The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-62 Mosey Appeal ASSENT OF APPLICANT ~62 As Approved by Resolution # 02-80 The undersigned hereby assents to the following: 1. I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with their contents and with the content of the exhibits. 2. I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution. 3. I understand Section 1108.400 of the Prior Lake Ordinance Code provides as follows: 1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the holder of an existing Variance has violated any of the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation. 1108.414 After One Year. No Construction Reauired. All Variances shall be revoked and canceled if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance and the holder of the Variance has failed to make substantial use of the premises according to the provisions contained in the Variance. 1108.415 After One Year. New Construction Reauired. All Variances shall be revoked and canceled after 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if a new structure or alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the Variance and the holder has failed to complete the work, unless a valid building permit authorizing such work has been issued and work is progressing in an orderly way. 1108.416 UDon Occurrence of Certain Events. If the holder of a Variance fails to make actual use of vacant land, or land and structures which were existing when the Variance was issued and no new structure, alteration or substantial repair to existing buildings was required; or if a new structure was required by the Variance and no building permit has been obtained, the Variance shall be deemed revoked and canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) A change in the Use District for such lands is made by amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council. L:\02FILES\02appeal\mosey appeal\ASSENT.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. 5,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (2) Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any part of the premises described in the Variance. (3) The use described in the Variance becomes an illegal activity under the laws of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota. (4) Title to all or part of land described in such Variance is forfeited to the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes. (5) The person to whom the Variance was issued files a written statement in which that person states that the Variance has been abandoned. The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution number under which the Variance was granted. (6) The premises for which the Variance was issued are used by the person to whom the Variance was issued in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of such Variance. 4. I understand the granting by the City of this Resolution is in reliance on the representations that I will fully comply with all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution. I understand and agree upon notice of non-compliance with any term or condition, I shall immediately cease conducting activities pursuant to the notice or will take all actions necessary to accomplish full compliance with said notice and conditions of the Resolution. jj 6- I -) - b 2- DATE ~ifJ /t~/~~~ SIGNATURE O~PPLICANT 6- ~ V rtrW' ~~, kJ-o~ SIGNATURE r OWNER U 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\ASSENT.DOC 2 ...,... i PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST ~ I. OPEN FILE- Date Received: ./ cr- ~ssign file number (~ 3Pen and label file folder (Y Create file directory under ~.-j8nces Mlj4-L- -; It 7{ [Jj II. () () () () () () III. CHECK APPLICATION FOR COMPLETENESS Completed application, including the appropriate signatures Filing Fee Necessary attachments (survey, house plans, contours, etc.) List and labels of property owners within 350' (verify map and radius) Written description of specific variances requested Are all the requested variances included? WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS: A. Incomplete application (I:\template\variance\incomplt.doc) ( ) Notify applicant by mail of incomplete application and list necessary submittals in order to make application complete B. Complete Application (I:\template\variance\complete.doc) ( ) Notify applicant by mail that application is complete. Letter includes: · Tentative meeting date, time and location · Applicant is expected to attend meeting . Extension of 60 day action date to 120 days I:\template\variance\varcheck.doc 1 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST IV. () () () () V. VI. PREPARE REFERRALS (I:\template\variance\referral.doc) Send referral notice of application to list of agencies and departments. Include DNR if located in a Shoreland or Flood Plain District Include County Highway Dept. if adjacent to a County Road Include other agencies as appropriate 1&':f1il~ ~ ()J/l {NJAAdiJ PREPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION (I :\template\variance\hearnote.doc) () Notice includes: ~ Correct meeting date ~ legal description of property ~ Property Address ~ Description of variance requests Send notice to Prior lake American by 12:00 NOON on Wednesday 3 weeks prior to meeting date () PREPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR MAILING (I:\template\variance\mailnote.doc) () Notice includes: ~ Correct meeting date ~ legal description of property ~ Property Address ~ Description of variance requests Verify map and radius again! label or type envelopes Mail notices at least 10 days before hearing date Notice must be mailed to: ~ Property Owner's List ~ Applicant ~ Property Owner (if other than applicant) ~ DNR (Shoreland or Flood Plain applications) () () () I:\template\variance\varcheck.doc 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST VII. ING REPORT fAt A,~vI'~ / /. ~ --. ~ Report includes. (1:\temPlate\Variance\Varrpl.dOC~ W ~Ievant Facts (including any previous actions or variances) ~1' yggested Findings W Staff Recommendation (including any conditions) (~esolution for Planning Commission adoption ( see . ~ yemplate\variance\appres.doc or I:\template\variance\denyres.doc) ~"! ~ation Map ~ ?ey/Site Plan ~ ~y of hearing notice and/or application W Other Exhibits B. Submit report to supervisor by Tuesday before hearing date C. Mail a copy of the staff report and agenda to the applicant (and to the property owner, if different than _. / the applicant) c..r The cover letter should include the meeting date, time and location, and the fact that the applicant is expected to be present. VIII. FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ~ - A~~ ~repare Assent Form (I:\template\variance\assent.doc) ~Solution signed by Planning Commission Chair W Resolution signed by Planning Director ~ Signed and certified resolution and assent form sent to applicant ., ~r recording (see I:\te .doc for certification form) (t)' Applicant return recorded other proof of recor . I:\template\variance\varcheck.doc A-aSi-H\ ~571"w ~- sA.. 51!h ~/ ?t:J!tJJ-- ~ till/a ~ - Doc. No. A 552708 OFACE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Filed and/or Recorded on 06-14-2002 at 01:30 Receipt: 189561 Pat Boeckman, County Recorder 01 Fee: $20.00 State of Minnesota ) )ss. Cou nty of Scott ) I, Kelly Meyer, being duly sworn, as Deputy City Clerk for the City of Prior Lake, do hereby certify that the attached RESOLUTION 02-80 is a true and correct opy of the original as passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake its June 3, 2002 meeting. . .' ~. 'I;>~ i <' f~:':; . ". . ~' 'II. .;'" t) "'"" f ." .. ... .. III <I '-!.. } ,I. I ; ',-......... /, .. w " . ;' C)'.' 1:(./ " Vv.j , ;': ~ ,)'.'(': "'..... ~. ~ '. _ ,f ;' OS. <:3! :~C: '; :~:- . ~: ~ Cl; ~ ;-.~ : .. .. \. \)--. (>-' . "i, 0"'. d.., UJ .: ,'-:-. . \' .,. (--- .." ! ...- ,," t .".".. I'.. ....... .I '-", 'I ,/ ..... . \ .1, '/"" ,.~~f(. .... t ~. ~ V"" '. ..' ~ .. . . Date: 0" //02 h :\certify .doc RESOLUTION 02-80 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A I-FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A 3.58-FOOT V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.42-FEET; 5.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 9.1-FEET; A 5-FOOT AND 4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2.18-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: Petersen SECOND BY: LeMair WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, On May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Steven & Patricia Mosey of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9. I-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.S-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 1O.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; for the property legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota; and ;) 5" 11660QO The City Council finds that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for reversing the decision of the Planning Commission; and The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be reversed, and said variances should be approved. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-80.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER a. Steven & Patricia Mosey applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205 of the City Code in order to permit construction of an attached garage, entry, and 2nd story addition to an existing principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota. b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-029, and held hearings thereon April 22, 2002, and May 13,2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance requests did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the requests. d. Steven & Patricia Mosey appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on April 29, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-029 and Case File #02-062, and held a hearing thereon on May 20,2002. f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. g. The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that would constitute a hardship. h. The denial of the requested variances constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-029 and Planning Case File #02-062 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby reverses the decision of the Planning Commission, and approves with conditions 7 variances to permit a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.l-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within J-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum l2J-feet for building walls over 50-feet. r: \reso I u ti\p lanres\2 002\02 -80. doc Page 2 5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage, vestibule and room addition: a) The existing driveway area shall be removed to meet the maximum 24-foot width at the right-of-way line, and to meet the minimum 5-foot setback to side lot lines, and to reduce the existing impervious surface coverage area. b) The permit is subject to all other city ordinances, and applicable state and county agency regulations. c) The addition must be constructed as depicted on Attachment I - Certificate of Survey. d) The variance resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed, and pursuant to Ordinance Section 1108.400, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed addition within one year after adoption of this resolution Passed and adopted this 3rd day of June, 2002. I Haugen Petersen LeMair Gundlach Zieska YES X X X Absent X NO Haugen Petersen LeMair Gundlach Zieska Absent {Seal} ?.iN City Manager ~ fJ!t ~~~t~5E iJf(OY~ rrvJ ~'f!J10' r: Ireso I u tilp lanresl200210 2 -80 .doc Page 3 --- State of Minnesota County of Scott Scott County Customer Service (952) 496-8150 # 189561 14-JUN.2002 CUSTOMER MOSEY, STEVE A Filing Abstract Total for Fee FILE NUMBER OR ~~AME MOSEY Receipt Total Check ) )ss. ) Payment Total Change 1@ 20 OOea 20.00 2000 20.00 2000 0.00 I, Kelly Meyer, being duly sworn, as Deputy City Clerk for the City of Prior Lake, do hereby certify that the attached RESOLUTION 02-80 is a true and correct opy of the original as passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake its June 3, 2002 meeting. Date: O~ //02 h:\certify.doc ~elly eyer 'f -......., Deputy City perk (j, ~~-PR~J. .0,.......................,..,6.....................................~............ ... . ".:7!i' ;\..'~Yi:;'... """.'" .... (" t .C' .'. .,.>., 71' W . -P'~ ,/., .,~ ~NESO RESOLUTION 02-80 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 24-FOOT V ARIA1~CE TO PE&.'\UT A I-FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A3.58-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.42-FEET; 5.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 9.1-FEET; A 5-FOOT AND 4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERl"'IIT AN EA VE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2.18-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: Petersen SECOND BY: LeMair WHEREAS, On May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Steven & Patricia Mosey of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1- feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required I5-feet; A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback IO.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; for the property legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for reversing the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be reversed, and said variances should be approved. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: I) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. . 2) The City Council makes the following findings: r:lresolutilplanresIZOOZ\OZ-SO.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER a. Steven & Patricia Mosey applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205 of the City Code in order to permit construction of an attached garage, entry, and 2nd story addition to an existing principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-I (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota. b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-029, and held hearings thereon Apri122, 2002, and May 13,2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance requests did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the requests. d. Steven & Patricia Mosey appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on April 29, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-029 and Case File #02-062, and held a hearing thereon on May 20, 2002. f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. g. The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances or conditions regarding t,he property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that would constitute a hardship. h. The denial of the requested variances constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-029 and Planning Case File #02-062 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby reverses the decision of the Planning Commission, and approves with conditions 7 variances to permit a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. . r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-80.doc Page 2 5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage, vestibule and room addition: a) The existing driveway area shall be removed to meet the maximum 24-foot width at the right-of-way line, and to meet the minimum 5-foot setback to side lot lines, and to reduce the existing impervious surface coverage area. b) The permit is subject to all other city ordinances, and applicable state and county agency regulations. c) The addition must be constructed as depicted on Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey. d) The variance resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed, and pursuant to Ordinance Section 1108.400, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed addition within one year after adoption of this resolution Passed and adopted this 3rd day of June, 2002. Haugen Petersen I LeMair I Gundlach I Zieska YES X X X Absent X NO Haugen Petersen LeMair Gundlach Zieska Absent {Seal} VcH City Manager 1 r: \reso I u ti\p lanres\2002 \02 .80. doc Page 3 ~ ~ ~O'2..9 b J 96 {~' '''1'~,.,. ULt:,''\fUML.t::. ~Vc.'''Uc. ~.t:.. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 I I -._- r-~- NOTe! THIS I\REI\ ru [;ECO~'IE 7-, :. "-Oil _ I/vlPI:.RVIOUS ,~ I : ;200 Sl.',FT 25 0 'r- J loA I 1--.-._ -- - - .,/--1 I. w ~ / er of ' <1, > u.. I ,,' corn '<lac N" " .-J S~ 11:':) I 110 Q "'0 (!) , r- \0 r ' " '919 I '.)9' JIIl/ I ./.) S" 911f>: '.' . North line of 10' 14 I (,\) Su~9 f' I j\ .-= I' " 04KL4ND BE4CH - AlS,' I SH(~. I I , I 0'< _ ']., I, I ~ ~ ~ ,. ~, SB9" 50' 24"W ?,?" ~(jo 0: ", _, _ ., < '-., ,~.... r .~ I'" f I 100 plot ()~. / W ~89{'50' 24'i-W ,I' -,,- ---70 3 L__ - 909.l~.. - :: ':--.100.07 meos.__ I I _ ~I\l ">; Q 0') 3'650 ~. - - ---- - -~.. , ; :.u:___, - - " ""'o~, --- 7'8t r---.- ' rr!1v;! ~: "L ,-:,-'-;r-~"/30.6"deed ----------~l 0'.' ., ~-1f } Il18o; 913 f -. oti 0 '(921 S . ,'_ > j --- : . 't: / _ -'e _ ..-:-: _ ;> '. <f _____ 0 JJJ ,f, O. 0 "" 44.8 '" J ---a 2 N 0 III 87' * - . , , " II) " 1 --- G> ;) ~ ---a- ~8' I : SI.At' ~I '9.8 I L1 910 ; 1 '0 0,.-: E~ ~ ::; " '---"'-ri':J1Il CD I r "'" _ <1I...,..v -01- ~ Go , . AIi ('J) Db fit _ c: .,.. N '0 2: 5: v 0 . 7.s..:;. '" HOUSE'.. 0.... J;: 0" ::> rr - 0 v ' \ ;,0";",, I'l OO~::> ... I'l, I) '" 1J W/O EL :is . ... a: Z _ III WI (II' . " -'2 ......' 913.11 ~"1. ,___ /~ o:fv \1l ~ , ... -'--,,-~ ,-' ".', '" : ~ii.1 . . 1.9_ "- / - / . II ~O.7 deed - -.- - - - - " ,."'-.--'>< ". , '. '7.., -'"'" , ,." , -fL-, F.,," 0 S- tou,,.J 'Ail - . ..... .'''\; I. ,v.' ." , , ,6 Y'm,oo-I - -.78.8 t -_. - -. OVer line """-i" 'p---- r - -. r~ ~, ^IR'''.S6'' Jf ..".... -- 100 18 I..; I I 1/ - _h, mea..... ~. I I, .0 'nr "0" . . ... r ~ - I .. '.. f . I t S89056"i"W l.i ' LL _ __ - South lin~ of 10' 14()., 04KL4ND ~E4CHJi 0 /1 / L... .' L -. L , . LJ C\J _ SW Cotner of r-- ~----- -- -- / I 10' 10 L NOTE: THIS AREA TO L / BECOME NON -IMPERVIOUS /f'\,." ;r 70 SQ. F'T ./, ~ 21 5 ~ 0 r--d__ H_ r u - ~ ",ll o <0 \)0' "J~A. I, ., LJ v r ,/ /1 q 7 r- ~ , , I / _oj \-\OUS E GOro~ I ., ) / ,rL,--.. -J .l< ~ I , /1 -/_--./ I .,.L. j ~.y '" ,,~ Q i>" (>.0 \", (>. 0,<0 f>. <0 l>o~ ,1 ",-,' , I T--- HOUSE: .. w :'v 0 CD 10 1O"<t 0 I NI'l- -aJ- JI'lo....., ~ -. :'" 0 (]I l/l <10 I"l C , - ... III '11 ~ [\=0003'52" . L = 0 68 HO\!S( j---NOr'h line of I' 1ST 4001 TlO r;---,- , SHED I ~; l CD "'I ., : -::::- 5 f ~; .. " GARAGE ... ./ ; - r. 1 ... .' ,- I,' ; GARAGE ~... ... // ~ I -- :\ I ~, "'\ ";, } L-S ( City Council Meeting Minutes May 20,2002 MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Gundlach: Asked if the property was still a collection point for storm water water ponding. Rve: Commented that the water is routed the same but there were some additional ponding areas created through development. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02.73 APPROVING VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, WATERFRONT PASSAGE ADDITION. YOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variances to Allow a Structure Setback of1-Foot to a Front Lot Line, a 1.3-Foot Sideyard Setback, a Building Separation Less then 15 Feet, a Sum of Side Yards Less than 15 Fee~ an Eave Encroachment into a Side & Front Yard, a 62.8-Foot Building Wall Setback to Side Yard, and a Driveway Setback to the Side Yard (Case File #02-029PC) Bovles: Advised that the next two agenda items were public hearings dealing with appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission. Horsman: Thoroughly reviewed the agenda item and the 9 variance requests in connection with the staff report. Further discussed the staff's recommendation to grant variances 1, 2, 5 and 7, and the Planning Commission's rationale for the denial. LeMair: Asked about the rationale for removing the vestibule. Horsman: Noted that the vestibule variances most adversely impacted the neighboring property. Acting Mayor Petersen declared the public hearing open. Steve Mosev (14620 Oakland Beach Ave. SE): Discussed the need for the vestibule because there would be no access to the house other than through the garage. Also discussed the entrance into the house and an internal stairway. Noted that he did have a letter from the impacted neighbor advising that they supported the proposed vestibule/garage addition. Further addressed the Planning Commission decision and correspondence from Larry Miller supporting the Planning Commission decision, noting that Mr. Miller is frequently in the area and lives in Minneapolis, the platted private roadway has never been used and that current structures impact the existing road, and that the Planning Commissioners had not been out to see the site. Further noted that to remove the misplatted road from the property is prohibitively expensive. Zieska: Asked about the impervious surface in the front of the house, and if a 28-foot wide driveway is needed. Noted that if the driveway width was reduced to 24 feet or less, two of the requested variances would not be needed. Steve Mosev: Confirmed that some of the impervious surface in the front of the house would be removed. Also noted that the driveway calculation for impervious surface was in error. Bovles: Asked where Mr. Miller's property was located in relation to the Mosey property. Steve Mosev: Indicated that Mr. Miller's property was on the vestibule sid~ of his property, but not directly adjacent. Mr. Borman was the immediate neighbor on the vestibule side. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes May 20,2002 Wayne Mosev (14524 Glendale Ave. SE): Advised he owns property on Oakland Beach as well. Supported the variance requests in order to update and upgrade the neighborhood and enhance property values. Further discussed the work he does to maintain the private road. Believes Steve's proposal does not adversely affect the neighborhood, nor would he support the requests if it jeopardizes his friendships within the neighborhood. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Horsman: Noted that variances 8 and 9 would not be needed if the location of the driveway is as proposed, the driveway remains 24 feet or less, and the existing driveway is removed. Gundlach: Discussed that the impervious surface is obviously above 30%, and asked if a previous variance had been received. Horsman: Advised that there was no previous impervious surface variance received and a variance is not required since the applicant is proposing to remove the impervious surface. Zieska: Commented that the applicant's request seemed to address only the minimum variances in order to adequately use his property. Also noted that the applicant is not encroaching the lake side of the property and is reducing impervious surface. LeMair: Agreed with Councilmember Zieska that great care is taken on the lake side of the lots and improvements to the front of the lots seemed beneficial to the neighborhood. Gundlach: Concerned about allowing nine variances. Commented that he would be comfortable with the staff recommendation, granting variances 1, 2, 5 and 7. Believed the Council had a responsibility to not set a precedent extending a non-conforming use. LeMair: Asked if there isn't still an extension of a non-conformity whether it's as proposed, or at a 45% cut. Horsman: Advised that even at a 45 degree angle, the vestibule addition would require some variances. Added that the ordinance does permit a 5-foot vestibule encroachment into the front yard setback. The reason for not recommending approval of the vestibule was because of the side yard encroachment and the impact on the adjacent neighbor. Petersen: Believes that the adjacent neighbor is in support of the improvements and not opposed to the vestibule addition as proposed. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND GRANT VARIANCES 1 - 7. Pace: Advised that extending the non-conformity would apply to the side yard, but not the front yard at 12 feet because a 5- foot encroachment is permitted. Gundlach: Noted that the amount of pavement is also in violation of City ordinances. Zieska: Advised that if the Council chose to limit the size of the vestibule further, there would be a jog at the corner of the house, and the vestibule would look added rather than part of the structure. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes May 20,2002 Gundlach: Suggested that a condition of the resolution would be to remove the remainder of the impervious surface. The motion and second accepted the amendment. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Variances to the Top of the Bluff Setback, Front Yard Setback, Lot Width and Driveway Width at the Front Property Line for the Construction of Single-Family Dwelling on Property Located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail and Zoned R-1SD. Rye: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Gundlach: Asked what the discussion was at the Planning Commission regarding the top of the bluff. Rye: Recalled that the issues relative to the bluff did not receive a great amount of discussion, and that the geo-technical report addressed the issues to the bluff. Gundlach: Asked how the rationale relates when the City has denied decks and eaves that encroach the bluff setback. Further asked if there is a potential for this structure to remain behind the top of the bluff. Rye: The stated policy is the bluff setback ordinance. Once the circumstances dictate that the ordinance is unduly prohibitive, you look for solutions that can be as beneficial as possible. Once the setback is encroached, there is not difference between 1 foot or 20 feet. The safety factor is determined by the engineering and geological reports. Acting Mayor Petersen declared the public hearing open. Allison Gontarek (Attorney on behalf of Mr. Toohey): Advised that extensive geological studies have been completed, and based upon the borings, the engineer advised the bluff is stable for the purposes of constructing the proposed home. Mr. Toohey realized in advance that he would assume some risk and therefore spent a great deal on engineering studies before applying for the variances. Further noted that without the variances, Mr. Toohey is denied reasonable use of his land. Advised that a tree inventory had been completed as well. LeMair: Asked when the property was purchased and the intent for the property. Mark Toohev (5584 Candy Cove Tram: Confirmed that he purchased the property 6 years ago, and intended to build a house. Zieska: Asked if Mr. Toohey had been assessed for improvements to Candy Cove Trail. Toohev:Confirmed. Gundlach: Asked Ms. Gontarek to address the engineer's report and the conditions it proposed relative to bluff setback. 5 '. LEi ~ [g 0 >'\~f i ~- ; I . \:...J L.-.' 'I i I . CITY OF PRlORLAKE I ( Jt.j 7 m I::! Impervious Surface CalculationsG;\ ()); . (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) i Iv : For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distri'cf (SD). --~------___J The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address p.l\.Q2D O~\(\~NI"\ -:R~~L..\. p...'-.)';:~ue. Lot Area ~~ \.D\.o~ o..'oo"e,.. LL'~04.o Sq. Feet x 300/0 = .............. -z.ooo ************************************************************************ HOUSE LENGTH 44.~ WIDTH x~.lp = SQ. FEET \ "Z.b , x = ATTACHED GARAGE x TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \ 2...~ \ DETACHED BLDGS (Garage/Shed) x X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... *' ~R\OC~.t~+ ~\\\ be o~ ('~~ ~ DRIVEWAYfPAVED AREAS x = / (Driveway-paved or not) X = // (SidewalkIParking Areas) X = / l C TOTAL P A YED AREAS......................................... ~"3 \ o..a c.. $\~b p A TIOSfPORCHE~/DECKS (Open Decks '/,' min. opening bet\veen boards. with a pervious surface below. . are not considered to be impervious) ~.r:; X."Z.\ = \141 X = l.' \.'3.. q X = TOTAL DECKS........................................................ lD~o OTHER I'\e.,." C\.'P~~'" .. X \ \ - -,.., - e..ll,...'1 '"2...\ X \Cl = ~9 q - ~1\~e.. TOT AL OTIIER... ............................ ......................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDE~r\. Prepared By U~'I~<:'" ~\ ~ Company --lc..\\~ 5~\(lt""'1 <p~. I 2.t\~ , l\ ~co Date lo ( S \ "2..00"2- Phone # Y.L\1 -'-51. 0 'Tv c:;.J _ 1 I I ..:...".--.. ....w..!a- - ..) . Co./[)Qpl. ( Phone .. " .., ~ ~o_~ Fo, APR-17-2002 09:49 VALLEY SURVEY I NG CO.. P. A .'. . :....:.:. .. .... .'.CITYOFPRIORLAKE " ", .. :.. :... ....: :.Iniperviou.s Surl~ce .Calculations. .. .. ..... .'. ... . .!... ... . . (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) .;.... ......:.. .: ~or"All PTopertiest~ocated .ufthe Shoreland Dis1n~t {S ::-.: .:.:.:..nieM~n:i.uw tinp~rvious.S~Ifa.ce. Coyerage Permitted in.3! .' , . ~ . . . ': '. ." ~ :. , . '. , Property;"ddr~s" 14lt2.o . Obi~\""'Q~e';''-''~~ .. . Lof .Area, .:, lJ~lIU, ..ci~~..: e\..qo~.Osq. Feet' x 30% = !......:.....,. '1IT';O ..*~~.~~.*..++...+.+~~~*..*.****..~~*~*.*+.**++.+***.******..*******..**. .' '.. ~'.~ '.~~:..'~ ': ,,',' '.. . ," . .' " . . . .. . ,. . . .:. LENGTH WIDTH. SQ. FSET . HOUSE,:: >.. ~~..'::<. .. . q~...~' x ~~~ ... 10& \7-~'. '.., . : '0 "'..-." .."', .'.na ... AITAC$D:ciAAAoE . . .. .. .... ~. ... .' . '. ",.' ..". '. x .. == .X '. ... .. . . . .. .TOTAL.PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE........~.............. \.'2-~ ( DET ACHEP)~LpGS . ... ((jan:eJS~~ct)... .. x x ... .'.' .. . '; ',' " :....... : :., ...,..TOTAi.DETA~HED'BUILDINGS..................~:.~.:.. . . . " . . .. .. ., . . ' D~EWAY~AVEpAREAS .,:. (Drlve~~~y.-puved o~ not)... . (Sid~wa.llclParking Arcas) :..... '.' . . ~.'. X LL.... .. . .o.,~~ .. .x =. x E:: '.. . '. . TOTAL PAVED AREAS..,~.....~........~.....~................ 'M', .' . . S\~~. .'.:. ........,..... ' . '.PATIOS/PCH~:CHE.SIOI;CI<S'.. .. . . ..' ... .', . ".'. " ", .' , .. . . .'.~. . , (Open, Cc:ck,sW~ mini. opeidnz berwec:n ... bvGrds. wick ll.pel:Yio~ ",rficri belaw, .. . · . are nat conaidcrcd to bidmpc:rviaw). ; . .: . ',' .' . ~ .... :'" I .":, . ...' - . .ese ~().~ x . .<...;l . ,.::7 .X "..2.. >= \..a \.f\ ..~ . x. == . . . . TOTAL DECKS. .......~.~..,...... ....... ..... ............. ...... ....... loGo . . .OTHER . " . .x. ,'.... " . . ;". x. .= ~. " .~.. . . . : . TOT A.L OTlmR.:.......:....................................................... P.01 , WI I K'fUJ ,. . .~ ~ ...~ :J: 3: m Z ~ .w .. I :~ -0 m ~. (5 c: en. en c: ..::IJ ..::i! '0 m 1):- :rJ I~ . . ,', ./... ~,I' :. .. " .... . I .... ~.OT#:~MPEf{i,rtOUS StiRFA:CE..... ..1 . ~1f'.)'i UND~~..:..' . ...1 .eel .PrepareCl BY~~,,~ Date-"'U_I~"2... . .... . ....... . . \...... ,. . ., C~mp~y~ Ii \~"S;~ . ... . ...:. .c,.P 1\, . Phone #'-\41:" -&..., o An.() ..N . :~.: :.;N~.:..:\~~.. .~~:.~~ M .\t '^~.+:- \."'~~e.. .~ \4.""~w. 3GtV'tt5.e ~ ~+: ~\ \\. \o.e. ..... \:;~\\.+-: 0.\\ ~r -e~\rJ. .',-\-~ ~.",c"J"> ~..('- .... . . TOTAL P.01 I't'~'..... VLt:I'4U~Lf.:. ~VCI~UC .:>.t:.. PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 / " 11'<. E. " :', '''' ...: I'" I' 11011 . } __.. _:: . -~, '. I · --- 70 ,.--- --,. ~: f. - --- o:<>\! - - 'e. r-----,. '''\' T~ ----~ --- .,. " ',' -..- I. . . 101 ......., o ~ I ~ ~. ~e N . oj e,. - .... , . 'L".:Jm. -r----__et-:::-g. --~7O::.~ d ~ 0, .~. 1 ~vo \''''1 \ ;:: 0" I) . _ ~. u _ '" : .' '. -"-,~ , . . ... .., .!...,.- - ~ f! ... " '~_" ,~ L'__, ..,' ""'P""'\ ~ :r ").', ,I ..... _._........ . ' .. .' '" .... --- ., 51.. 0 .1 ~_._ - - _.~ J' /M ! ;.' ....."' ....,':.. , - - . ". . . '0 m.... 'ence 0 ~ So /] _ ---100, I~." I "''>( ~ --78.0'-,- .~. ,,>~ Pl.j. , H .... 0.., .0 S09.56"r W.O OAKLAND /ACJ -- .. hn. .f10' , , . L. /. L. - Sou Lou.__ J .- AREA TO L NOTE: TH~~_IMPERVIOUS BECOME N 70 SQ. IT ~ ,. Co IO'Z.'~ ) I ~f:J .t~. L.J v I i lo.. ATTACHMENT 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY r 17 q } or--" ..... .- / , , I I , ~/ GOfO~ \-lOUSE ) JL . - . ..J --j, / I /1 I ...J ,-cY ., .' ~ Q I;> '\ o ~<" ()o l>i ,'<> r;,.'<> o 0 1()o ,,) , ,-" /1 , , " ~ / ---/- / __.L_ ~ ! T NOT l: : THIS AREA TO EiECOME r.or4 . IMPERVIOUS ::00 Si.. FT I ) I f- J ~ ' 01 <! I ~ ~ I .., cOIner <S a: \'l '" ..-J S3 0::,' \ ,0 Cl. 0> C>\Il' ,.-- \0 " / ,/ I ll'll , , '~"1" I \ --l \ 13 S"1", II " ~ Norlh line of 101 14 <<.::-:.. S'0)4(' I rSHE~ " OAKLAND BEACH - AfJ,." " ',~,._ _ " 0'( ... _ ~, 589050' 24"W q~, '-tc,\.. rY . I~, '\. -',- 4 6 ~__ - C)~" u- r" . i: 100 pial 'C}" /W ~89r?O'24'i-W~ \~n-IOO. 07 meos u_ 'I - ~l: '>/ CL ,00 .. -30.50 me05~~ W ~'l tL ~_:::_:;-/--"J30.6"deed :.v ~ . · /-fI' I 1118'5 mill ~JCIl2'S ~~.,: ~ I. \D'r "0 " J.-' - .' 0 · III VI IN'" _ ---- 1 - 1'-1 g ? '-.lOo .. 101 -O~ E~O \oJ ~ I"," 0 9" 0 ICO GI Z U . I <1/ Ii> _ <II.-t'v _Gl- iI Q) Vl c ('. "0.0 ", .- C .,.. 0 N ~ E a: '" ..= /), 0" ,.- 0 :l ' HOlJSE ')...:'0",,,, .. -, '" ooj:.~ I ~ W/O (L " '. 8 -,;; a:: Z <;t <;t iii <II 911 17 ~<'I "'----F 10 ;i:" ..,., " .. '911.'.\1 'W ; l\=0003'52 ,/ .. '~..". . I 3~ 7 deed R-...~ = 0 b8 .J! --.~ ~ ~ .-- L ~,.<V ..:' 9<0 r' . 3b~3me05-1 \ "1 j .'56.1.... .,..-.-.r---- -.- 'jA'~ ~F IJ " I \. \ / 1 I { I // -7---, ,A " ~ 1-:-- ...-c I 2:' () ~ HOUSE , " M' , .... 8 '<.1 I r u.. o N . SW corner of 101 10 /^ HOUSt. 21 :, "., or'" . - I \ I ! /1 ~ ,/ ",et> . ~ q, ~'" ~ tJ., "fO \l' 1, ..... " j__.Norlh line 1ST ADDI T , , " SHED" J " .., q: : CD cD I " : --:::--5 /. , , " / ~ / // / GA~AGE / / / /'/ ..l / \ ... t. I \ ~ "', "'\ '..~ ~ / - q , I ,- I: ~ ~ GARAGE / ~__ 2.~.~.__ f.-. J W / wU ~ ;I 4I:t. > : Of (lef 0 " / ...J S.j : 0:: NvJ C ! 1 "1(11.91 CL '1 ~ii: ~\O, ,0 . 9'2 (,,, " " 9' " \ 1 . -;", North line of lot 14; I J $9" 1 II ~: OAKLANO BEACH - ~..~....~........ s~~ ~ r' I 1 ~ ~ I 589050' 24" W ...n'fc; '..., SH~~ I 1- "" ')V-, J,S' .Q::' I -' .. , 11011.) I _:~ I: 100 plot '\C!Jt>-~~. ..~ 1- 4.6 ...:: -'~.l.....r I, I---IOO.07meos- G .. Wi' ~e~r50'24"~ ~ 7 .......' '." I! ",. - 9'9. s~.... ..... Q.f, -.." r'" e t " -,. .' \ . , _ r----... .,{Ii' . , :t~...;..-' -3Q.50meas- , Ii :: _.~ -G. 2~: .1 ~ I :. '.....l! .... I. 30.6"cJttd '\l,,!U , , ~~ _ I _~ '. 0 I' . .".' '" ,<:t 0 ~~7 0 w Co" . d -, ,.N, '\.1" ,,11.5. (l)1O- ,. _ r- I . . ", /' .~ .., . ~.,., ~ ' I .... ' 0 . o' 10 ".... 44.8 ......-J III .J ~.~',1. "... )t', ~ 1D.'t -0 ' o 'a- :--8 _ : s\..~e iii ".4 I 910.1 - ~ . , :..;, . '0 ~ I N 1"1 - ~ ".:> _._~' _ WI CD , L1 " 0 f ~';'OJ.~' " CIIE'tlO III --ro. JIlo,..,_ L. o C:"-o -.. a. Q/zu - '1"10 ~ :: 0 <:t I \. 7os...~~ I 0 'Q)" -Q/-: ai 'Ill Q/ .. 1"1 I '" I H OUS E '= :'t .,- .a N "Z 0:: 1"1 .c:: ~.._ (fl III I l) . _ WIO (L ' 0 :::l ::> ' - ~ ~! 11.1'f' I ,~.\ Ill'. 11 p~, .... ~ ~ ", Ii of ~ ~ ~ (fl , lii ~ .. II _~ .~.., z 0 <~ "" lD '.':_:.":' .,:' __" . ~_. ~'.' . . . (: 1.9_ ' j / ~'" J' "" '11:-1" , I1J .......O".outhJ ~. ~,!..; . "./..." ._.:..;... I. ~ -S;_19 .. . .J',:~.' .' 30.7deed ~ Il=Oo03'52" ,~.~ ,,. II 0"" ". [t-(-- .. - . ( ',..~'. ".;--:-.18.8* _.. .' ,;. .. ':,. ..:' ~ ,/"";9.!.;. 1:.1 I ",'- - -L=O 68 ,~'~~' i"""'r'\~ .,.:;,"". .o~. '_ ""or hn. lIoro -ill. tI , .......7~. . ~ . ~ .~.... I 30 "Jm~o!-I '. o. ---IOO,18meo.....' IJ./" i;n~.'56"ll ., IflQ ,.. let' :-: " I. I ' S890!l6"fW' ".,''H ~- \ , / .. South line of lot ,.[: OAKLAND S/E..l.L I I l' J ACH .... 0 'I I .. / /- < f , ..... j;~ C\.I;;' I . . / I o / <,I :. ,. .' \ ' .i r' -.- -'?- r\,' R 0 . r' q, ~?J rV ~ c (0 17- .VJ 1\ ,~ '" 1\ .q 'I '" - I i i I ,"7 .h r i V L...L. , I \ \ \ I '''7' 7-"'--'/ Garaqe I ., \ \-lOUSE /l .L-.._. .J / ~ / / / ../ / .' " / / , HOUSE SW corner of 101 10 r' \-IOUSE L I J ,.. ,..,--- -North line of lot \0, Block \1 1ST ADDITION : SH;OI S860IZ'36"W , ~ t40 plot 1". q, __139.89meas. ~ IIJ CDI -, :'-;:>0-5.6 ".. / " GARAGE /' ,,/ 4;__ / \ .., ,- / GARAGE / " 1/ / / : (~I I ./ ~\ ,. . \42 8111\eo' ~\ \4~ I) ~11' II NBOo 22' .~ ) _50\.lt\'\ line of \, Ot\~LAND BEll I ;912.6,; , "1" : ,I I I", I": t lilt 70 3 tOt. J I _ I I -.- t___ _ ......... I, - - . --'~".J>- \' 18 t r---,.:.. trll i I ~ ----....:. I Il'J.1 ~l../ oJ -.- ~~ .'t( oJ -, f'O.t1'4if r ,. ,---- .1 · E iIJ: I . '. :. 101' 44.8 ~""'- ,... 8 I ' e' ".. J 1 . o-~ . ___ . SI.~':JN In II) I Lr CJ "0 I _~ . . ! ~ :' ~ I \.) 7. s.. ~ -: "OUSE C# - ,." : l.) ,~ j W/O EL ..,.- :: en' I ,. Ir .,.A ,I 111.17 :> ~ :'1.2"_ _~~ ~ -.." ~ .... '3.1. · 1.9_ .. " J f . - '"'"">I ~__ .", . /' ,_ ...... 0 r aOUth"'" 'I.. O.~ l: . . -. - 78.8 t - - , "".r 1111.. Itw. -i'l I r >'_ ~~''''1~.~ . - _ ---100.19 mea...._ " . . 1"0 plo,t ~ ":"H S ego 56' 'fw c~ ' South line of lot 14, L :/ / ~--~-, I / I ~ / r , " r- r I HOUSE Garage 1 /1 rL.....J / ---- / / "'./_--L- / -_--J / / .' / ,; " / 250 -r--- ,/ r " ... -',.'illlll North 'ine of lot 14 ,i OAKLAND BEACH _ " ~, SB9050'Z4"W -:-: 100 Plot ':---100.07 rneos--. \: HOUSE / 94~LA~D /~EACH .... ...-- s~~ ~~~ q~ t.G~ a: .\~t>-~ W 2'11 !l a.. ,.c:P I I). u. 2 I }" I r-~~) / ~ I --- , i I J \-IOU Sf. J ~ <! -.J a.. J ~ ef at III" corn > \L ~1V'J "II: \' 10 S:> II: :l ,- \0' v , tv' ~ en IJ S9', I , sx(' I 4SH~12:. I _' ,. ~ _ I 1- 4.6 '""" ~e)I050124'~-l .:, I , ; "~0.50 meas- lIJ . :"v 52 mill .n. .... ~v 0 N", - I ...JIl 0 Of '-a:J I ", -, 0 ;;; '1Il ~ '" " , / I ; " ....'" - III <1J ~ l\=0003'52" L = 0 68 -'1', ... I I /1 F I ' /,/ -1;ft> . ~ q, ,'p '" ~ c <0 v: 1\. \I' I, ..... ", 'Q '. .... , , 7 ,- I,' (-North line of lot 10, E 1ST. ADDt TlON i I , ,SHEO'" SeGoI '"' 140 P :.. q'l --139.8 I III !OJ " ,_ .;::::::--5.6 ;1" /' . " GARAGE ,/ / '" / 4_ / / 1'1~1 I ./ , :;:T,4Z-; ~l \43 " Neo ) s . _ ol.lth 'HI OAKLAN( / / GARAGE ( J ~/ L-L~ HOUSE r- I Garage 1 , r~- - /1 / -----1 / - / ~ ... --L~_L__.~__::.. / ... ,/ ...- ... I' / 2'" ! 7""_,0 19'2.6 ... .I' / ...- ~ , .I' / : .,' ' ' ' . <t J~ I " NO"."" -' w. I~ ! OAK line of , 0.. S-' :. _ .0.., ~:~ ~: LANO BE~~ 14 " · ~ "VI co,n" 01 :J --!!!. r---- _ ~ _: _ 1 .' ~: ~gg.SO' 24" W H - p'-~ 'J ;s~: - 10' ,0 r-~~th line of lot 10 J _~ I' ' l' ,IJ---/oo.orPI., .<!'! .)i 0 '" ' AO!,'T10N · E ,j . 1 .. ..... ,~ ,,~~ ,,' . ' , ________ ..,;; w ~ 01'1' s... t <? 0:: :'U.4.:'_" r'H'" ~SHEO'" S8601 . ~ _ .. I [< _. . ". w' 1 ''\ - t .. ~-; - ! ~!:: . ': 0.. d . 0/' ,. -' 0.. SO)fS' ,~. ., '. 140 P .. . ;;-8, I ;:" ~/, ;;1 ~~-- \~ -' o 24P'-:- 4.6...:::'.1 lID ~i --1398' ., _ ___. .c..:"'I(., ..' -, I ~.~,SOme '~. '.. t- " _ . 0 ,_ '.'. _" · ~ os. " - ~,_ .. ;, '! ! ~ r; . : <1 .,0' ..f' -....-J' ~ _ ;o,,]Q ~;....., ..w ." i" r; ~ 50 -'a ~ ~: : ,~~.1il r . -' ,'!. · 0' .;,~ 0' ' _... ..... ~. .. "'!'," _ HOUS( .!! It ~ It.. <D' : :-'.. '. __ "'OII'h" ~.j.,.. , ~ ,l~ ",,' :"" · 0.;., · 0.. ~,,;; w ,N;1; 0 ,.A.A....' : .~ 0.0 . . 1" . .. ,..' ". " · · - ! <t " OZ .. -0>--'" - >.'. ' . J' Oct, "... _ " '" o:"l .,. == 0 - III - '" - I 0,.,..... . ./ _" ., ' . 0 N n. . ..'" · o' .... ':':'~ -;:-. ,-0 ' :,--' J" ,,~~;; 0:: ~ co2 ~ :l: ~! L-' <" · ':) . _ .r 1'11. II" . Cl' ~ 19 ~. ~.' " - · ; = - , ---100 "'4 .. .,- . · .. 8 m Il 'F .-' Ui "10 ;./ ,eo..... r- _ "J.._..~~ T ,,9['-4 -- .-- -H- 307 d '1> . ..t. 7 ~. ",- . '"" .. S 589"56' , , : ~ I ". ;0 out. h" I 'w', < 'h.. ' U.i 'O>~~ fr' - boO.03'S2' of 10 I~) t ' I n""56' ~a!l'1 - L=O 68 L . ,!":LANO'" · I "II . . .8c4CH LL / j 0 i j T - (\j I '1/..--- I I ) / 1 . . SW corn / '" I" '00 10 "01 I ' ,,/ .~ l' ~ 'b l!' a. '. 'V ~ ,;, <0... . 1\. v- I, ...... 1\.' '" 'I .... ., HOUSE :(~I I ./ - .... ~J ~: ~I \\ N80 'l-South \in OAKLAN( r;- ." 142 f \4~ I , I i , , . I I I ! ,- I' .. ,/ G4FlAGF HOUSE. <'I ;1 -r-----,... I I i ..- .__J r- i L. \ I~~_..j \ ~ i ""---7-'- ""'7- ---'-.-----7 I /, '/ I V Garage ~-L- \-lOUSE / I / ..L_ .x ~ / / / L~_ ___L_ - ~ -' .;919.1 , 1 North line of lot 14 " OAKLAND BEACH - " ~I SB90S0'24"W ~: 100 plot 1:---100.01 meos--- \: " / / , HOUSE , r I "" '912.6 :,'" 11" I ,I 1 I... I I": I ,,,, I It 909.3 r - " ... .. 'I L 70.3t--_ -~: ~llDl --- .,- . 0 I ~ - - '_, . - - '.. r-----.. I ,,~., . L'I, >'r -- ~ ___. . "....1, 'i '. - ~ - , .. '. . '. ",.......... " · - - w, ...... o .. 0 r , 0 _e. · ;:; ., , - .. ' . ,c":J '" ~ """'~---- 87* 'a-:--8-___~.. ...,.co HOUSE d,~ ~ 0 ,.. ,,~.. ",ote , ~ ot 0 I \. "'; \ 913.11 . ::: 0 ot I I} , _ ...... o ",. . .' "~' Vi Ill', ! 11.1 11'.....,.-_ -t""":-.... '" 3 ~'-'. _. '.. ';' 1.9_k.._ I. o i< --:tiif~. /...._.. .~ ,. ) / .... o. '. ' .',/... OW" II". 1Mr. 'ill' ,- - ~ v B meal.-.. ' /J ',- ---100.1 , 'l( · -. IfJO ,10'" t. .. .,~ l. S89.56'1~ Wo f lot 141 ' . . South line 0 L r , 44.8 ',1 , r _.J (7 ~ ....... 0" .outh...l'-- ,:~~"l.-t,~.:- ~. 78.8 t . - - l' ."t': ., >>. '~.' ," .,.,,:.l ~ . \-\OU SE. / I / 250 ~___,_n___.__ JW wU SO >~ .1, : ~ N\N corner at () IJt9's.~ III ~ \0' ,0 ",C:J~' S 9" ...n'<'T '7.-.'?J . 0 ~ I ,?'<'" ~ ~ " ' {,..~G a:: :0 A:.. ~ r'~~'lj.- c, W <,.: '( "1 - .., " ' _"., n. 5.',50'24' ,-:0::;' '" 1 ~,.r:P~ ~- -- ..." J --- .-30.50 ,. ". .. . " . ""'os. . > . , / >'- _ ~ '/ . \ lO.6"dHd"" ,1" .\ l to.' ..... -""" _ ~., "., · .. 0 . , . ' . 9. .... · ..'" , _ 1I ". . "" 0 III 10- - ~, E <It '0 O"C11 ':) IN:! 0 ,... _ ,E "0 0 ... ,n " . - ~ 0 ell CII- CII % U --(1)--"'0 .. c:: ...... _ QI <I -' !"l"'- p~ 0 a ot :=0 o. N" i \A. <ri' 0 '., '. ... ~ - '" ' << '" '" ~ ..., I .... ,III 0: Z CO'" ':) ,- , ~...:L 19 )' Z 0 'It ot in III ' : _0' . w I .11". y' : / __ .'.." /",_.-___..f2!'.7 d.... ~ -,..... '. _ 1 ,6'0" , q- - .~O' 0,'52" 1:)./ ,. .s3mt'o~-I.I" ~L=O 68 I .peSE' I lit I . I \ ~ I I I / I / I- <:{ ~ D- .I \-"-"" _North line of lot 10, Block It 1ST ADDITION SH;O I S860 12' 36"W J 140 plot " , l.,. q, __t39.89rneos.' '0 WI _0 '" "f:',/'1[ / 9A~_LA~D ../jEACH u.. o (\J ~. SW corner of 101 10 21 :, .-. ---.----.- F ~ ./ '\oft> . ~ q, ,'P IV l:t < CO V) 1\. "" I, ..... 1\." 'Q 'I ...... - I , :;::>,"5.6 / / GARAGE , I ,I / , / I / ..1:_ / : l~1 I ./ ,I , '" ;"\" . \42 81 mea' ~\ \4~ \l~oInt ". Naoo 22' 3 ) _south line of I' OA~U).N D BEll \::- , G4RAGE /' (J) Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security purposes if these meet the regulations of subsection 1107.1800. (4) Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from the principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line. ~(5) Canopies no more than 12 feet wide are permitted in the "R-4", "C-1", "C-2", "C-5" and "1-1" Districts if they are open at the sides, comply with provisions of subsection 1101.506 and provide 14 feet of clearance if located over any access roadway or fire lane. (6) The following shall not be encroachments on front yard requirements: a. Awnings and door hoods which extend 5 feet or less into the required front yard. b. A vestibule which extends 5 feet or less into the required front yard under the following conditions: >- The vestibule shall be designed1 constructed and attached to the principal structure in compliance with the building code. >- The vestibule shall be constructed of materials compatible with those of the principal structure which meet the requirements of subsection 1107.2200. City of Prior Lake May 1,1999 1101/p35 .- Zoning Code ~ The vestibule area, measured from the outside of the outside walls shall not exceed 30 square feet. c. Heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment which extends less than 6 feet from the principal structure, is not more than 36 inches in height, and is screened from view. d. Platform decks meeting the definition in subsection 1101.1000. (Amd. ord. 01- 10, pub. 9/8/01) (7) The following shall not be encroachments on side and rear yard requirements: Heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment in side yards abutting a street and rear yards, but is an encroachment in interior side yards. None of that equipment shall extend more than 6 feet from the principal structure. Platform deck meeting the definition in subsection 1101.1000. (Amd. ord. 01-10, pub. 9/8/01) . (8) The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements: Balconies, detached outdoor picnic shelters, and recreational equipment, if constructed as provided in this Ordinance. (9) Decks not meeting the required setbacks may be replaced if the following criteria are met: ~ The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JUNE 3, 2002 4C STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF l' TO A FRONT LOT LINE, A 1.3' SIDEYARD SETBACK, A BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15', A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15', AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO A SIDE & FRONT YARD, A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO SIDE YARD, (Case file #02-029PC) History: The City Council held a public hearing on May 20, 2002, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variances as requested by the applicant to allow construction of an attached garage, vestibule, and second story room addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. Upon review of the applicants' appeal with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the City Council reversed the decision ofthe Planning Commission, and approved variance request #1 -7. The City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission with respect to variance requests #8 and #9. The City Council approved the following variances: 1. A 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 L:\02FILES\02appeal\mosey appeal\CCconsentREPAWlcR5'AL Orl>ORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: 4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5- feet setback. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. 7. A 2. 18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. The Council attached the following conditions to the variances. These conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage, vestibule, and room addition. 1. The existing driveway area shall be removed to meet the maximum 24-foot width at the right-of-way line, and to meet the minimum 5- foot setback to side lot lines, and to reduce the existing impervious surface coverage area. 2. The permit is subject to all other city ordinances, and applicable state and county regulations. 3. The variance resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed by the property owners, and pursuant to Ordinance Section 1108.400, the variances will be null and void if the required permits are not issued for the proposed addition within one year after adoption ofthis resolution. Conclusion: The attached resolution is consistent with the City Council's direction for approval of Variance requests 1 - 7, to permit a construction of a garage, vestibule, and room addition to be attached to an existing single family dwelling. The City Council has two alternatives: 1. Adopt attached the attached resolution to approve variances # 1- 7 as requested by the applicant. 2. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motion is required: L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCconsentREPORT.doc 2 REVIEWED BY: A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution 02-XX overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the listed variances subject to the conditions. V Frank ~ Ci L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCconsentREPORT.doc 3 RESOLUTION 02-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A I-FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A 3.5S-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF H.42-FEET; 5.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 9.1-FEET; A 5-FOOT AND 4.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2.1S-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: On May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Steven & Patricia Mosey of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; for the property legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota; and The City Council finds that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for reversing the decision of the Planning Commission; and The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be reversed, and said variances should be approved. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ItlE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: 1:\02fi1es\02appeal\moseyappeal\ccaprvres.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER a. Steven & Patricia Mosey applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205 of the City Code in order to permit construction of an attached garage, entry, and 2nd story addition to an existing principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota. b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-029, and held hearings thereon April 22, 2002, and May 13,2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance requests did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the requests. d. Steven & Patricia Mosey appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on April 29, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-029 and Case File #02-062, and held a hearing thereon on May 20, 2002. f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. g. The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that would constitute a hardship. h. The denial of the requested variances constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-029 and Planning Case File #02-062 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby reverses the decision of the Planning Commission, and approves with conditions 7 variances to permit a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2. 18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. I: \02fi1es \02appeal\mosey appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page 2 5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed garage, vestibule and room addition: a) The existing driveway area shall be removed to meet the maximum 24-foot width at the right-of-way line, and to meet the minimum 5-foot setback to side lot lines, and to reduce the existing impervious surface coverage area. b) The permit is subject to all other city ordinances, and applicable state and county agency regulations. c) The addition must be constructed as depicted on Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey. d) The variance resolution must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed, and pursuant to Ordinance Section 1108.400, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed addition within one year after adoption of this resolution Passed and adopted this 3rd day of June, 2002. YES NO Haugen Petersen LeMair Gundlach Zieska Haugen Petersen LeMair Gundlach Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1: \02fi1es\02appeal\mosey appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page 3 > w ~ ~\o~ f to ......'#. oJ · . ,.. ::) Co" ./,c C/), -. u. 0 w ti 0 - LL - ~ W 0 I ,... I- Z w :E ::I: ~ ~ !( -.".., SURVEY PREPARED FOR: STEVE MOSEY '''524 GLENDALE AVENUE S.E PRIOR LAKE, MH. 55372 ~". '" ',.. ! ". ~ Valley Surveying Co., P A. 16670 FRANKL.IN TRAIL SE PRIOR LAKE. MH. 55372 (9521447- 2570 ..... .. ... 10. ... I. o..u.....a ICAOt I ~~T"", .....z.,.... , \ ~ ~~;. l : \ ..;........0(.": -----'!~- - ~q t. . zOO . ~ f ~ "..,-~ L ---I ~ .. i1 r ," ,C r ,.4... " .! :="...-:0 "~~:l ~'i'~~ ~ ~~.- . :: ~: ::w,:-" (~. ~ ..t. ,- .,....~' ~ YOJ -. . .;...00001_'.. r~.t~, -i>!1=' w '. /, --=-- ~.:~~.. .. ;:! ;; I ~. ',-:-- s~~ ,,'.',- ;: ~-t8 ..~-;:-~. .;' 4';'0}. ll~"~~oi i1kr' ;:~; i; - r I i 0 IT ti .: .:.;.. : J ~:- ;; !: ~ : 16 .. .'-J'I .:.':..h~. ,.s.'Ia::a~:.i. : .' 1T~.' ; - - i :.:.. "J .!...J-~- ~,"'" . #, ''''.. f Z tS .; ...,... · 6.0.01'1 -J.' ,.- ~f ....-.-.-..1.... - _L'O" ,; -_.......1 ...' _..""""':.. ..____.' .;:)~ L' ....... ---~"t" "..' I J' ''':.'.- ..~--.... .' 41, --:::.1:,:--. 1 I ....~fJ.. ~ J I.. ~ "-''' I.....t 101I_'.. r-~I..~c _*4(." \ ~ I-S"C"_" k" ,~ ~/'~ " t ~ 1 1.~/l I ,f',., :..... . . .. .; .. _.t ..1.'~' .'. ' .~ .,..,' 't . ..,-11)" p'_. '. 0" ,. ..: ,.- .'(~l'l101''1 .oolt' ~1.."O e ...':'\'~'. PMOP:':r:..,,' oc.:;...~lPTI::t~ '..~ M:N Uli. Lot 14. 0J.Ia.A,"C) i4CAOt. 511:Jtt ~v. ,"titwMlllOC.A. 'faI.ltUV'r \"lCh "<< Ii.. "l~( 1. ~~~~ ~:# l~~~' :J..~;:~'.~. ~~~~~~~. ~=;. t~~:~':"J.;i~,;~J ~~ \DJ:1':Y. .Il~l lnc:a:..r. :)I!t.....l ~....l!....-x: ;..oaC:1 ..,. :"'d~ ;.." bt Adl:itl.:2. ~-ci.in.: to :no' ,.l14:o. I:r. .:iJ.. 1:"1 tn:- ot::iCf": af ~"\P ",..,h~et' a~ Ooo.d:l. .~: ~ty. rtl:wM3OtA in ".,::cr Sino CCl.r1tf snC ,SUte-. riMo:'~ ... tollcws: i:w;1.n.:'1in::-. .11':. ... poi..,: ~ :IV< \"~~": U~. o~ :.no: 1':'. !l-::r'l. 1. ClUthnd ~:, L~ .'_I1C::1':.ia" said jJDl~: tlr>n J._".--' i~: :JClU:l'K'" I";' OL ~rr ~...,n04':;:' ~e o! ..Ie t.~ 1~: t.nen...-e VItStoer!," '7l hl"',(' \lIt."} tn<" lIOU:.n li~' ot La: 1':, ~lMK:! ~, pnxa1Clld Nllt.4t'":y II di~ O~ ;";".r" t.et ~ tM ""e'ft"iy linP ot . iO lClllO': RIiI'.i ill o..ltla.~ ~~: :l\o1'1Cl'" ,SlUtne.l.-::.c:r1). alCllTJ !'-."... ....':..:-1,. aftP o. Mi~ 1':. ;no: roe... . dist.&o"lC>> ot 4.;... :.we: tIWtt> ....t.e't"l-,. an ~iat' wl:h U- aouth Li~ ::It l..o: U. JU.lant' ~c:h ~ ...xel.ly . cb.st.anoc.... oi j0.7 f_:. ~ a ilOb.: en UK' ~":. hl'lo"' C; f..o:. 1,j. e:.:.. l. Oada."ld a..:.cn If'lt Ad.::i.:ion. _ic pI01.nt =-i:\..O ~7.'; tee: nor'tner-l:' Ot ttw . _ _:~:' o~ _i~ I..oc l~': ~ ~"""C'ly 'I.i:ll"ll1 tne ~:. 11,... o~ t.ot 13. !!I1oa 1. OBd~!~ 9oac:n 1='":. Addi .lon, . disr;.;m=- of ~.1 :..: t:) tn_! ?1ftC'l! ot OI9imi.. ShawLnl. a1: vi.sibl~ 1.._ ":.; IInC f)lC'CPrC"t/ it an-,-. anto tII'~ 0;.:' tea .saic ~ 1\.:.1 0: t,h.- .xJYf! ccn:.ai.D&s. 14.~).: !Ie. f:" T lIOTES. ~ _ 91).17WIO~ ., "...._(1.00 I.' 9:! I 4 0..0.............. . )~, .1_..... _ 0.-, ". ._01____ 101.... 1__.- o )0 60 I SCAL[ '" ~[[T o 0JnaNa lirDft let . Orotw tIan faIN "L [ 110 826~ l&J Ill, .I \1.1' :). z i III ;i i 00 ~ l:) It'" 1l11'Ol1O C..-G( MOI'OKC GoUtAGt SIll fC ,... 21 .If.. "JIOfoD III. SlT8acP' Itlv ~'UIO' T(. s..". ll'tt:~.s.tO G"'~ .. S(T""'~,, "'0 IU,I\IG;m Il(,.Ap "f. ".:,1 R[V )/11,,1 TO J"o. N(W ",01'05(:- D(.C" L.~CATIO" "tv "Il ,e7 TO IM<M ""Cl"tlS[D !Z.CI( I NNIrr .,.,."... "* surw}' .... . ." IN .. ..... "" ...., ............. ... ..., I ~ ..., ~ ~ Surwyoo _"_01"__ -. Ooto ~ 110.10183 1ICX)t(~ "'G' DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MAY 20, 2002 8B STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF l' TO A FRONT LOT LINE, A 1.3' SIDEY ARD SETBACK, A BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15', A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15', AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO A SIDE & FRONT YARD, A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO SIDE YARD, AND A DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO THE SIDE YARD (Case file #02-029PC) History: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 2002, to consider an application for variances to allow construction of an attached garage, entry and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicants requested the following variances: 1. A 24- foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)]. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adj oining lot, rather than the minimum required 15 - feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 4. A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 162(1)d)~~~~a~eS~EP.~~.<Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' ofthe front lot line rather than the minimum required 5- feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3- feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 7. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12- foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and, 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1)]. The Planning Commission voted to deny the nine variances as requested by the applicant. The Commission determined the requested variances did not meet the 9 hardship criteria because of the proposed structure's location from the front lot line, the potential impact the 1 foot garage setback would have if the road were ever moved from its current location to the platted right-of-way, and the effect of the proposed addition on neighboring properties. A copy of the Minutes ofthe Planning Commission meeting of April 22,2002 is attached to this report. On May 13,2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 02-005PC denying the requested variances (see attached). Current Circumstances: On April 29, 2002, the applicant submitted the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the above-described variances to the City Council. The appeal was scheduled for hearing before the Council on May 20, 2002 in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended approval of 4 ofthe requested variances (#1, 2, 5 & 7 as listed). This recommendation was based on the fact that the lot is substandard, and the Planning Commission has previously determined that a two-car garage is a reasonable use of property. The staff also reasoned that many of the requested variances could be eliminated by redesigning the proposed addition. Staffs original recommendations are outlined L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCREPORT.doc 2 in the original staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 22, 2002. A copy ofthis report is attached. The Planning Commission did not agree with staffs recommendation and denied the requested variances. The findings of fact included in this report reflect the Planning Commission's decision. Issues: The City Council must detennine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested variances. Minnesota State Statutes and the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance require the following hardship criteria be applied as a standard for approval of variance requests. All nine hardship criteria must be met regarding each variance request. VAJUANCEHARDSHIPSTANDARDS 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject property is a nonconfonning lot of record and an existing condition over which the applicant has no control. However, the applicant can control the design and size of the proposed additions and eliminate the need for the variances requested. 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 lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing nonconforming structure without a garage. However, the requested variances can be eliminated or reduced with a redesign ofthe proposed addition. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The variances requested may be reduced or eliminated with a revised building plan. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCREPORT.doc 3 unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting ofthe variances would impair these stated values, by allowing a garage addition to be located within l' ofthe platted roadway. This location would be detrimental to public safety should the existing road be moved to the original platted location. 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 requested variances to permit a garage and 2nd story addition will unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, by permitting a noncompliant structure to expand and affecting future additions to structures on adjoining properties. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The requested variances can be reduced or eliminated with a redesigned building plan, and therefore, they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The variances as requested are not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a smaller garage addition to the existing structure. No hardship exists pertaining to all variances as requested. 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 applicant can reduce the size ofthe proposed garage and room additions to reduce or eliminate all eight requested variances. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. The variance requests are not based on economic hardship. Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined the requested variances did not meet the 9 hardship criteria. The variance requests could be eliminated or reduced by redesigning the proposed structure. The staff continues to believe that all of the variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance L:\02FILES\02appeal\mosey appeal\CCREPORT.doc 4 AL TERNA TIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: requests 1,2,5, & 7, but the criteria have not been met for requests 3, 4,6,8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure, and the small size of the nonconforming platted lot of record. However, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in size, and the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the City Council. The City Council has three alternatives: I. Adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variances as requested by the applicant. The attached Resolution is consistent with this action. 2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of some or all of the variance requests. 3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 2: A motion and second to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for approval of Variance requests 1,2,5, & 7, and denial of variance requests ,4,6,8, & 9. L:\02FILES\02appea1\moseyappea1\CCREPORT.doc 5 RESOLUTION 02-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OFl1t.E PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A t-FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A 3.5S-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 1l.42-FEET; 5.9-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 9.t-FEET; A 4.7-FOOT AND 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EA VE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2.tS-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; A 3.7-FOOT AND 4-FOOT VARIANCES TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SETBACK TO A FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES ON Tl1.E PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal by Steven & Patricia Mosey of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 2S-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42- feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A S.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1- feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required S-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.I8-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback IO.I2-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum l2.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of I.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of S-feet; A 4' variance to permit a 28' driveway width at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24', for the property legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 ofthe City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOWlltEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 1.t1E CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 1:\02files\02appeal\moseyappeal\ccres.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Steven & Patricia Mosey applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205 of the City Code in order to permit construction of an attached garage, entry, and 2nd story addition, and room addition to an existing principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota. b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-029, and held hearings thereon April 22, 2002, and May 13,2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request. d. Steven & Patricia Mosey appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 ofthe City Code on April 29, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-029 and Case File #02-062, and held a hearing thereon on May 20, 2002. f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. g. The City Council has determined the requests do not meet the hardship criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would constitute a hardship. h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-029 and Planning Case File #02-062 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying variances to permit a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 2S-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.S8-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of l1.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A 5.9- foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required S-feet setback; A S-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required S-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18- foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 1O.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the 1: \02fi1es\02appeal\mosey appeal\ccres.doc Page 2 required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; A 4' variance to permit a 28' driveway width at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' for applicants Steven & Patricia Mosey. Passed and adopted this 20th day of May, 2002. YES NO Haugen Petersen Lemair Gundlach Zieska Haugen Petersen Lemair Gundlach Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1:\02fi1es\02appeal\mosey appeal\ccres.doc Page 3 TO: PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVE and PATRICIA MOSEY RE: PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL DATE: 04-27-02 I am writing this letter to inform you that I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny my variances for my proposed addition of a two-car garage to my existing home. Jt~ LJ ffJ I ~'rn"" @ ~ Dw}" - , ~ '~~' 1.:- is . '~. . fl: I .! AFR l 9 tml .11 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 · Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply. . It ~uld not interfere with the quality of the lake. ~ · Quesliened the zero lot line. Kansier explained the measureent from the bluff. They w'et:e minimizing the effect as best as they could. . . Good appl~ation. In favor. I / Lemke: 1/ . Questioned staff wpat would happen if the surveY9t was off a few inches. Kansier explained private use of public property. It has happened before and that is how it is addressed. / . McDermott said property boundaries are m~ked clearly and will make every effort to make sure it does not happen. ./ / . Agreed with Criego, it is a good application. . Clarified he had been to the site.. Atwood: . It is a good use of the property;/Approve. / Ringstad: / . It meets all 9 hardships. Approve. I / , , Stamson: / , . This lot is clearly ~buildable without variances.' . Support the vari;Uices as proposed. / MOTION BY C)tIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02- 007PC ~~\rING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT THE 00Y ~ FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SE:fBACK AND THE ~:Zn ::::~es by ~1. MOTION CARRIED. \\ K~ier explained the appeal process. #- D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line; less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single- L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 22. 2002 family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following Variances: 1. A 24- foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required IS-feet. 4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5- feet setback. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wa1163.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3- feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. 7. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 1O.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and, 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' . Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-l District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot has dimensions of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. According to Scott County land records, the applicant does not own the adjoining properties Staff received a letter from the adjoining property owner in support of the variance requests. The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the property east of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. If the road were to be L:\02FILES\02planning comrn\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the R-O-W would be l' from the proposed structure. The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks. They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake. The staff believes all ofthe variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance requests 1,2,5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location ofthe existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot of record. In addition, staff felt the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested variances. Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required. 3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and state agency regulations. Staff recommended approval of variances #1,2,5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3,4,6,8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and plan. Stamson questioned staffs recommendation for leaving a vestibule, addition of a garage and second-story room. Horsman explained the applicant's architect felt the vestibule is needed to get around the stairway. Criego felt there was confusion regarding the road. Horsman explained the 20 foot platted road and where the road actually exists. Kansier said the roads were private and designed on paper in the 1920's. The actual roads were always on private property. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 Lemke questioned the ownership of Lot 14. Horsman explained the ordinance for a private road between single lot ownership. Comments from the public: Applicant Steve Mosey, explained the changes on the survey and the platted road and the actual road. Others had built on the road therefore causing the problems. He also explained the proposed garage and entryway. Ifhe didn't have a vestibule he wouldn't have a front door - all access would be through the garage. Mr. Mosey has worked with staff and will reduce the driveway making as little pavement as possible. Stamson questioned the proposed entry. Mosey explained the problem with the stairway. Criego questioned why the stairway was on that side ofthe house. Mosey responded there were trees on the property lines and the close location of the neighbors' homes. Criego questioned the slab on the lakeside. Mosey said it is an existing patio. The hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Refreshing to see someone reducing his impervious surface. . A vestibule is need. . Will support based on the fact it is reducing impervious surface. Atwood: . Questioned the impervious surface. Horsman said a reduction is permitted. . Would like to see a revised survey and other options. Ringstad: . Agreed with Lemke's comments. . Reduction of impervious surface is important. . The vestibule is necessary for safety. . Support request. Criego: . There are a lot of variances requested. Do we want to let a property go on a zero lot line? Looking at the adjoining properties, it will be sticking out from the other homes. . Concern for safety pulling out ofthe garage. Even though there is 20 feet, it is not the applicant's property. . Overall opposed to adding to the home in this method. If additional space does not solve the parking problems. The previous owner used the garage across the road. . Hard time allowing construction of a building to the property line. L:\02FILES\02planning cornm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 Stamson: · Concurred with Criego, pushing the building up to the property line does not warrant approval. . Not sure the current configuration is the only option. . The hardship criteria had not been met. . Another concern is the staff report is different than what is in front of them. . Does not support a two-car garage sitting on a right-of-way. . The adjoining properties are setback 20 to 25 feet. Open Discussion: . Lemke questioned if a private right-of-way is so different from a public right-of-way. There is not a lot of traffic. . There has been a past tradition to allow a two car garage. Realize it is up the edge of the platted right-of-way, but it is not a whole lot different than the Candy Cove property. . Stamson said it is different from Candy Cove. That property was off 90 feet from the road. . The adjoining property leaves enough room for the road to be moved. . By creating a building like this is eliminating the neighbor's ability to reclaim his property. It is creating a problem. . The Commission has allowed a two car garage when space allows it. . Atwood felt this wi111imit the person across the street by allowing construction to the edge ofthe right-of-way. Would like to see a revised plan. . Lemke questioned staff on the existing road and what problems it would cause. Rye responded it is a platted right-of-way intended as a private street. Do not know if an individual could claim it. . Kansier said in redoing the Candy Cove road, there was a similar problem. Although there was no platted road, there was an established right-of-way because of use. . Lemke said the big hang-up is taking something away from the adjoining property owners. This matter should be continued and get an opinion from the City Attorney. . Criego felt there were alternatives without infringing on the zero lot line. The Commission cannot make things worse when there are alternatives. It is a small piece of property. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE APPLIATION AND HAVE STAFF PREP ARE A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE LACK OF HARDSHIP. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE METHODS BY NOT INCEASING THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES. Vote taken ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nays by Ringstad and Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 12 RESOLUTION 02-005PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A I-FOOT FRONT SETBACK; A 3058-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 11.42- FEET; 509-FOOT VARIANCE TO BUILDING SEPARATION OF 901-FEET; A 407-FOOT AND 5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND 2018-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BUILDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; A 307-FOOT AND 4-FOOT VARIANCES TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SETBACK TO A FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Steven W. & Patricia 1. Mosey (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage and room addition to a single family residence on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, and legally described as follows; Lot 14, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-029PC and held hearings thereon on April 22, and May 13, 2002. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposed a garage/room addition with a zero setback to the front lot line and platted road right-of-way, this creates a potential safety issue for the subject property and use of the right-of-way. 5. A legal building envelope for a garage addition exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested variances for setbacks to the front and side yards, sum of side yards, eave encroachment, building walls over 50-feet, and driveway location. The applicant has control . 1:\02fi1es\02variances\02-029\dnyres2.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER over the garage and room addition design and shape, such that the hardship has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller building footprint. 6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required building setbacks as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variances. 7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all. 8. The contents of Planning Case 02-029PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variances for a future garage and room additions to a single-family dwelling as shown in attached Attachment 1 - Certificate Qf Survey; 1. A 24- foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)]. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required IS-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 7. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 1:\02files\02variances\02-029\dnyres2.doc 2 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1)]. 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' driveway width at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1)]. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 13, 2002. Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair Anl:~.sT: Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director 1:\02fi1es\02variances\02-029\dnyres2.doc 3 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 5D CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF l' TO A FRONT LOT LINE; A 1.3' SIDEYARD SETBACK;A BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15'; A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15 FEET; AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO A SIDE & FRONT YARD; A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO SIDE YARD; AND A DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO THE SIDE YARD ( Case file #02-029PC) STEVEN & PATRICIA MOSEY 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO APRIL 22, 2002 The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following Variances: 1. A 24-foot variance to permit a 1-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)]. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required 15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. . 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. A 4.7 -foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 11 01.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments (1)]. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 7. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 1 0.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)]. 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and, 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways (1 )]. DISCUSSION: Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SO). The subject lot has dimensions of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. According to Scott County land records, the applicant does not own the adjoining properties (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey). City records indicate in 1976 a previous owner was granted an 8' variance to construct a room addition within 2' of the south lot line. In 1981, the same owner was issued a building permit for an addition to the garage on Lot 10. At the same time, both Lots 10 and 14 were owned by the same person. Lot 14 was purchased by the applicants in 1996. The current owner and applicant received a building permit in 1996 to remodel the interior of the existing house, and for a gas fireplace. In 1997 the applicant was issued a permit for the deck addition. The applicant now proposes to build a 28' by 19' garage with second story addition attached to the existing dwelling. The proposed front setback of l' requires a 24' variance. Setback averaging will allow a 20' setback (16.8' L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 2 average). The existing house is currently setback 1.3', but the addition is considered an expansion which is not permitted under City Code. The existing structure does not have a garage, only a paved driveway/parking area in the location of the proposed addition. In addition, the applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the existing driveway in order to reduce the impervious surface area. (Attachment 2 - Building Plans). As proposed, the sum of side yards on the subject lot total 11.42'. This requires an 3.58' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is 15' on nonconforming lots. This variance request could be eliminated by reducing the garage width by 6', and provide for a sum of side yards of 17.42' [Ordinance Section 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8) Nonconforming Lots]. When the proposed addition setback of 1.3' is combined with the setback of 7.8' for the existing structure on Lot 15. the building separation of 9.1' is less than the required minimum separation of 15' between all structures on the subject nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. This requires a variance of 5.9' for the garage/room addition [Ordinance Section 1101.502: Required Yards/Open Space (8)]. The eave and gutter encroachments will require two variances: a 4.7' variance to allow the eave/gutter to encroach within .3' of the side lot line, and a 5' variance to permit an eave/gutter to encroach within 0' of the front property line. The existing house eaves currently encroach into the same side yard; however, this addition is considered an expansion of a nonconforming structure and not permitted by code. The side yard encroachment variance could be eliminated again by reducing the garage size 6' in width. The proposed addition will add 19' to both side yard exterior building walls of 44.8' for a total wall length of 63.8'. The Zoning Ordinance requires that two inches per foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (63.8' - 50' = 13.8' x 2" = 27.6" or 2.3'+ 5'= 7.3', & 2.3'+ 10'= 12.3'). This requires a 6' variance to permit a 1.3' side yard setback on the south line, and a 2.18' variance for a 10.12' setback on the north line. The existing driveway area is approximately 22' deep by 39' wide for 858 square feet of coverage area. The applicant is proposing to eliminate an area along the north lot line of approximately 10' x 20' for 200 square feet. As proposed, the driveway would extend out from the addition at 1.3' from the south lot line, and requires a variance of 3.7' because this does not meet the minimum 5' side yard setback tor driveways. In addition, the proposed driveway is 28' wide at the private R-O-W line (right-ot-way) which requires a 4' variance to exceed the allowable width of 24' [Ordinance Section 1107.205 Driveways]. . L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 3 The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet which identifies an existing 2,789 square foot of impervious surface for 41.8% of the total lot area, including the common area between the rear lot line and the 904' OHWM. The proposed garage/room addition would be built over existing driveway and would not add to the impervious surface area. In addition, the applicant is proposing to remove 200 square feet of existing driveway for a proposed impervious surface coverage area of 2,589 square feet or 38.8% of total area. The proposed reduction of impervious surface area is allowed under the City code, as an existing site that is being altered, remodeled or expanded without expanding the existing impervious surface (Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious surface Area). The applicant submitted a narrative describing their reasons for the requested variances (Attachment 4 - Applicant Narrative). In addition, staff received a letter from the adjoining Lot 13 property owner expressing support for the applicant's variance request (Attachment 5 - Letter Dated 3-21-02). The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the property east of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. If the road were to be moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the R-O-W would be l' from the proposed structure. The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks. They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake. Staffs recommendation is to reduce the garage width from 28' to 22'. This would add 6' to the south side setback, and would eliminate four of the variance requests (3, 4, 6, 8). The proposed garage/room addition will only allow a l' driveway depth from the 20' platted private road access, and staff has concerns regarding vehicle parking in the right-of-way, should the existing road be moved to the platted R-O-W. However, under the current conditions, with some of the existing garages built in the platted R-O-W, the road may not be moved. In addition, staff suggests redesigning the garage/room to 22' x 19' to reduce the impervious surface area by an additional 114 square feet, and remove the existing paved driveway in this area for reduction of an additional 132 square feet of impervious surface area (6' x 22'). This variance request could be reduced or possibly eliminated by resizing the garage width to 22', and recessing the garage wall 6' away from the south lot for a 7.3' setback. If Lots 10 and 14 were under single ownership, the garage on Lot 10 would be a 'permitted use under Zoning Ordinance 1101.501 Lot Provisions (3, d), Two or L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 4 more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a private road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot under the following conditions (reads in part). However, Lot 10 is owned by the applicants father. and therefore this condition does not apply VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and an existing condition over which the applicant has no control. Some variances will be needed to build a garage addition. However. the applicant can control the design and size of the proposed additions and eliminate the need for half of the variances requested. 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 lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing nonconforming structure without a garage. Plats of this era (1926) subdivided lots with smaller dimensions (50 ' wide) and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining properties of the Oakland Beach subdivision. In addition, because of the structure's location and proximity to the front lot line, this precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of front setback variance. However, four of the requested variances can be eliminated or reduced with a redesign of the proposed addition. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A front setback variance appears necessary for a garage addition of reasonable size and to preserve a substantial property right of the owner. However, the variances requested for the setbacks to the side, sum of side yards, eave encroachment, driveway and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated with a revised building plan. . L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 5 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 variances should not impair these stated values, unless the road were moved to the platted right of way. and within l' of the proposed garage. 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 requested variances to permit a garage and 2nd story addition will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Since this is a platted lot of record, and no garage exists, the granting of 4 of the requested variances is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. However. Variance #'s 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9, can be reduced or eliminated with a redesigned garage/room addition plan, and therefore, they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. With respect to variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, a hardship exists and a variance is required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a smaller garage and second story room addition to the existing structure. However, no hardship exists pertaining to all variances as requested. 8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property. A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to four variances to construct a garage and second story addition to the existing structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 6 garage and room additions to reduce or eliminate all eight requested variances. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances. In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship criteria half of the variances requested. RECOMMENDATION: The staff believes that all of the Variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot of record. In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduce9 in size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested variances. Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required. 3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and state agency regulations. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances, in this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance requests. - L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 7 2. Approve variances #1,2,5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and plan. 3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 4. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: The staff recommends alternative # 2: 1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-005PC approving variances 1, 2,5& 7. 2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-006PC denying the variances 3, 4, 6. 8 & 9, as requested by the applicant. . L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc Page 8 ~'o' [ o :~ .~ ~'~<l. ~t ~ ~. t. 'f .r- . ~ f~ l::1 ~ L~ <\) j~ n ~j i. ,- / ~ ~ i i I I ! I l. ~ 0: . 1 ""~j 11\ i : It I) I QI I.. ~ :r ... _ I I ~ ~/fi I ~ I IJ.'.o' l ~i it ~ ~ 7;;rt1 Qi ~ li ? o 3 -' ----------~ .r:;> I &' , ~ ~ .Q' \.:l g- ;t lJ'. ~ ~ ~ ....~ 0 !l f " c.. ~ f- 0 I x ~ , ~ "1) .~ . "1J .~ ~ .. r--------- . ~ - ~ 1\ 1) "7f !I I 1j( -I I ~ l!'~ ~ . " l~ -' "-" I lI"~."'~. - I I I I ~..~~o ..I.....c. l . I i ~ -m. ~ it o J: s: m z -I N I aJ c: - r- C - Z G) ." r- )> Z tJ) ~ t. APR-17-2002 09:49 VALLEY SURVEY I NG CO. J P. R P.01 ,. ..,...-,. I.... r .'.n'CI , "', I .. ....... ....:.;..:. .. .... .'.CITYOFPRIORLAKE . ... :<... ..'," ...:.... <.:'.:.::.. ...:....: .:)~p~rViou.s Surl~ce 'Calculations. .. . .,.. ..:. ...:: . .:. > . :. .! ". '. ': . (10 be Submitted w'ith Buildine Permit Application). . ..u .. .;.... ......:.: ):'or:.AllPrope~estocatedln.the Shore land Distrlct{S ':::u ...:.:.:~eM~~uri.l tmp~rv~.ous. Silnace ~overage Permitted in 3! . " . : _ . :~..'. ': . i' , ,.... '. ': :. . . '. .: Property.Addr~ss. ..\llltio . O~V-\~~q .'8~.~~. ..t\~~~.. .. ~ \4ro.~- - ...) : CoJDtapl. ( p"one~o_ ~ Fa , '~ .I ...,.. Lof Area.: .. :; ~.~uu,. ..Ci'a,~~~. et~.qo~.Osq. Feet' x 30% = ~............. 7'mo .~*~~.~~...*....!*.~~~~*..*.**....~~....*..........*.............***.**.. .. .. ........~...,.:.. ...:LENGTH. ..:.. WIDTH:. SQ.'FSET' . .' HOUSE,: :.<.:..f.,:......:............::: ..... .. . q~...~. : .~~u ... : \ "1-B \ .. . . . .',", . ...ArrACI-1ED:Q~GE:. .. . .. ..' .... ~ .... . . , ~ . . ' . , .... '. :', '" .". .X . ... . ~ . . . . .. .TOTAL.PRINCIPLE STRU\.. J. URE........~............... \'''2..e l .DET~C~PJ3.L.DGS... . . .., -: .. (~~~S~~ci).. -- .",' ,. x x ',' . ',' . ..' .:' .:.TOTAL.DETA.CHED.BU1LDINGS..................~:.~.>. '. " ,'", '.., '. . ". , .. . . .. ,'. '; ',' ; , D~EWAY~AVEPAREAS . " v '. -.' . .. (Drive~vay-pa.ved o~ not) ... . . . . . .. . . (Sidewal\CIParkins Areas) :... . . . ~...x "2.7....... .. .().,";'2) .x c. x :0:::: .' .,' TOTAL PAVED AREAS...~..............~.....~................ .ese '.. . :..",' "5\ A; \:, .... . '.~. ...... .. . '. ... .' '.PAllP~~ciR:C:HE.~It?E.~~~ :..' . .... .. ~p.c;. x . '<..:l top~n. Ce~1c.S 'i,,: min; opc:idnl be~...=" . , .. . ,. ~ ..: x . I ': 2.... .' baGrds. wicn ..pcrYio~ .ud~e b~IQW, .. : . are not cDnSidered. to bidmperviol.lS).; ... .' . '.~ . '. ' ~ ".. ',. . ':. ....., , .. \..II \.( l .~ .. = . x. .,.. . = . . . . TOTAL DECKS ........~.~.. ....... ...m~ ..-...--......... ......~...... loGo OTHER. .. .X.. ..... . = ....." . x. .- . . ..~"., .' .~. . . . " ',' . . . . . . . . ',: .: '. TOT ~ OTm'R....~...:~.........~..~..............~......"......~...,,~.' : . "0". :,', ".,' " ". . " , : . . TOT#~ERVIOpSStiRrft.CE . ..1 't.1M . UND~~..:....... ... . :1 feR Prepared :BY~~"'~ Date..... \.I -I ~"2- . ... '.. . .. \ .. .. .. .... ';. :.~~mpany.:'<\h\~ .:S\\2~.\~fl :.:c,. :.{~ ~. Phone #...t.\~~~~1.0 .. . .~.:':J'-l~..:.:.\~~ _ .~~:.~~ 'kw\\\. ~rJ~ \.~~~t. .\.Jo.l \4.Y\. .~w. ~&('rq5-e --:t.+. ~\ \\ ~ .... \Q~\.\.~: 0:. ~("'. -e"I.\*,'-'E!),;..~ ~.""ooJ~ ~..('- '. .: .... TOTRL P.01 .. . ... !t i! .0 ::J: s: m z ~ .~ .' I. :;:.. ." m ~. 6 c CI'-. (/) c: .. :%I. . :.m .~ m I...!j 1~ :~.N / ATTACHMENT 4 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE TO: STEVE HORSMAN FROM: STEVE AND PATRICIA MOSEY RE: BUILDING VARIANCE DATE: 03-21-02 My family and I are attempting to make improvements to our home. We currently live at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave S.E. We have been living here for approximately five and one half years. Weare a growing family with two kids, ages 14 and 10 years old. We love living here, but our home does not have a garage. Weare a two-car family along with many other property owner items, such as; lawn mower, snow blower, bikes, tools etc. We have very limited storage space. We would like to build an attached garage onto our existing home. We would also like to add a room above the garage to give us more room for our family. We have put a great amount of time and research into our project and feel we are in need for the addition. We will be asking for variances consisting of; Front and Side Setback, Combined Side Yards, Building Separation, A Building Wall Over 50 feet, Eave and Gutter Setback, and A Driveway Setback. These will be needed to build our proposed garage on our irregular lot. Weare hoping that after you see our plans, and the survey, and give us some time to explain our need that you will grant us the variances we need to build our addition. If you have any questions please feel free to call us. Steve and Patricia Mosey Home; 440-6611 Steve work; 612 673-5704 Patricia work; 952 707-3367 f ~- "" i .~. . :.~.~. . t... . -...-. -~.'.. !:'~\:::7LSU\~j i.. ! I, . : . / tlr-r, : . \ .~"i' - 2 ~J:J2 . ~ , j : ~ '--.. I :... ~ .. -0_. L_. --..-.. ---. .-- . . ./ e9/e4/1997 19:21 6en774631 DAVID FELDSHUH PAGE e1 ATTACHMENT 5 · LETTER DATED 3-21-02 April 16, 2002 Prior Lake Planning Commission City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Dear Planning Commission: We are writing in support of Steven W. and Patricia J. Mosey's application for a variance at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave. SE., lot 14. This addition will not adversely affect the lake and will be an improvement to the property. Sincerely, ~ David Feldshuh 01~akland Beach Ave SE. an,- Martha Frommelt 308 Elmwood Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY VARIANCES TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK LESS THAN 25 FEET TO FRONT LOT LINE; LESS THAN 5 FEET TO SIDE LOT LINE; A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15 FEET; BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15 FEET; EAVE ENCROACHMENT LESS THAN 5 FEET TO FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINE; A 63.8 FOOT BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO SIDE LOT LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED; AND A DRIVEWAY WIDTH GREATER THAN 24 FEET, AND SETBACK LESS THAN 5 FEET You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, May 20, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPELLANT: Steven & Patricia Mosey 14620 Oakland Beach SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REQUEST: The appellant is requesting the City Council overturn a decision of the Planning Commission to deny variances to construct a garage and room addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The proposed structure is setback l' from the front property line; 1.3' from the side lot line; an eave encroachment within .3' of a side lot line, and 0' to the front lot line; a sum of side yards of 10.76'; a 63.8' building wall setback of 1.3-feet, and 9.46-feet; and a driveway setback of 1.3', and width greater than 24- feet. 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 447-9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Prepared this 30th day of April 2002. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on May 4, 2002. L:\02FILES\02appeal\mosey appeal\Pubnote.doc I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY VARIANCES TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK LESS THAN 25 FEET TO FRONT LOT LINE; LESS THAN 5 FEET TO SIDE LOT LINE; A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15 FEET; BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15 FEET; EAVE ENCROACHMENT LESS THAN 5 FEET TO FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINE; A 63.8 FOOT BUILDING WALL SETBACK TO SIDE LOT LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED; AND A DRIVEWAY WIDTH GREATER THAN 24 FEET, AND SETBACK LESS THAN 5 FEET You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, May 20, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPELLANT: Steven & Patricia Mosey 14620 Oakland Beach SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 REQUEST: The appellant is requesting the City Council overturn a decision of the Planning Commission to deny variances to construct a garage and room addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The proposed structure is setback l' from the front property line; 1.3' from the side lot line; an eave encroachment within .3' of a side lot line, and 0' to the front lot line; a sum of side yards of 10.76'; a 63.8' building wall setback of 1.3-feet, and 9.46-feet; and a driveway setback of 1.3' , and width greater than 24- feet. 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 447-9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Prepared this 30th day of April 2002. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be mailed on/or before MayJO, 2002. L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\MailNote.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 24 GLENDALE AVENUE S.E. )R LAKE, MN. 55372 u 10.1 o v \6 :3 - C, I _ ----.,7-.- -+'-~-T- '_.--r- -.--.-;-__...._ - ..... ,/ G:lr:lgE: rlJi.:S E / ~... / -'" U ~ / / . .~ ~ __.---L-_~_j: 0' ./ f- .J'" ",U ~e\l" < > Cl ~\.., COr" / -l S <: ~ ,....... " " / ,111111 0.. .)0.1 ~\~ ~ lot \0 -1 I <l's. 912.6 / " "; North line of lot 14 .... J S ...~ I .;. I' OAK LAND BEACH ~ S"'..... ~I tSHE~_ :~ ~: S89050'24"W ,~C?1&t tV : ~I-f~- u ".Eo 1 ..: '" I 0 ,'?l <,~ u.. "-.' I'" II 10 plot ~I" LU s89f50'2<~ . ---70.3t--- __90S)...;'_:'1 ':-uI00.07meos---.. ._~I~~ o..cP 3'050 '--l ~ I: I '~___ ,. -iIf"- , meos- . Iii . _~78t ',. .n:.o! ~':: ....-:7" " 30.6Adeed :,~ 2 0; ~l . I ~.4f !l11S (010 "...J - - - ~'~:I 1,01), 0 I ';'",- ~ III '; '0 .10.1 , 1".0, ,j"';-"" " /).J III !..,~ (; . :~ '" . N~ " d .~---- 8"~ - ;..' , , " ~I'....." 44.8 0,;'1 _ ",....:O.~ C1re-'g ...~r-en'..JI'lo- 1 ~-- 0 : '. ~e N .4 I ,1 ~. ." Cl.., C - ... u - ,., 0 0-':--0- ~', SL.:"':J1ll CD , r - II) t! C . ai : VI ~ . &I ,:) . . .,Q. -1I)~<l:'" N'tl%~ ":' ._ ~ .!: ~ 0 . ,.-l 7.5..,:;'-: HOJst l:: - .., = 0 ~ :l :l I 0 0 ~ \ '" 1 W/O tL. ~ 0 ~ 0 0: Zoo'" '" ' ;;; ~ ~'" -- j ~ :.. .. tl.l. .~r:,~~ _ !-""..."I 9'3.17 ~~/.<, . ," ~ I' ~ ~ j ~ m ~ L L_.____.... '.,3IJ..~~ 1.9_~ " " ,"<./ '9 ~__P___.J06.7deed f..t- --L j ~, 1) / /, I ' 'J"!Or'>>21 . "':<.1 ~ I ~ I , ,...~O,.South../ ,~C'n,..... $1.101',,:: ~: ""~' ' I ,'3 .,)3m~o5' - -.78.8 t - - . . t.... lWe, hn* ~. ~,. . '( , -.---r--1 ;:;).~ ~ I 1,.e::"\...~6".. 3 ,'I'r,. _.. ...- ....--":~.- ~ 0 ---100.18 meal.--- ~ f:l'.' '''',C. riv" ,. . ~ SE;9~~6'13-W~ i' " ~ 'I ). L"~"_h' L S",th Ion. of lOL'" 9A~:A~'~ e!EACH , t' \ /" -~o; ~;c. /" /1 './ ..... 0 ..... "',,~ ~ so.:!- ..... 'It .., o CO ~ V) '..... I, ..... 1\,,' " II ...... 'oJ ~ HOUSE )::; ..... '-_- _~_.n~ ~ , f r'" .__.h___ - ~l _ -- HOUSE. I L..__u._ - ------.--1 . PROPSrT~'Y DS3CRI?I'IO~~ ,".,:'; ??OVIDCD: Lot 14 I O.n.KLAND ~C1\CH I Scott County I i'tinr OAKLA.'1D 3.GAc.Q 1';;.: ADDI'l'IO!':, Scott Count...., AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) ry ~ .AI::ilLlA~L~ AYnofthe City OfPriOrtmake,c unty of Scott, State of Minnesota, being duly s ro, says on thelJrl"-da~ of . '~2002 she served t~ atta;;l,1eAdlist oftpt;rs(:m to have an interest in the i > ~ """Xt u.e. vvu) ~ ~ ~ , by mailing to them a py reof, J-nc1osed in an envelope, postagl prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this day of , 2000. NOTARY PUBLIC L:\DEPTWORKIBLANKFRM\MAlLAFFD.DOC Ambrose J. & Loraine Czech 14560 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Wafne F. & Nathaleen Mosey 14524 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Paul J. Borman 14626 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 ,jdfth G. Gentry 14625 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Margaret M. Lynch 14676 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 {;tobert F. & Bonnie Cameron 14597 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Bonnie Lurquin 14649 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 C. ti. Mi lIer 1095 Polk Circle Minneapolis, MN 55421 Arnold F. & Audrey Pahl 14574 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 David C. & Joan Rembold 10535 Parker Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Deerfield Development LLC 7765175 St. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Janet J. Cherrier 14644 Glendale Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark S. & Pamela J. Rausch 14565 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 D(j\nCIld W. & Helen D. Erickson 14613 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Almac Inc. P.O. Box 550 Prior Lake, MN 55372 J[>vV\ LD'.te.,% h-irJ;u.Q-e.{. (1~ 1 .bt'J~ q,egory J. Engebos 4931 Beach St. N. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 [)avid M. Feldshuh 308 Elmwood Ave. Ithaca, NY 14850 Thomas & Pamela Dauffenbach 14580 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Sharon L. & Steven R. Vespested 14662 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Thomas A. & Kelley M. Roszak 14581 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 C)avid W. & Deborah L. Humphrey 14631 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Daniel E. Duoos 14670 Cove Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~~ Ambrose J. & Loraine Czech 14560 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Arnold F. & Audrey Pahl 14574 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Gregory J. Engebos 4931 Beach St. N. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Wayne F. & Nathaleen Mosey 14524 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 David C. & Joan Rembold 10535 Parker Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 David M. Feldshuh 308 Elmwood Ave. Ithaca, NY 14850 Paul J. Borman 14626 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Deerfield Development LLC 7765 175 St. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Thomas & Pamela Dauffenbach 14580 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Edith G. Gentry 14625 Oakland Beach Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Janet J. Cherrier 14644 Glendale Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Sharon L. & Steven R. Vespested 14662 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Margaret M. Lynch 14676 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark S. & Pamela J. Rausch 14565 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Thomas A. & Kelley M. Roszak 14581 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Robert F. & Bonnie Camero., 14597 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Donald W. & Helen D. Erickson 14613 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 David W. & Deborah L. Humphrey 14631 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Bonnie Lurquin 14649 Glendale Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Almac Inc. P.O. Box 550 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Daniel E. Duoos 14670 Cove Ave. S. E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 C. H. Miller 1095.Polk Circle Minneapolis, MN 55421 TO: PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEVE and PATRICIA MOSEY RE: PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL DATE: 04-27-02 I am writing this letter to inform you that I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny my variances for my proposed addition of a two-car garage to my existing home. ffi~"' y -).~ lli @ ~ 0 \\!l ~ ~-:::l ~ d' ! . : . MU 9. )1 L f ,~ Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: ~ Pubnole.doc Steve Horsman Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11 :00 AM 'Iegal@swpub.com.' Published notice for Prior Lake American dated May 4, 2002 1 May 8, 2002 Steve and Patricia Mosey 14620 Oakland Beach Ave SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the May 13, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810. Sincerely, C~Ccur4o-n,- Connie Carlson Planning Dept. Secretary Enclosure I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - . '~r~ O\V:: '..' "" . \...5 \G l5 d Li:.. "~"'l} .' 11 .'i I ~/ j; MAY' 7 lID! r: Lawrence J. Miller 1095 Polk Circle - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 763-571-7087 May 15, 2002 Steven Horsman City of Prior lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior lake, MN 55372-1714 Dear Steve, Enclosed are letters for the City Council expressing my concerns about the Mosey variance request. Please distribute a copy of the letter to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Thank you for your assistance, Sincerely, I I i Ii May 16, 2002 Steven & Patricia Mosey 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the May 20, 2002, City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting or have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810. Sincerely, JCfA/\,e/A. K~ Jane Kansier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Lawrence J. Miller 1095 Polk Circle - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 763-571-7087 May 15, 2002 Mayor Jack Haugen Councilmember Jim Peterson Councilmember Mike Gundlach Councilmember Joseph Zieska City of Prior lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior lake, MN 55372-1714 Dear Mayor Haugen and Council members, I am writing to express my concerns about an item on the agenda for the City Council Meeting on May 20, 2002. I am opposed to overturning the Planning Commission denial of the variance requests by Steven Mosey for the property at 14620 Oakland Beach SE. It is my opinion that the Planning Commission made the correct decision. I am opposed to granting the variances that would permit the construction of a two-story addition to one home that would be 20 feet closer to the road than the neighboring homes. I am also opposed to starting a precedent of allowing isolated unplanned zero lot line projects in the neigh- borhood and the City. It is my opinion that this proposed project would adversely affect the neighborhood and the value of the neighboring properties. My concerns are for what is best for the neighborhood and the City. My family owns two lots beginning 100 feet South of the subject property. We have owned the lots for 50 years, and this was the site of our summer home for 30 years. I am very familiar with this neighborhood and the unique land problems of this area. I think that the variance process is generally good, and in most cases, permitting some variance from the code results in a benefit to all concerned. However, it is my opinion that the variance request by the Moseys exceeds the limit of what is good for all concerned. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. cc: Steven Horsman, City of Prior lake Steven Mosey ~rP~~ ~.rv. \............;...............~ -/> ~ ~NE:;O June 12, 2002 Steven & Patricia Mosey 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Recording of Approved Variance and Assent Form Acknowledgment Dear Mr. & Ms. Mosey: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Resolution 02-80 approving variances on the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue must be recorded at Scott County. A building permit will not be issued until proof of recording has been 'submitted to the Planning Department. The variance will be null and void per Section 1108 of the City Code within one year if the project is not completed or if construction has not commenced (Assent Form). Enclosed is a certified copy of the original Resolution to be recorded at the Scott County Recorders office. The 2nd copy is to be stamped as recorded by the recorders office and returned to the Planning Department as proof of recording. Also included is a 3rd copy for your records. Additionally, the enclosed Assent Form must be signed by all property owners and returned to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any necessary permits. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-9854. Sincerely, C/~f1~,~ ~:en Horsman Zonir;lg Administrator/lnspector 1:\02files\02appeal\mosey appeal\recdlet.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Commission Meeting April 22. 2002 J-Li il ~'\ C . . d h h' h . f (-";\..1 LL'i,.~ nego questIone w y t e staIrway was on t at sIde 0 the house. Mosey ~ ~~ere are- trees on the property lines and the close location of the neighbors' homes. 'Qlres~d the slab on the lakeside. Mosey said it is an existing patio. The hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Refreshing to see someone reducing his impervious surface. . A vestibule is need. . Will support based on the fact it is reducing impervious surface. Atwood: . Questioned the impervious surface. Horsman said a reduction is permitted. . Would like to see a revised survey and other options. Ringstad: . Agreed with Lemke's comments. . Reduction of impervious surface is important. . The vesti~ule is necessary for safety. . Support request. Criego: . There are a lot of variances requested. Do we want to let a property go on a zero lot line? Looking at the adjoining properties, it will be sticking out from the other homes. . Concern for safety pulling out of the garage. Even though there is 20 feet, it is not the applicant's property. . Overall opposed to adding to the home in this method. If additional space does not solve the parking problems. The previous owner used the garage across the road. . Hard time allowing ~ building1JP~to the property line. ,.-' L-; ~ \. jn' \, u.J-~, ',' Stamson: I . Concurred with Criego, pushing the building up to the property line does not warrant approval. . Not sure the current configuration is the only option. . The hardship criteria has not been met. . C(,.~Other concern is r-eA~i~staffs report,.b]lt now lo0Y;"~ <It..-tlw-numbers, t13:ey are different than what we are looking at. . Does not support a two car garage sitting on a right-of-way. . The adjoining properties are setback 20 to 25 feet. Open Discussion: U02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202,doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 22. 2002 . Lemke questioned if a private right-of-way is so different from a public right-of-way. There is not a lot of traffic. . There has been a past tradition to allow a two car garage. Realize it is up the edge of the platted right-of-way, but it is not a whole lot different than !he Candy Cove property. b . Stamson said it is different from Candy Cove. That property ~ off 90 feet from the road. . The adjoining property leaves enough room for the road to be moved. . By creating a building like thi~is eliminating the neighbor's ability to reclaim his property. It is creating a problem. . The Commission has allowed a two car garage when space allows it. . Atwood felt this will limit the person across the street by allowing construction to the edge of the right-of-way. Would like to see a revised plan. . Lemke questioned staff on the existing road and what problems it would cause. Rye responded if it was simply a case of an owner doing this on private property. .. This is a platted right of way intended as a private street. Do not know if an individual could claim it. . Kansier said in redoing the Candy Cove road, staff came up with the same problem. Basically they had a use.... . Lemke said the big hang-up is taking something away from the adjoining property . owners. This matter should be continued and get an opinion from the City Attorney. . . ~'Y' . Criego felt ther~irkalternatives without infringing on the zero lot line. .we---raItia-f,)"<ot wI. I.A-J-- make things worse when there are alternatives. It is a small piece of property. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DENY THE APPLIATION AND HAVE STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE LACK OF HARDSHIP. THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE METHODS BY NOT INCEASING THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES. Vote taken ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nays by Ringstad and Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:21 p.m. 6. Old Business: A. Case #02-021 (Continued) Donald B. Scherer is requesting a variance to structure setback to the ordinary high water mark to allow an existing deck to remain on the property at 3894 Green Heights Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 . Agreed with Criego, it is a good application. ,-,J HaA. been to the site. t,. ii,~ v-V: 11UL-t l.t V Atwood: - It is a good use of the property. ~'r~ tt\lC Ringstad: - It meets all 9 hardships. Approve. Stamson: - This lot is clearly unbuildable without variances. - Support the variances as proposed. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02- 007PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT THE OHW, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line; less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single- family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicant is requesting the following Variances: 1. A 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks. 2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15- feet. 3. A 5.9-foot variance to permit a building separation of9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the _ minimum requirec 15-feet. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 22. 2002 4. A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5- feet setback. 5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback. 6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3- feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3- feet for building walls over 50-feet. 7. A 2.18-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet. 8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and, 9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' . Lot 14, Oakland Beach, was platted in 1926. The subject property is a legal nonconforming platted lot of record. The property is located within the R-1 District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot has dimensions of 40' front & rear lot lines, by 100' side lot lines, for a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. According to Scott County land records, the applicant does not own the adjoining properties Staff received a letter from the adjoining property owner in support of the variance requests. The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the property east of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. If the road were to be moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the R-O- W would be l' from the proposed structure. The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks. They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake. The staff believes all of the variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance requests 1,2,5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on the nonconforming platted lot of record. " L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 2002 In addition, staff felt the garage and room additions may be redesigned and reduced in size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested variances. Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required. 3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable county and state agency regulations. Staff recommended approval of variances #1, 2, 5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3,4,6,8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and plan. Stamson questioned staffs recommendatio~leaVing a vestibule, addition of a ).f~age and seconcktory room aaaition. Horsman explained the applicant's architect fetlfthe vestibule is needed to get around the stairwa~. ~ .U ~t-:,,'V-c <-~ .~...~ Criego4tonfu~ the road. Horsman explained the 20 foot platted road and .where th~ actual road exist~l''t~ ., ~ J '. Kansier said the roads were private and designec(in the 1920'S' on-paper. The actual roads were always on private property. "---':-->' Lemke questioned the ownership of Lot 14. Horsman explained the ordinance for a private road between single lot ownership. Comments from the public: ~ r \ cJ 11 " / ,. . , '...,,-- L')LfjLitY'-ti L'\'>- ~ ( Applicant Steve Mosey, ~z;cd-foF the survey Bot b€ing quite right. M08ey (,'-..--f/ e:xplaiRed the platted road and the actual road where people have built on the road therefore causing the problems. He also explained the proposed garage and entryway. If he didn't haye.av~stibule he wouldn't have a front door - all access would be through the garage. <The driveway willbe rooucea making as little pavement as possible. \. ..11. If . . - v. 1/ <>/', kl- I - 1'- l T\ <- \.{;V2-- hi{/"lk.{\ W \;' " ,,",(;\ 't'i..~ Stamson questioned the proposed entry. Mosey explained the problem with the stairway. . L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 10 ).~:~! ~ ~ ~ >, -'i Iii ., .::-.J . 7 . S 1/2 SEe 30 T 115N R 21W Parcel Half-Section Scott County, Minnesota ~~\\l 3BEA!~ L; ~ \ \:Ci\~ ~ o1,,/'tP" '~ ~ II II 269290290 I OUTLOT E OAI ~LAN0 269300070 5/ PRIOR LAKE '" o o o .., '" '" N ~ 269300013 269300020 I f ~;-: /~-- ~ # 269300014 Os -~ ~ . 8 ~; ~ i::~ __ -- ---- ST. ~R' .. '."'.' ~ j::. ~ 0 i ",..~'i)/ In ~ .~: . /' 1 - ~ ~ ~ /~ 'N w ~ /~. ',~ u>:'-- oun.OT ( AKGL.=NN --~~._- -~-------- - \ / This eta..... is n:ilhcra IepIIy ra;oded D1Ip nor a survey ... is I'D ir'Mtdcd 10 be used . one. 1bi uba... is a cotqJiIIion.~ . ~" :., ~ion.'" ~.1ocIIed inv.ioul city. a:uIIy. _51_ OrEes. mf ochersoum:s aft:c1in& mean stown.. ant is m beuscd iJr .'. . . .. _ only. Scoa CounIy is nol r"'llO'lritiefonny inECUl"B:aheRin.. ." .,1.If:;....". .."_,lefOlDi.pleasecortEI IheSma CoudySUIVeyoIS Office. - TO ~ .' a '- S.. . .= " , ~i'. ,,:.'\ I! I r ::~-':o,-,,-',;\".' . ,:" ,\\.; s t _,.;ci <~~.w ~ .I..P~._- -.- - -._.._.._u_._~_ -~~- \ .,., / ~., 269300080 ':-"'" 1lII!'f.- _ _ _-,~_ _ _~ __ -~ - - - -- --- - -- ---- - -t!O"""~.- 1 ~ ~ N w-t' 400 COUNTY SURVEYOR SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Decen1ber18.2001 o 400 800 Feel 530-115-21