?)U)~ ;.mrJ.1il'!jl" \'Io,t.;liQlb!.,.
2. Ut,', 1.lli:.",nQunt ~Q~th, ~1)..r:;3, pr!)41Ii'~)' loi'" Nf~..,4 \)11 ~a);-,/l;iLljtr 1 (l( rum; M.1F'H
Vour I'roper1Y Tax And How It I. Redeoed By Th. Stote
3. Your ~lIt~'il";tJ ::; ~f~ ~ I\!duc,t!on cy !o~ilt~'~:d ~"'-J ~',rld croildi:1
l.,,~1."i flO,:cJ b'Jt~o 9t1lllloi,V.ini11tl10'Vl t~ ~,~~o.r~';,/: P"O~erti.~ ,
$. Omdi'\8 p0l1d bl'rM r,ti\H of M~"~n~t.!i.tc "KlU:;ll!yt::;.' i'roi?~'r:y \.ti.l'::
"" ,:,li"lI'lY.,,).I'(iil'.j~Jryq',oIl~:"i=.JlllJr..;('mr!i':;,
s. Otber't;I~:.ili::I: '
,), '(tjl.r pl:opcrtv :")0; A("'~, r.:Cl..clion ~il zt.1itt.~n;c: ,ll.'ji; ':,\lI,!,:.r~r)~.~"
Where Your Property T.. 00110,. Go
"1.;1i">lir"l\l"
g, Cily vr r.~l'{1r'I PRIOR LAKE
9, Sil.:~,~ it.nersi '!l!:ii
10, Sc:~<,;;~1 rJi:llritt, 071"
. 'A. \10:&( ilP?'O"E'::I/:!'IIi!l't.\
S.~M'I(t.':'I;!":',!i':i;
i i. ~,p.a.ei;li taxifllJ dl!it!lt~ A, ,.~....,:.ll(U.Sp'nlil\lT~ DifW"
D. Otlwl SpQl:.iol 'l'oP:ut1J piilriN
c.'l'l\lI.~~t
I),Fi~J)b1po;..i'Y
12 ~~e'\''',::!'I~.e:\'o:lt:r .ap~liW~'"J f..I(fjI,:,",~I,~ '.....'11";,
"i a. Trlt;.J p:'NlIU'!Y t!,",l( ~eh're S;:l~l.:ia! OWlW.lO~mcritli
i.4. $plVQlal e:~t1~&IYJl5'flte
Pfincip;J.l:
o
int8r.lt:
j,~.",,'r'O,I,jj., "OT^'- r'!ltO"I.jIll;,...,' 'fA."': ^:~O ~l"l!l.(:HA.!_ A::'ilr::SGM~NTF:
\. .
Plea$<! eave thi~ ta~ .wt9l'l\tnt lor future I'II1.","c..
"'--,~'-
~.".J .\,~ I....,..J,. II'! It,;., ",~n:Il:'l'l~;iL!..:. ~l~.b :;,11: 1';"\'<": ~~:;:;,',.
Jul. 06 2003 01:04RM P3
'S IJl.~ t[vJl>~ I U:I> ::';;.'~i',~\!,~':'!'~.f.{; ~ ':,r ~'AX Pi\YAl::::l,_.:~ ~\': ~;'(l: ],/.
52'Dol."i;' CLot l\~'i:'\,ll iIVI~.~\J;~'-iJES!((:.},;
r:;(.1:nl,'IT,,11 M!l',\<,~ 'Ii:l!:.:
~:".w ,"'ll':m"~':;,:nlr\'
;,)",i',.I" M;,r;~,1I '''ull.i~.''
1,.,~'.hh"d'''':'''''\.ll",(.'I'.I..i','''J:
M ~pp L.i"',", 1 A::-CW'l!'
~A'IHlllni'"IMl"iOi.r't
Lr'l.' C ,3,~"IOI,Iit:
1~1'O;ll!J1Y C!I!;~.!;.
\
-'.
20Q3 ~)UU~
1~,9()tl
17.800
NtA
19,900
19,<)1>0
N/^
25/1.00
RES. NON. 115m
266.00
RES. NON-HSTD
TAXPAYER COPY
. .-,t..
. "-,: -"', ..;;c;:~:,....
,'f6;:1~nd!T'
I' A:7,~{J~tv
SCOTT COUNTY
200 4th AvcrIlJIi w~:~~:
Shakop~. V:N GS3?9-122C
(952) 4Q6-8150 r;:A,.X (95~) 49;j-3i:;~
PAYABl." iN 2003
PAYABLE iN ~D~,
/~ ~J...v.. ;mpltl~rti:...~_.'_.
! 5lo.i;nattd ~i.r;':et\..:ut.:
.. T~~:i.biQ ~~ll,'::aI '/.,"!\~~.
;"01,)01.'.)' ';'I~s:.'
i'm~
l--J
o
~-_.,,-
'9.QOO
17,800
RES. NQN-HSTO
I
19,QOO I
19,900
RES. NON.HSTD
664.'6 543.64
:lIl8.'S 277. S4
S ,,_. -2iii'oo $ .. 2$6.00
6U9 73.45
68.73 68.53
66.07 81.69
7.10 15.64
6.75 8.67
Q.02 9,64
'0.04 '0.'5
S -256.00 $ 266.00
-2GS':OO
$
115<I.00
.
~6'6$'ffJ~~ '-~(J~ i~
13::l.U()
'33.~
1'\1i:'::":c:.
"" 2003 02:54AM Pl
Jun. "'"
Ff'.I< 1-0. :
JOHN B. AND IRIS A.
RAMSEY
._' ,~__ --:--:---:-;7~'~7 ._-\
r:,,\\~@t~U\j d_ ,,\ \
\\'~\ MAY 24 lOO4 ilDJI
iU~L 11.'/1
\
FROM F\
le(- :;.M"~5
. ,....rl1: SOlAri;
~/{I"12JJu~\'I!'.h . --,117
.:>0, "vii'" 'W/iwesuU/ ;:.;:.."
MimWlI" .-,::
6/" 8~~.58o
...~' ....
,aY,f /,;l/q.'! ~
- I/,}., t!.,p~(: el!....~ ,d"1: ~I!i
1'.eIWI. /..,4/" ,."II! r.rs7'J, -I 71'1
f("","'j",~ ~"" l$htJ'o/ :
'70 w'''''''' ,7' "''"1 ""'....~_...."
\oJ'" I"A"~ ("11''''",rlU 1">> ;#v,..P q...... ..."',,'" ,/'f' J7A~.v ~/I-r)' r-..r
1.'7' /,.",..",-, 'I~>, "$ .Vi! 1IlZf:'rNf!.....,"T~e.
ovA ""'''''Hnrl... ,/II..... ,.... 1'-1<' WO",-4 ,,'_._.. ..,~ n> """,/I. "'~T' r"
LIS, 1"" ''If'ST' ,,$ I"" "',< /It-I,.... )l8'1<<~
...... ,"I.,.... Iwf"lT;f;y (oI"'-a "" 7"'. .,..,.",., /'tN'1i. ""'11"" "". ,.,At,....., ""~ .".c
"'l~~f)"- #"f1.IJ.~ LAp_if)'. iF.;<<. /11,,,,.. 7"J/ "h<1S'o--? ...,<-",,~.e. ~6,-1-
~ I . .
.,../; H#oft "nl'1l'o,," I ~. """'r "'... 1''''''' w7>!H _e II'" ",./SIh>' ;r,; H~.
"'to ,....v IE; Ql''''''~'' J 0'- If, r..'- J,1 y/it $ "....0 "".1' 17 ,.,,< !;C !R.f,.
,
"',., ""..-- 1'<'-" """/'>or. '7'M/1!!/. ...to ''-'''~EAt'4e'''_ ~"'7H-.e'k? ,"'" 7" ,4//'k(iP
ON ~A.IJ ""~ fr 1-.,../111,/ /h/1.".t6H'1!,Or n..'I -erry t!lou.....~1(.. ...""'" ",,,,,,#i"11tIVf;
~''''''''ISS'J''''. ?IfI-,q,oe",,., W',,~ :z.....n.I<I"" PE--J'/T'l ' 1#77f?o "1"~'1" ",,..-P
-rJt~ ~/f'1"Jto.(T'1 I>~ Tlofl, H..... ~ ",..e..,., $",,,.r ",,'i~, (5i!!' ;.1"''' '''''~..._)
1'J./AItt ',/., PI-;II!. Y""J< ~SI,'",,"""/.H.
~h"/ O'j
P>1If1. .,,,., "'...~ ':":
"'1'71- '.II]J' s1" ",...7
''','''frl- ,..", J"S J ~7'
I
$I Nl ,..<t1'Y;
r~
.
---
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PLANNING
Ralph Teschner, Finance Director
Ramsey Variance Request
(assessment/fee review)
May 24, 2004
Lots 16 & 17 Sunfish Bay were originally assessed on a front footage basis without regard to
building location. The water and sewer assessment was strictly based upon 100' of street
frontage and the special assessments were subsequently paid off in 1991.
Whether development of the lots occur as a single building unit according to the city's current lot
combination requirement when under single ownership or if a variance would be granted for two
building units there would be no further development fees charged.
.
WVJW .cityofpriorlake. com
H.\SPLlTS\RJnlsey.d",
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245