HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-90 Perrier Appeal Resolution
and Minutes
L:\TEMPLATE~FILEINF0.DOC
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 19, 2002
The Council took a brief recess.
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny the Requested Variances to
a Structures Rear Yard Setback, OHWM Setback, Sum of Side Yards, and Setback for a Building Wall over 50 Feet
Long (Case File #02-068PC).
Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, discussing the variance requests appealed and the
action of the Planning Commission. Noted that the appeal has been revised requesting item 1, 2 and 7.
Pace: Asked for an explanation of the original request.
Horsman: Noted there were originally five variances requested, but that utilizing setback averaging, the need for one of the
variances was eliminated. Advised that there was one variance which the Planning Commission felt met the hardship
criteria and was granted.
Zieska: Asked if by granting the rear yard setback, variance #2 is still necessary.
Horsman: Advised that he would need to re-calculate the measurements, but noted that the applicant is appealing the rear
yard setback which was granted by the Planning Commission at a figure less than originally requested.
LeMair: Asked the square footage of the proposed structure.
Horsman: Slightly over 1700 square feet.
Bo¥1es: Asked for clarification as to where the 21.7 foot variance was needed to permit 3.23 foot rear yard setback.
Horsman: Identified the vadance discussed as shown on the original survey. Noted that the revised survey submitted was
necessary to eliminate the sum of side yards variance.
Gundlach: Asked the rationale for the 25 foot setback.
Horsman: Advised that setbacks are necessary to create uniform development and required yard areas. Such areas give
separation from structures and usable green space. Setbacks also preserve structures from moving closer to adjacent
structures, or in the case of this rear yard setback, from moving closer to the lake and thereby obstructing neighboring
views. Noted that setback averaging was used in this instance to allow the house closer to the ordinary high water mark
setback.
Kansier: Explained the common area relevant to this property and discussed the calculation. Noted that variances of this
type do not happen very often.
Gundlach: Noted that if the City Council did not take any action, the variance granted by the Planning Commission with the
setback averaging would still be effective.
Kansier: Confirmed.
Pace: Asked what three substandard lots had been combined in this instance.
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 19, 2002
Horsman: Advised Inguadona Beach Cimle dissects the property. The combination was of Lots 17, 20 and 21.
Hau,qen: Asked how the current boathouse affected the setback, and how much farther than the existing house did the
proposed house extended to the lake.
Horsman: Advised that in the instance of a noncomplying structure, staff would recommend that such structures be
eliminated. In this case, the boathouse is on common property owned by the property owners of Inguadona Beach. Also
advised that the proposed home is farther from the OHW and that the existing home is over the lot line encroaching the
common area.
Bo¥1es: Asked if the boathouse is included in the setback averaging calculation.
Horsman: Advised that the boathouse was not used in the calculation.
Gundlach: With respect to the revised survey, asked what items are different from what was approved.
Horsman: Advised that he had not had time to formally review the revised survey since its submittal late last week.
Pace: Asked if demolishing the current structure means that the encroachment in the common area would be removed.
Horsman: Advised that is his understanding, and that the new structure would be located within the property boundaries but
not meeting the OHW setback averaging and also not meeting the rear yard setback.
Pace: Requested that there be a condition if a variance is enacted that no portion of the proposed structure encroach into
the common area, with the exception of the boathouse.
Mayor Haugen declared the public heating open.
Loren Gross (attorney representing applicant): Introduced the petitioners who were present. Submitted a petition from the
neighborhood in support of the requested variances. Advised that the draft agenda indicated there were no public meetings
and therefore no persons from the neighborhood were present. Further discussed the three variances requested including
the side yard setback, rear yard setback, and setback from the OHWM. Noted that interpretation of the ordinance by the
staff and by the architect are not the same. Advised that the architect interpreted that the break in the garage would
preclude the need for an additional variance. Staff did not interpret the ordinance provision in the same manner. Also noted
that in 1924 it was intended that a 20-foot walkway be added along the lake. The line was not necessarily drawn from the
OHWM, and now is more like 50 feet. Noted that if the boathouse was considered a structure, it could be factored into the
setback averaging.
Gundlach: Noted that the boathouse is being ignored because it is on common property.
Pace: Asked who owns the boathouse.
Gross: Because of the drawing of the rear yard setback, the boathouse belongs to Inguadona Beach Association and does
not sit on any plat of record. Continued that the owners would like to build a newer home on the lot and believe the
applicant has done everything they can to make reasonable use of the lot and address the concerns of neighboring
properties. Repeated that all parts of the proposed house will be within the property lines and the deck would be 10 feet
further from the lake than the existing deck.
5
City Counc# Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 19, 2002
LeMair: Noted that the owners of Lot 16 directly adjacent did not sign the petition.
Gross: Confirmed, and advised that the property owners of Lot 16 had concerns with the house unrelated to the requested
vadances.
Gundlach.: Asked why the City Council should overtum a decision that the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed.
Gross: Believed the hardship standards for the granting of variances was subjective and that the applicant proposed a
reasonable use of the property. The same arbitrary standards were used in the staff's recommendation. Also noted that the
Planning Commission does not grant variances, but rather make recommendations to the City Council for final approval.
Zieska: Clarified that under Prior Lake City Code, the Planning Commission does grant variances and that the City Council
only sees vadance requests on appeal.
LeMair: Asked what the square footage of the house becomes if the applicant does not receive the requested variances.
Dennis Perrier (16502 Inguadona Beach, applicant): Advised that the proposed structure would be nearly 1500 square feet
on one level in that case. Noted that only one variance was granted.
Gross: Advised that the proposed structure is one level with a walkout in consideration of the impact an additional story
would create. The applicant also considers the proposed structure as a retirement home and would like to minimize the
number of stairs.
Perrier: Noted that the impervious surface calculation is well below the allowance, and that lot 20 and part of 21 would
remain vacated for overflow parking for the area. Also noted that his neighbor Roger Wahl are not opposed to the variance
request, but rather the design of the side wall and the overall size of the structure. Noted that he would probably make the
size of the house smaller in consideration of Mr. Wahl's concerns. Did not believe the size of the home is excessive for the
area. Further suggested that clarification needs to be made to the ordinance in the definition of rear and front yard for lake
property.
Zieska: Clarified that standard conforming lots in Pdor Lake need to be 12,000 square feet, and that the applicant's lot is
roughly half of that size, so adequate comparisons need to be made when discussing square footage versus lot size.
Perrier: Noted that his property includes additional lots.
Gundlach: Clarified that the ordinance would allow a garage accessory structures across the street on combined lots for
lake property.
Horsman: Suggested that with respect to lots 20 and 21, a condition be imposed that the compacted Class 5 materials and
any structures be removed otherwise the impervious surface area is over 30%.
Gross: Noted that Mr. Perder does not object to removal of the Class 5 material.
Perrier: Noted that the lot is used extensively to maintain the area and those lots were used for storage of construction
materials.
MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded.
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 19, 2002
Zieska: Noted that in review of the information tonight and from the Planning Commission, suggested that there is nothing
the Council can do with respect to the current structure, and that properties with similar constraints find a way to build within
the lot envelope. Commented that often times what an owner wants can't necessarily be built. Supported the Planning
Commission decision.
LeMair: Also supported the Planning Commission decision. Believed there is reom to comply with the rear yard setback
granted by the Planning Commission and thereby eliminating the need for the additional variances.
Petersen: Believed the issue was difficult and would like to address the needs of the applicant, but that there is concern
about moving the house closer to the lake. Admired the choices of the applicant in respecting his neighborhood, but did not
support granting the requested variances.
Gundlach: Believed that if the Council took no action, the variance granted by the Planning Commission becomes effective.
Believed that many lake lots are unique, but that a 2800 square foot structure could adequately address the applicant's
needs and that the request does not meet the hardship criteria. Supported the Planning Commission decision.
Hau,qen: Asked for a brief recess to consult with counsel.
The Council took a bdef recess.
Zieska: Commented that ordinances are in place for consistency for the better of the overall community. The issue tonight
is enforcement of those ordinances, despite what this particular neighborhood might feel is acceptable. If the overall
ordinances should be addressed is a separate issue.
Hau,qen: Reviewed each of the hardship criteria and discussed the relationship to the applicant's variance requests. Noted
that the Planning Commission did not find that the requests met the hardship criteria. Based upon the stated criteria, did not
believe the applicant faced hardship.
Boyles: Clarified that if the Council desired to uphold the Planning Commission decision, action on the two resolutions as
recommended by staff were necessary. Further noted that upon reviewing the file, the City has complied with the statutory
public notice and the notification required to residents by the ordinance, and there was no procedural problem as implied by
Attorney Gross.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-134 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK
TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW.
Gundlach: Asked for clarification that the resolution was correctly worded.
Horsman: Confirmed.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-135 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE REMAINING VARIANCE REQUESTS AS PROPOSED.
Pace: Asked if the revised survey needed to be considered with respect to the resolution.
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 19, 2002
Horsman: Clarified that the Planning Commission action did not consider the revised survey, therefore the Council had no
need to consider it.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried.
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Variance to Allow the
Import of Materials, Grading and Filling within a Bluff Impact Zone. (Case File #02-076PC)
Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, together with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and staff that the variance did not meet the hardship criteria. Noted that the original Stop Work order was lifted
because the applicant submitted a Letter of Credit that would allow the City to restore the bluff if the builder failed to do so.
Gundlach: Asked how a bluff can be restored.
Horsman: Advised that the bluff has a high point of 932 feet with a 30% rate of slope. The builder would have to submit a
grading plan for approval and identifying all corrective measures for removing the retaining wails and restoring the bluff.
Advised that the issue is to keep the boulder wall within the bluff impact zone.
Gundlach: Asked if there was an opinion by staff that the wall could be removed and the bluff restored.
Horsman: Stated that what determines the adequate restoration of bluff and any impacts is beyond his expertise.
Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open.
Chris Deanovic (Hi#crest Homes): Stated that if the issue was a deck or some other encroachment, it would just be
removed. Stated this is the first time he has been in front of the Council for an after-the-fact variance. Believes that in order
to maintain the integrity of the bluff, retaining walls are necessary. Believes that removal of the wall is contrary to the intent
of the ordinance as it would adversely impact the bluff. Noted the extensive engineering for the site, and the opinion that the
bluff would be unaffected with the construction of the house. A subsequent engineering report advised that removing the
wall would be detrimental for the bluff and the site. Also advised that the DNR is of the same opinion. Further noted that the
bluff is currently stable as evidenced by its stability during the course of recent rains. Believed that he has suffered a
financial penalty due to the stop work order, and simply made a mistake in this case.
Gundlach: Asked if the decision was made to not get a permit and expect the Council to approve the variance after the
fact.
Deanovic: Believes it was an honest mistake. His concern focused on the positioning of the house with respect to the top of
the bluff. As a developer within the City, he has a reputable history in complying with building requirements.
Gundlach: Asked about the corrective measures for the side retaining wall.
Deanovic: Advised that the eastedy retaining wall was moved and re-built. Noted that the Stop Work order dealt with three
issues: (1) the southerly retaining wall, (2) the encroachment of the eastedy retaining wall, and (3) the discharge of the
drainage tube. Two of the three items were corrected.
Petersen: Stated that his opinion was to not further disturb the bluff and that the applicant had leamed his lesson.
Doc. No. T 134971
Vol. 44 Page 75 Cert. 13368
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
SCO'I-I' COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Certified Filed o.10-18-2002at 04:05
Pat Boeckman, Registrar of'rifles
Fee: $21.00
Ol
State of Minnesota
County 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 02-134 is a true and correct copy of the original as
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake at its August 19, 2002
meeting.//~0~ ~ ~:/~
Date: ?__ DK~Yu tMy ~'C~II e r k-- ....
h:\certify.doc
RESOLUTION 02-134
RESOLUTION OF TltlZ~ PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO TI-IF, REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502
LNGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW
MOTION BY: Gundlach SECOND BY: LeMair
On August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by
Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather than the minimum
required 25-feet for the property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of
said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said
Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior
Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said
plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70
feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North
00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06
seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly
and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
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.
r:kresoluti\planr~s~2002\02-134.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pt. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2)
The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereofi All in 1NGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat oflNGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068, and
held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did meet the hardship criteria and approved the
variance.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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, r/sk to the
public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances
on the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances
or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that
would constitute a hardship.
h. The variance requested constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as
reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances.
r:kresoluti\planres\2002\02-134.doc Page 2
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part 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, and approves a 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather
than the minimum required 25-feet, subject to the listed conditions.
5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed future
single family dwelling:
a)
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along
with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
b)
The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved variances and all
conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage
and an erosion control plan.
c)
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, & .P.O. 21
for approval by the City and create one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at
the Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
d)
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the total lot area. The
applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the
impervious surface on the lot.
e) The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations.
Passed and 'adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES NO
{Seal}
Haugen X Haugen
Petersen X Petersen
LeMair X LeMair
Gundlach X Gundlach
Zieska X Zieska
City Manager
r:\resoluti\planmsk2002\02-134.doc Page 3
RESOLUTION 02-135
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF Tlt-E
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO TltE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OltWM; A 0.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A
BUILDING WALL 74-FEET LONG ON Tl:lE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE
MOTION BY:
GUNDLACH SECOND BY: LEMAIR
on August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal
by Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for, for the
property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line
of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line
of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA
BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of
the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said
plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of
said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a
distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of
22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to
the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North
75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot
17, to the point of beginning.
the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting
variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth
adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the
requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-135.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1)
2)
The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
The City Council makes the following findings:
Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance fi.om Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage, as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat oflNGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068PC,
and held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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.
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.
r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-135.doc Page 2
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance reasonable use of the property exists without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4)
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission denying variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear lot
line; A 12.5-foot variance to permit a setback of 50-feet to the OHWM; A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of
side yards of 14.2-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 2-foot
variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet from a side lot line rather than the
minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet for applicants Dennis & Karen Perrier:
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
{Seal}
YES NO
Haugen X Haugen
Petersen X Petersen
LeMair X LeMair
Gundlach X Gundlach
Zieska X Zieska
City Mana
r:\resoluti\planres~2002\02-135.doc Page 3
State of Minnesota
County 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 02-154 is a true and correct copy of the original as
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake at its August 19, 2002
meeting.
h:\certify.doc
RESOLUTION 02-134
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW
MOTION BY: Gundlach SECOND BY: LeMair
On August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by
Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather than the minimum
required 25-feet for the property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of
said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said
Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior
Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said
plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70
feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North
00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06
seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly
and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
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.
r:\resoluti\planresX2002\02-134.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372~1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
ao
Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the Rol (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat oflNGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068, and
held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did meet the hardship criteria and approved the
variance.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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.
go
The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances
or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that
would constitute a hardship.
h. The variance requested constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as
reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances.
r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-134.doc Page 2
3)
4)
5)
The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission, and approves a 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather
than the minimum required 25-feet, subject to the listed conditions.
The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed future
single family dwelling:
a)
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along
with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
b)
The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved variances and all
conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage
and an erosion control plan.
c)
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21
for approval by the City and create one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at
the Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
d)
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the total lot area. The
applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the
impervious surface on the lot.
e) The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES NO
{Seal}
Haugen X Haugen
Petersen X Petersen
LeMair X LeMair
Gundlach X Gundlach
Zieska X Zieska
r:\resoluti\planresX2002\02-134.doc Page 3
ASSENT OF APPLICANT
As Approved by Resolution # 02-134
gned hereby assents to the following:
I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with
their contents and with the content of the exhibits.
I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution.
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 Required. 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 Required. 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
Upon 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\perrier appealXASSENT.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
(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.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
SIGNATUR~ OF APPLICANT/OWNER
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal~ASSENT.DOC 2
IN~,~E$O
october 4, 2002
Dennis Perrier
16502 Inguadona Beach Cir.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Recording of Approved Variance and Assent Form Acknowledgment
Dear Dennis:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Resolution 02-134 approving a variance on
the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle 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 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Connie Carlson
Planning Secretary
1:\02files\02appeal\perrier appealXrecdlet.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ,55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ASSENT OF APPLICANT
File # 02-90
As Approved by Resolution # 02-134
gned 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 Required. 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 Required. 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
Upon 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\perrier appealXASSENT.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
(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.
DATE
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal~ASSENT.DOC
STING HOUSE/GARAGE
/ FXI%TINL,
/
/
/ g07 85
12
60. S1_
DECK
x,
14
t '
/
I
I
I
f
I
/
I
/
\
\
\
\
'w O~'A~ NOt~ '
0
0
Z
.I
:-925 u
Sun NiH
**'I.'<~k
I
I
';Ii~,s~'':
I
I
BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INOUADONA BEACH
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55372
PR. (952) 447-6012
FAX (651) 645-8518
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE. SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55572
PH. (952) 447-2570
FAX (952) 447-2571
EXIS~NG
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lot 17, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesoto, together with thet port of the
20.00 foot drivewoy ds shown on s~id plot of "INGUAOONA BEACH", edjecent to sold
Lot 17, of soid plot described ds follows:
Beginning ct the southwest corner of Lot 17, of sold plot; thence South 01 degree
26 minutes 27 seconds Eest. ossumed beoring, elong the southerly extension of the
west line of seid Lot 17, e dietonce of .5,37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51
minutes 36seconds Eost o distence of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18,
minutes 15 seconds Eest ~ distence of 22.53 feet; thence North O0 degrees 41
minutes 47 seconds Eost o distonce of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
eosterly extension of the northerly line of seid Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14
minutes 06 seconds West e dietence of 10,;~1 .feat to the northeoet corner of sold
Lot 17; thence southerly ond westerly olong the eesterly ond southerly lines of soid
Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
Contoining 9,350 squOre feet to elevation 904.
· Denotes Iron Monument Found
0 Denotes Irml Monument set and
morked by License No. t018.~
\ \
\ \
\
I
· ¢ ~ -- ~ :'[ I~RAPHIC SCALE
,JUN I I' !/I t, ii .......
~_~~ ..... g it
Survey wes prepored by ms or under
my direct supervision end thor I dm e
duly Licensed Lend Surveyor under the
lewl of the Stets of blinnesote.
M nnesoto License um er 3
I~0'7 I55
..... North~rl line of Lot 17
and it~ easterly exten$io~
N7,.,5~ 4,'06
W .,~ 60.5~ '.
~o~ ~ ~,
\
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
AUGUST 19, 2002
7B
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO A STRUCTURES REAR YARD
SETBACK, OHWM SETBACK, SUM OF SIDE YARDS, AND
SETBACK FOR A BUILDING WALL OVER 50 FEET LONG
(Case file #02-068PC).
History: Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for variances to allow the
redevelopment of their property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach
Circle. This property consists of three substandard platted lots of
record, which have been combined as a single parcel. There is an
existing house on this property; the applicants are proposing to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling
with attached garage. In order to redevelop their property Mr. and Ms.
Perrier requested the following variances:
A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather
than the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
Dimensional Standards (4)].
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from
the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the
minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback
averaging [City Code Subsection 1104.308(2)].
A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of
14.31-feet, rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum
of side yards on a nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502
Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be
setback 7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required
9-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405
(6)].
1621~)00~s~~?S.a~.e,~~','dlgfinnesota ~5372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
On July 8, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the applicant's request. The original Planning Report, dated
July 8, 2002, outlines the proposed variances and the staff's
recommendation. A copy of this report is attached. The Commission
determined three of the four variances did not meet the hardship
criteria. The Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to grant
a rear yard setback variance because the Commission found all nine of
the hardship criteria had been met due to the size of the substandard lot
of record.
Accordingly, the Commission adopted Resolution 02-008PC
approving a 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback from
the rear lot line rather than the minimum required 25-feet. The
applicants have appealed this approved variance because it does not
meet their original request for a 3.23-foot rear yard setback to
accommodate the proposed rambler floor plan. A copy of this
resolution is attached to the agenda report.
The Commission also adopted Resolution #02-009PC denying the
remaining variances requested by the applicant. The Commission
based its denial on the determination that a legal alternative building
footprint exists on the lot. A copy of the Minutes for the Planning
Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, is attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: On July 12, 2002, the applicant submitted
the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the above-described variances. The appeal was originally
scheduled for the August 54 meeting, but was rescheduled to August
19, 2002, at the request of the applicant in a letter dated July 17, 2002,
and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the variances as requested by the applicant with the exception of the
rear setback variance that would be needed to permit the structure to be
setback the average of the two existing structures on the adjoining lots.
This recommendation was based on the fact that the applicant has the
alternative to redesign the proposed structure to fit within a legal
building footprint on the subject lot and eliminate the other three
variances requested.
The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation and
denied the requested variances. The Planning Commission determined
a reasonable use of the property existed without the following
requested variances: (1) variance to the setback from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHW); (2) variance to the 15' required sum of
the side yard setbacks; and (3) variance to the minimum side yard
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 2
setback for a building wall in excess of 50 feet. The applicant could
redesign the building plans to fit within a reasonable footprint on the
subject lot.
The findings of fact included in this report reflect the Planning
Commission's decision.
Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the
Planning Commission's findings of fact and decision to deny the
requested variances. Minnesota State Statutes and the City of Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance require the following hardship criteria be
applied as a standard for approval of variance requests. All nine
hardship criteria must be met regarding each variance request.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot,
or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions
of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is
located.
The subject property is a substandard nonconforming lot of record
and an existing condition over which the applicant has no control.
Some form of rear yard setback variance will be required to build a
reasonable single family dwelling for this site. However, the
applicant can control the design and size of the proposed structure
and eliminate the need for all of the variances as requested,
specifically: (1) a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear
yard setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet variance to
the setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW); (2) a
12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the
minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback
averaging; (3) a 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side
yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for
the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot; and (4) a 2-foot
variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-
feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property,
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 3
and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the
Use District in which the land is located.
Plats of this era (1924) were created with smaller lot dimensions
than are required today, and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining
properties of the Inguadona Beach Subdivision. In addition, the
substandard lot depth precludes the ability to build a dwelling
without some form of rear yard setback variance. However, as
requested, the 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard
setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet, the 12.5-foot
variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback
of 62.5-feet that would be permitted by setback averaging, the 0.7-
foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side
yards on a nonconforming lot, and the 2-foot variance to permit a
building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line
rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet do not meet the nine hardship criteria. The proposed
structure could be redesigned to reduce or eliminate these
variances.
e
The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The rear yard setback variance appears necessary to permit
construction of a dwelling of reasonable size and to preserve a
substantial property right of the owner. However, as requested the
setbacks to the OHWM, sum of side yards, eave encroachment,
and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated with a revised
building plan.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property,
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of a rear yard setback variance will not impair these
stated values. The granting of the requested 21.7-foot variance to
permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the minimum
required 25 feet, the 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure
setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation
(OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet that would
be permitted by setback averaging, the 0.7-foot variance to permit
a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum
of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot, and the 2-foot variance to permit a building
wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line rather
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 4
e
than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet
do not appear to impair these stated values.
The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of a rear yard setback variance for a furore dwelling
will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or
diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of
the area. However, the granting of the requested variances to the
OHW setback, the sum of side yard setbacks, and the setback for a
building wall over 50' in length may impact the character and
development of the neighborhood in that it will allow further
encroachment onto the lake, and create a crowding effect between
the structures on the adjacent lot.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a substandard platted lot of record, the granting .fa
reduced rear yard setback variance is not contrary to the intent of
the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. However, the requests
for variances to the OHW setback, the sum of side yard setbacks,
and the setback for a building wall over 50' in length can be
eliminated with a redesigned building plan; therefore, they are not
necessary to allow the owner the ability to develop and use their
property in a manner customary to the R-1 district.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
A hardship exists with respect to the rear yard setback variance to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a
single-family dwelling. No hardship exists pertaining to the
variance requests to the OHW setback, the sum of side yard
setbacks, and the setback for a building wall over 50' in length,
since these requests can be eliminated by modifying the design of
the proposed structure.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result
from actions of the owners of the property.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with
regards to a rear yard setback for the construction of a single
family dwelling structure. However, the applicant can reduce the
L:\02FILES\02appeal\peffier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 5
ALTERNATIVES:
size of the proposed building to eliminate the remaining variance
requests.
e
Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of
variances. In this case financial considerations are in addition to
the other 8 hardship criteria for a front and rear yard setback
variances.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined the requested
variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard
setback, rather than the minimum required 25 feet, a 12.5-foot variance
to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet that
would be permitted by setback averaging, a 0.7-foot variance to permit
a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather than minimum of
15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a nonconforming lot,
and a 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be
setback 7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet
for building walls over 50-feet did not meet all 9 hardship criteria.
The Planning Commission did find hardship regarding a reduced rear
yard setback variance and approved the revised variance. The
remaining variances could be eliminated by redesigning or reducing
the size of the proposed structure.
The two attached resolutions are consistent with the Planning
Commission's direction for approval of a modified variance for a
structure setback to the rear lot line, and for denial of the requested
variances for setback to the OHWM, sum of side yards, and setback
for a building wall over 50-feet long. The staff recommends the City
Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a structure setback from a rear lot line, and
adopt a Resolution to deny the variances as requested by the
applicant. The attached Resolutions are consistent with this action.
2. Overtum the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the
requested variances.
3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 6
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The staff recommends alternative # 1. This requires the following
motions:
A motion and second to adopt a Resolution upholding the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a 9-foot variance to permit
a 16-foot structure setback to a rear lot line, with conditions;
2. A motion and second to adopt a Resolution 02-XX upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny a 21.7-foot variance
to permit a 3.23-foot rear setback, a 12.5-foot variance to permit a
50-foot setback to the OHWM, a 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum
of side yardst~f 14.2 feet, and a 2-foot variance to permit a 7-foot
~ ~~of a building wall 74-feet long.
Fran~s, ~ity Manager
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\CCREPORT.doc 7
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUT/ON OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE SW
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
On August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by
Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather than the minimum
required 25-feet for the property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East ora line drawn from a point on the South line of
said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said
Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in 1NGUADONA BEACH on Prior
Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said
plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27
seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70
feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North
00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06
seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly
and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS,
The City Council finds that the requested variances meet the criteria for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons
for reversing the decision of the Planning Commission; and
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 Tl:l'E CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page 1
169,00 Eagle Creek Ave. $.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55379,-1714 / Ph. (959-) 447-49-30 / Fax (952) 447-49.45
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
ao
Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot ! 7, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068, and
held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did meet the hardship criteria and approved the
variance.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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.
The City Council has determined the requests meet the hardship criteria. There are unique circumstances
or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was not caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are unique characteristics to the property that
would constitute a hardship.
h. The variance requested constitutes a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance, as
reasonable use of the property does not exist without the variances.
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page 2
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part 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, and approves a 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line, rather
than the minimum required 25-feet, subject to the listed conditions.
5) The following conditions shall be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed future
single family dwelling:
a)
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along
with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
h)
The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved variances and all
conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage
and an erosion control plan.
c)
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21
for approval by the City and create one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at
the Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
d)
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the total lot area. The
applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the
impervious surface on the lot.
e) The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
LeMair LeMair
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccaprvres.doc Page 3
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A
BUILDING WALL 74-FEET LONG ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
on August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal
by Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for, for the
property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line
of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line
of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA
BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of
the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said
plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of
said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a
distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of
22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to
the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North
75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot
17, to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting
variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth
adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the
requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Pr. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1)
The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
The City Council makes the following findings:
a0
Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
' of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage, as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068PC,
and held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 2002.
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.
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.
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres.doc Page 2
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance reasonable use of the property exists without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4)
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission denying variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear lot
line; A 12.5-foot variance to permit a setback of 50-feet to the OHWM; A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of
side yards of 14.2-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 2-foot
variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet from a side lot line rather than the
minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet for applicants Dennis & Karen Perrier.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
LeMair LeMair
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager
l:\02files\02appeal\perrier appeal\ccres.doc Page 3
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
5A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE
SETBACK LESS THAN 75 FEET FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK LESS THAN REQUIRED FOR SETBACK
AVERAGING, A SUM OF SIDE YARDS LESS THAN 15
FEET, A REAR YARD SETBACK LESS THAN 25
FEET, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A
BUILDING WALL GREATER THAN 50 FEET, Case file
#02-068PC
DENNIS & KAREN PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO
JULY 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen
Perrier for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on
nonconforming platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (4)].
A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than
the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (4)].
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
o
A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback
7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
DISCUSSION:
Lots 17, 20, & 21, Inguadona Beach, were platted in 1924. The subject lots are
legal nonconforming platted lots of record. The property is located within the R-1
District (Low Density Residential) and Shoreland District (SD). The subject lot
has dimensions of 37.7' + 22.33' (front) by 112.51' (east) by 60.31' (rear) by
107.59' (west), for a total lot area of 6,400 square feet, including the recently
acquired 10'strip of the originally platted 20' easement adjoining the east side lot
line. The applicant also owns Lot 20, and part of 21, with a combined lot area of
5,804 square feet. These lots are located across the private street from the
proposed building site. According to Scott County records, the applicant does
not own any other adjoining properties (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new
larger dwelling in its place. The proposed building footprint is approximately 75'
deep by 40' wide for a total footprint of approximately 2,655 square feet,
including a 904 sq. ft. attached garage. The main level floor plan includes a
kitchen, ¼ bath, dining and family rooms, and main bedroom with a full bath.
The lower level includes a full bath, two bedrooms, family room, and wet-bar
area (Attachment 2 - Building Plans).
The proposed structure includes a front setback of 25' which requires a 1.8'
variance, because setback averaging requires a minimum 26.8' setback. The
proposed west building wall is 74' long. City Ordinance requires that two inches
per foot be added to the side yard setback for walls over 50' long (74' - 50' = 24'
x 2" = 48" or 4'). This requires a 2' variance to permit a 7' side yard setback as
proposed rather than the minimum required 9'. The combined side yards total
14.3', and requires a 0.7' variance, as the minimum sum of side yards allowed is
15' on nonconforming lots. A proposed setback of 50' from the OHWM rather
than a 62.5' setback as determined by averaging the existing structures east and
west of the subject lot.
The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet with a proposed 4,104
square feet of coverage area or 27% of the total area of the combined lots,
including the comr~on area between the rear lot line and shoreline of Prior Lake.
L:\02FI LES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt. doc Page 2
The proposal is less than the maximum allowable area of 30% or 4,546 square
feet. The applicant did not submit an existing impervious surface area for the
current conditions on the subject property. Staff inspected Lots 20, and 21, and
it appears a large portion of the area is covered in class 5 gravel that is
considered impervious and would exceed the allowable 30%. The applicant is
proposing to remove any gravel/class 5 area and will seed/sod this area to
become non-impervious. The City Code requires all front and side yards to be
sodded (Attachment 3 - Proposed Impervious surface Area).
The submitted survey depicts an existing non-compliant water oriented
accessory structure (boat house) located beyond the subject properties
boundaries and on the common shoreline property that is jointly owned by the
property owners of the Inguadona Beach subdivision. The structure is currently
used by the property owners of Lot 16, and lot 17, for the storage of water
oriented accessory equipment.
The City Engineering Department has determined the survey must be revised to
include 2' contours for drainage and grading purposes to be submitted with a
building permit application for review.
The Department of Natural Resources has responded to this variance request
and the comments are attached (Attachment 4 - DNR Comments).
Due to the depth of the lot, it appears some form of front yard setback variance
and some form of rear yard setback variance are necessary to allow a building
pad. However, the proposed dwelling can be redesigned to meet the side
setbacks and the setback from the Ordinary-High-Water-Mark (OHWM). Pulling
the house back to meet the OHWM setback will also reduce the variance
required to the rear yard setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and
practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control. Some form of front and
rear yard setback variances will be 'required to build a reasonable single
family dwelling for this site. However, the applicant can control the design
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 3
and size of the proposed structure and eliminate the need for all variances as
requested, specifically #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5.
Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
Plats of this era (1924) crreated lots with smaller dimensions than are
required today, and are peculiar to the lot and adjoining properties of the
Inguadona Beach Subdivision. In addition, the substandard lot depth
precludes the ability to build a dwelling without some form of front and rear
yard setback variances. However, as requested, Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, do
not meet the hardship criteria because a redesign can reduce or eliminate
these variances.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Front and rear yard setback variances appear necessary for construction of a
dwelling of reasonable size and preserve a substantial property right of the
owner. However, as requested the setbacks to the OHWM, sum of side
yards, eave encroachment, and building wall, may be reduced or eliminated
with a revised building plan.
The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of front and rear yard setback variances will not impair these
stated values. The granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5
appears to impair these stated values but does not appear to endanger the
public safety or increase the danger of fire.
The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the front and rear yard setback variances for a future dwelling
will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or diminish
property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area. However,
the granting of the requested Variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5 will unreasonably
impact the character and development of the neighborhood.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt. doc Page 4
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a substandard platted lot of record, the granting of the front yard
setback as requested, and a reduced rear yard setback variance is not
contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan. Variance
requests #'s 2 - 5, can be eliminated with a redesigned building plan and
therefore they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
A hardship exists with respect to the front and rear yard setback variances to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a single-family
dwelling. No hardship exists pertaining to variance request #'s 2 - 5, with
design modifications.
The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of
the owners of the property.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to front
and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a single family dwelling
structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed
building to eliminate the remaining variance requests.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances.
In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteria for a front and rear yard setback variances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to
the requested front yard setback variance #1, and some form of rear yard
setback variance, such as,a rear yard setback of 15.73-feet in order to meet the
minimum OHWM setback average of 62.5-feet. Due to the depth of the
substandard platted lot of record and the required front and OHWM setback
averaging, a legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot to
allow for a single family dwelling of reasonable size for this use district.
L:\02FtLES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 5
However, staff feels the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in
size to reduce or eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the
variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to variance request #'s
2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these
requested variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with
the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the
approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the
Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an
erosion control plan.
The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17,
20, & P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and
shall record said document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
o
The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on
the combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less
than 30% of the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances, in this
case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings approving the variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 6
The staff recommends alternative #1, approval of variance request # 1, and
approval of some modified form of variance request # 2. Staff also recommends
alternative # 3, denial of the requested variance #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, for a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. This requires the following
two motions:
Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-008PC approving a variance
request to allow a 25' front yard setback rather than the minimum required
26.8' setback as required for setback averaging.
Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-009PC denying a 21.77-foot
variance request to permit 3.23-foot rear yard setback; a 12.5-foot
variance to permit a 50-foot setback to the OHWM; a 0.7-foot variance to
permit a sum of side yards of 14.31-feet; and a 2-foot variance to permit a
building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\VarRpt.doc Page 7
BUILDING PERMIT StJR~t[Y
PREPARED FOR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUAOONA REACH
P~tOR ~.t,~,C M~. 55372
PH. (952) 447-6012
FAX (651) e46-a'q18
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKUN 'T~AIL SE. sur'l[ 2,30
PRIOR LAKE MN. $5372
PH. (952) 447-2570
FAX (952) 447-2571
ATTACHMENT I - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
I
/ ~~ I1~.~1:~ ............. ~ .' ,
~, ..·.~ ,,, 7~ 7a
'~-- ~ I~/~i ' / ~ ~
__ . ~.~ '~ /
?' .,~ ........ ~,~ ' '. ~ '~z ...................... ,--
· -. ',, ~ ~ .==0 C/~o~ '
~ Q ofl ~ ' .-'
~ L/ ', .-~'~ '--
,
.I
I
I
I I
IL
II
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ImperVious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted With Building Permit Application)
For. Ail PropertiesLocated-inthe Shoreland District (SD).
The Max/mum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
.HOUSE
ATTACHED QARA'GE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
. C.-,,-~Se o,lglo Io4-
L-~4-.
TOTAL DETA¢I-IED BUILDINGS .......................
DRIVEWAY/PAVED At:~EAS
0Driveway-paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Pm'king Area~)
× .= qnq
X ----
TOTAL PAIRED AREAS ......................................... / 0~--'21
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Deck~ '/.," min. opening between
boards, with a pervious surface below.
are not considered to bc imperVious)
T OT.~L DECKS ........................................................
OTHEK
TOTAL OTHER. ......................................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
VER
Prepared By ~
Date
Phone
qioq
m
1
/
O
m
rn
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:59 AM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
JKansier@cityofpriorlake.com
Perrier setback variances, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
I have been out to this property. My recommendation would be to slide
the house towards Inguadona Beach Circle 5 feet, modify the home design
to meet setback averaging (with Lots 16 and 18), and recommend removal
of the old boathouse as a condition of any variance approval. It
appears that if the house is pulled back slightly to the street and
setback averaging is utilized, the lake setback variance could be
eliminated. Sideyard could also be eliminated with slight redesign.
Was there a narrative describing the hardship included with the
application?
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us
ATTACHMENT 4- DNR COMMENTS
RESOLUTION 02-008PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 9-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 16-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances fi.om the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and
legally described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held a hearing on July 8, 2002.
o
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
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance to a rear yard setback will not result in the impairment of an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public
safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other
respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
o
A legal building envelope does not exist on the nonconforming subject lot that
eliminates the need for the a variance to a rear yard setback. The proposed structure's
rear yard setback is such that the hardship has not been created by the applicant.
o
There is justifiable hardship caused by the topography of the lot, and the required
setback averaging, as reasonable use of the property does not exist without the
granting of the variance.
The granting of the variance to a rear yard setback, is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not
serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the
folloWing variance for a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Revised Certificate of Survey;
1) A 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback to a rear property line,
rather than the minimum 25-feet as required by the zoning ordinance.
Approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and
proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted
to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\aprvres.doc 2
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot Combination of
Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21 for approval by the City and create one legally transferable
document. This document must be recorded at the Scott County Land Records Office
prior to issuance of a building permit.
o
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30% of the
total lot area. The applicant must submit a certificate of survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the impervious surface on the lot.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
Anth~)ny Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Plannin~JDi~'ec~r
l:\02files\O2variances\O2-O68\aprvres.doc 3
RESOLUTION 02-009PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OHWM; A 0.7-
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-
FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A BUILDING
WALL 74-FEET LONG
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Dennis & Karen Perrier (applicant/owner) have applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a single family residence on property
located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay)
District at the following location, 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, and legally
described as follows;
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the
South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point
on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with
that part of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed beating, along the southerly extension of the west
line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds
East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly
line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of
10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along
the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #02-068PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 2002.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (9.52) 447-424.5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
o
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.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the sun'ounding 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.
A legal building envelope exists on the subject lot that meets or reduces the requested
variances for a structure setback to the rear lot line, Ordinary High Water Mark
setback, side yard, and sum of side yards. The applicant has control over the house
design and shape, such that the hardstiip has been created by the applicant.
Reasonable use of the property exists with a smaller building footprint.
o
There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required setbacks and impervious
surface coverage area as reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of
the variance.
The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 02-068PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variances for a future single-family dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 -
Certificate of Survey;
1) A 21.77-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear property
line, rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
2)
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark, rather than minimum setback of 62.5-feet as required for
setback averaging.
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 2
3) A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.3-feet rather than the
minimum required 15-feet on a nonconforming lot.
A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 22, 2002.
Ant~~'On, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Plannin~Dile~r' -
l:\02files\02variances\02-068\dnyres.doc 3
BUK.DI~G I~..RUIT SUR*VEY
PREPARED FOR..
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUAOONA ~A~
~ ~[ MN. 5~72
~. (952) 447-6012
FAX (85t) 845-8318
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
18670 FRANKUN 1RA~ SF_. SUITE 250
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55372
PH. (952) 447-2570
FAX (952) ¢47-2571
ATTACHMENT I -CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
AND PLAn S COUNCrL
of CAKPENTERS AND JOINERS
Of United Brotherhood of Car£enters and foiners of America
842 ~xAYMOND AVENU~
SI. PAUL, MINNESOTA
PHONE (6.~1) 646-7207
FAX (651) 645-8318
July 17, 2002
City of Prior Lake
Attn: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Horsman,
Due to a work-related commitment, I cannot attend the City of Prior Lake Council
Meeting of August 5, 2002. If possible, I would like to request that I instead be
permitted to attend the Council Meeting of August 19, 2002, in order to
participate in the hearing on variances that will be held concerning the property at
16502 Inguadona Beach Road. I can be reached at 651-271-1922 (Cell #)for
confirmation of the new hearing date. Thank you for your time and consideration
of my request.
.c.~ncerely, ~'~
Dennis Perrier
Organizer
Planning Commission Meeting
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman
6:31 p.m.
Stamson,
Zoning
called the July 8, 2002,
present were Commissioners
Coordinator
Steve Horsman and l
Commission meeting to order at
Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
City Engineer Larry Popple,
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Present
L Present
Rin Present
Present
3. Approval
The Minutes from the
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hea
Commissioner
2002, PlanningX~mmission meeting were approved as
read the Public Heating S ned the meeting.
A. Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front,
side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family
dwelling on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen Perrier
for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on nonconforming
platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After a revision on the
survey, the applicant is eliminating variance #1, a 1.8 foot variance to permit a 25 foot
structure setback to the front property line:
1. A 1.8-fo0t variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the
minimum required 25 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 1
3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather
than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot.
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
The Staff felt the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in size to reduce or
eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to variance requests #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the
applicant and staff recommended denial of the requested variances.
Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, &
P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record said
document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the
combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of
the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Ringstad questioned if the proposed house would fit anywhere else on the property?
Horsman responded there would have to be another side yard variance and went on to
explain the rear yard setback averaging.
Criego questioned if the existing garage would stay on Lots 20 and 21 ? And does the
impervious surface include the garage? Horsman said the impervious surface was
calculated with the boathouse, garage and common property. The applicant meets the
impervious surface requirements.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc
Applicant Dennis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, explained they are trying to improve
the neighborhood and have worked with the City for almost 4 years. The house is over
the property line and will have to demolish their home and start over. They have lived in
the home 29 years and plan on retiring here. He realizes it is a non-conforming lot and
pointed out they are under the impervious surface requirement. Perrier said they could
eliminate 2 variances if he reduces the home by 2 feet and would only need the rear
variance. They have expanded their property to the east and south. Another point is that
part oflnguadona Beach Road was always on his property. Back when it was a gravel
mad people could not make it up the actual road in the winter, so when the road was
paved Perriers deeded a portion of their property and traded a portion of the common area
to the north. They are very limited with the lot size and are proposing a rambler so it
would fit into the neighborhood.
Lemke questioned the ramifications of losing 2 feet on the home. Perrier felt it was
necessary for asthestics and it is still a small house. He also pointed out numerous
variances given to neighboring homes.
Criego questioned Perrier if he would consider a larger home with 2 stories. Perrier
responded they considered it and went on to explain the huge obstructing 2-story homes
on the lake. The rambler fits into the neighborhood.
Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said the Perders are really trying to meet the
requirements. Tremaine explained he was forced to put in a huge 2-story, but looks like a
3-story from the lake. It would be nice to have a rambler in the neighborhood. It gives
some distance between the lots. Tremaine said the neighborhood has been trying to
improve their homes and are supportive of the Perriers' request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Appreciated the applicants' willingness to be flexible and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. A rambler would have more appeal to his neighbors.
Supported staffs findings with the 2 foot side yard and there is a willingness on
the part of the applicant.
Ringstad:
Agreed with staffs findings. Support a variance for a rear yard setback.
However, it may be necessary to move the 2 feet and remove the other variances.
Criego:
· If the Commission agrees with staffthen the applicant is reducing the length of
the home by 12.5 feet.
· The average width of a lot is 50 feet. This one is 55 feet and historically have
stayed with the total 15 feet distance between properties.
· Agreed with staff, a very nice home can be managed with only one variance and
that is with a rear yard setback variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes'uMN0708022.doc
· Understand reducing the length of the home is a burden on the applicant. But to
have a home 40 by 75 feet long on a substandard lot is pretty unusual. Have
never seen that before.
· Questioned if the eaves were included with the setbacks. Horsman responded the
applicant is proposing 2 foot eaves. He should not have a problem. There is no
encroachment. There may be a problem in the stoop area as proposed.
Lemke:
· Most of the house is 32 feet wide.
The widest part of the home is 40 feet. It is a
modest size - 1,800 foot square house.
· Lemke questioned the rear yard setback. Horsman explained the setback
averaging would be under the 9.2 foot variance. The proposed setback is 50 feet.
· This is making the house much smaller with the 2 foot reduction.
· Only needs to eliminate small variances.
· On non-standard lots - 50 feet have been the guidelines. It is a reasonable use of
the property.
Stflmson:
· Concurred with the majority of the Commissioners and staff. The hardship
criteria have been met but a reasonable correction to eliminate the hardship would
be to draw the house back to the averaging for the OHWM.
· Explained lake creep. This is a classic example. This home is drastically close to
the lake than the adjoining properties.
· The applicant could easily build a two-story. A small foundation size does not
mean a small house.
· The applicant does not want to have a 2-story. He has a small lot, there are some
tradeoffs. The Commission is not eliminating his ability to build a reasonable size
house.
· Agreed with staff- it is reasonable.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· The neighboring homes are not going to be demolished soon. As proposed the
applicant is actually moving the structure away from the lake.
· Understood lake creep, but has a hard time when the applicant is moving the
structure back from the lake.
Stamson:
· The reality is the house can be pushed back. It is a replacement home.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson there are other ways to scale down. The fact of the matter,
is that it is a small piece of property, This house will be further towards the lake
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc
than the neighboring properties. A precedence should not be set.
of neighbor's rights.
Agreed with staff's position and conditions.
Approve the rear yard setback.
It is a violation
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST, 1, 3, 4 AND 5 AND
MODIFYING REQUEST 2 TO PERMIT A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET INCLUDING STAFF'S 5
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lernke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
B. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a/v/~riance to the required rear
yard Jack to allow the construction of an addition/to Carlson Hardware Store
located 16281 Main Avenue SE
Zoning
on file in the
The Plannin
(ap~ to
building on the
attached to the side of the
for a 10-foot variance to
than the minimum required 10-:
/
/
The City Buildin
engineers' plans on the
Engineering
loading dock, and a n~
addition, the line
Integra Telecom
relocated.
?
Steve Horsman presented/the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
of the Planning Departmep&
//
:eived a vari~ application from Mr. Bernard Carlson
of an addition to an existing commercial
at 161 Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be
and extend to the rear lot line. The request is
structure setback from a rear property line rather
applicant must provide soils and structural
of ; the adjacent buildings. The City
the manhole is under the concrete of the
manhole outside slab envelope must be built. In
the new manhole to becomes a private service.
existing telephone lines service building will need to be
The Plarmin determined the variance
meet the criteria, since it is a business
buildin to economic growth and the need for
~fmaterials. The applicant can redesign the
setb a comparable yet smaller addition. The
requested variance.
the rear yard setback does not
to expand the existing
space for storage and
> meet the required 10'
recommended denial
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc
,: : 'ImPerVious SurfaCe calculatio~it[.j --
For. All Properties Located in'the Shoreland Di[~ctr, (SD).
. The MaximUm Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 3 0 Percent.
'.:.'.Pr'operty Address '/.(o~o2-~ ~4..-~ctu~o,,~ ~c0~ Co rd-e_.
- ~/o 2_0 ~,'."z.~ o..~,.,-e. ~=-q-..
L0tA.rea '16~'.16q Sq.:Feet.x.30% = ..............
"P~":,:;%,~,0 + LENGTH
:'HOUSE x
X
%
ATTACHED, x
WIDTH SQ. FEET
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
I04-
TOTzzKL DETACHED BUILDINGS.,. ....................
EWAY/PAVE.D AREAS
(Driveway~paved or not)
(Sidewalk/Parking Area.s)
x '= flqfl'
X
~c coUPe, x = . "l'z-.
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .........................................
Io61
PATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks'%" min. opening between
b0UrCls, wi~ a pervious surface below,
are not considered to b~ imperVious)
TOTAL DECKS ........................................................
OTHER .
TOTAL OTHER. ...... : .......................... : ....................
TOTAL'IMPERVIOUS SURFACE'
Prepared By
Date
I.':qloq
Phone
~Ov'm' ~: : ' ' (To be Submi.ed w'i~ Bu.ild~g Pe=kApplicati~
} ' ' "'For~l Properties Located-~'~e Shorel~d ~s~ct (SD).
' ~e M~mum ~pe~ious Surface Coverage Pe~iaed in 30 Percent.
Lot ~ea [~ r'l-Gq Sq. Feet. x 30% = .............. '
.HOUSE :'
ATTACHBD QA.RAGE
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTUR-E ...................... '2. h~ 2. ~
DETACHED .BLDGS Io4-.: 'Z.I x
..-: (Garage/Shed) lglt~-~)o~,'~" '~6,~ oh x
DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS
'(Drivew~/y-p~ved or not) ~
1_o4- v-I
TOT~-~L DETACHED BUILDINGS ....... ' ................
(Sidewalk/Parking Are~)
4--.5-2_
pATIOS/PORCHES/DECKS
(Open DccI~'¼" min. opening bce,vecn
boards, with a pervious surface below.
arc not considered to be impervious)
OTHER
TOTAL OTI-IER. ......................................................
TOTAL'IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
'~VER .
prepared By.:~
Date
I
Phone
.i
OF PRIOR LAKE
'Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted With Building P~rmk Application)
For Ail Properties Located in the Shoreland Dism'ct (SD).
The Maximum'Impervious Surface 'Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Sq. Feet x 30% = ..............
..~
LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET
HOUSE x
A~AC~D q~GE x =
DETACHED BLDGS
- (Gmg~/Sh~d)
D'RIVEWAYfPAVED A:REAS
(Sidewalk/Parking Are=)
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ......................
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS .............: .........
TOTAL PAVED AREAS .... ; ....................................
'^T OSa'O CHES ;.CKS rko°pk. =
(Open De:~ V," min. opening be~v~n ~~ X =
bo~ds, wi~ a pe~ious su~c= below,
~e~ not considered to b~ imperious)
X ~
TOTAL DECKS .... ~ ......... : .........................................
OTHER.
TOTAL OTI-ER. ................... : ..................................
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Company~,)(~[~ 4o¢,~e~[~ ~'.!
Date
[
'7_ _ t.[_ 0'2--
Phone
TO:
RE:
August 16, 2000
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney
August 19, 2002 City Council Agenda Item 7B
As you know, on Monday night, the Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision on the variance application of Dennis and Karen Perrier.
Today, we received the attached correspondence with respect to the application.
Mr. Gross does not ask that the letter be submitted into the public hearing record. I suspect he
will be present to address the Council on Monday night, and will become part of the record at
that point. This letter is distributed for your information.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LOREN GROSS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8609 LYNDALE AVENUE SO.
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 884:~0
TELEPHONE (95~') 881-8636
FAX (95
Iff 2002
Augustl5,2002
Mayor Jack Haugen
Members of City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mayor Haugen and Members of Prior Lake City Council:
We represent Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perrier in their request for three variances which will allow
them to build a new house on their existing lot.
It should be noted that Mr. and Mrs. Perrier have worked together with the Prior Lake Planning
Staff presenting numerous plans and suggestions for nearly four years. Also, since the Planning
Commission issued its rejection of the plans the Perriers presented, they have made additional
changes in an attempt to make reasonable use of a non-conforming lake lot.
We have become aware that it is the City staffs preference to have these lots redeveloped with
relatively small two-story houses. The Perriers have chosen not to go with a two-story house
because a) they are reaching the age where they are planning this as a retirement home and steps
are not desirable and b) a two-story house on this lot will destroy the view of the lake for
neighbors living in six houses to the south. In addition, another three homes will have their view
of the lake impaired. Those neighbors are aware of this possibility and have specifically stated
that they would prefer a larger footprint one-story house to a two-story house on this lot.
The current plan is in compliance with impervious surface requirements when the lot in question
is taken into account with other off-lake lots owned by the Perriers and combined into a single
PID number.
The Perriers now believe they have reduced the need for variances to the minimum necessary to
make reasonable use of this lot.
Their neighbors have been informed and kept in the loop regarding their proposal and the
Perriers understand that all surrounding property owners and others who would be directly
affected are in favor of their current plan.
Mayor Jack Haugen
Prior Lake City Council Members
August 15, 2002
Page 2
While we understand that the Variance Hardship Standards are subject to various subjective
interpretations, the Perriers believe their plan as submitted meets all standards allowing granting
of the three variances they are requesting.
These are mature, reasonable, long-term Prior Lake residents making an attempt to make a
reasonable use of a difficult-to-redevelop lot. Their house will be a 1700 square-foot house that
is suitable for empty nesters or a family.
Your thoughtful consideration of their very reasonable request for variances will be greatly
appreciated.
Y~., very truly,
Loren Gross
LG/lem
LOREN GROSS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
,B609 LYNIDALE AVENUE SO.
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 554~'0
TELEPHONE (95~') 881-8636
FAX (95:~) 881-9150
August 15, 2002
Mayor Jack Haugen
Members of City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mayor Haugen and Members of Prior Lake City Council:
We represent Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perrier in their request for three variances which will allow
them to build a new house on their existing lot.
It should be noted that Mr. and Mrs. Perrier have worked together with the Prior Lake Planning
Staff presenting numerous plans and suggestions for nearly four years. Also, since the Planning
Commission issued its rejection of the plans the Perriers presented, they have made additional
changes in an attempt to make reasonable use of a non-conforming lake lot.
We have become aware that it is the City staffs preference to have these lots redeveloped with
relatively small two-story houses. The Perriers have chosen not to go with a two-story house
because a) they are reaching the age where they are planning this as a retirement home and steps
are not desirable and b) a two-story house on this lot will destroy the view of the lake for
neighbors living in six houses to the south. In addition, another three homes will have their view
of the lake impaired. Those neighbors are aware of this possibility and have specifically stated
that they would prefer a larger footprint one-story house to a two-story house on this lot.
The current plan is in compliance with impervious surface requirements when the lot in question
is taken into account with other off-lake lots owned by the Perriers and combined into a single
PID number.
The Perriers now believe they have reduced the need for variances to the minimum necessary to
make reasonable use of this lot.
Their neighbors have been informed and kept in the loop regarding their proposal and the
Perriers understand that all surrounding property owners and others who would be directly
affected are in favor of their current plan.
Mayor Jack Haugen
Prior Lake City Council Members
August 15, 2002
Page 2
While we understand that the Variance Hardship Standards are subject to various subjective
interpretations, the Perriers believe their plan as submitted meets all standards allowing granting
of the three variances they are requesting.
These are mature, reasonable, long-term Prior Lake residents making an attempt to make a
reasonable use of a difficult-to-redevelop lot. Their house will be a 1700 square-foot house that
is suitable for empty nesters or a family.
Your thoughtful consideration of their very reasonable request for variances will be greatly
appreciated.
Y~u:s~ very truly,
Loren Gross
LG/lem
69329 651 772 7977 08/13 '02 08:42 N0.461 01/03
002 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772 7977
Steve Horsman.
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SI:
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Appeals to Decisions ofthe Platming Commission, ITdi~rest Homea (14764 Roaerwood Road) and
Dennis & IC~ren Perrier (16502 Inguadona Bear~h CirCe)
Dear Mr. Horsman:
I have rec~.ved the hearing notices for the two subject zoning matters to be considered before thc Prior
Lake City Council on Monday, August 19. I have previously commenIed on these mstte~ via e-mail prior
to their being considered by the Planning Commission last month.
Attached are copies of my previous correspondence to you in regards to these matters. They represent
DNK comments on the appeals. Please share them with the city council so that th~,y may incorporate DNR,
comments in to their decision on these zoning matters.
Please inform me of the outcome on these two i~. If you have any questions, please call me at 651-772-
7917.
DNR Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 6~ 1~296-6I~7 '
An Equal Opportunity F~'~ployer
Who Values Dive. ky
1-888-646-G367 - TTY: 651-296-5494 · 1-800-657-3929
~1'41~ Prtnmd orr FIm:yc~cl Paper C~malnlng a Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Was[e
69329 651 772 7977 08/13 '02 08:43 N0.461 03/03
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Pat lynch
;horsman~cltyo~riorl;ke.com
Tue, Jul 2, 2002 8.'58 AM ~
Perrier setback variances. 16502 Inguadone Beach Circle
I have been out to this property. My recommendation would be to slide the house towards Inguadona
Be=ch Circle $ feet, medify the home design t= me~ setback averagingi(w~th LOts 16 and 18), and
recommend removal of the old boathouse ss a condition of any variance epl3mval. It app=ars that if the
house is pulled back Slightly to the street emi S. etback averaging is utilized, ~:e lake setback varlan=e
could be eliminatecl. Sideyard could ;Iso ~ eliminated w~ slight redesign. Was them a narrative
describing the hardship included with the ;ppli.catlon?
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Ama Hydrologist
phone 051.772.7917
fax 651.772,7977
pat.lynchOdnr.state.mn,us
"jkansier~cltyofpriorlake.eo/n"Jntemet. DNR
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
DENYING VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, THE OHWM SETBACK, THE SUM OF SIDE
YARDS, AND THE SETBACK FOR A BUILDING WALL
OVER 50', FOR DENNIS & KAREN PERRIER, Case
File #02-068
16502 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
JULY 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 8, 2002, to consider a
variance application for the construction of a new single family dwelling with
attached garage on the property located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After
review of the applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria,
the Planning Commission approved part of the applicants' request and denied
part of the request. Accordingly the Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 02-008PC approving the following variance with conditions:
1 ) A 9-foot variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback from the rear lot line
rather than the minimum required 25-feet.
The following conditions are included in the Resolution and must be adhered to
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed dwelling:
The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption,
and proof of recording along with the acknowledged City Assent Form shall
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2. The applicant must submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the
approved variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Commission, along with the proposed finish grades with drainage and an
erosion control plan.
The applicant must submit an application for an Administrative Lot
Combination of Lots 17, 20, & P.O. 21 for approval by the City and create
one legally transferable document. This document must be recorded at the
Scott County Land Records Office prior to issuance of a building permit.
The total impervious surface area on the combined lots may not exceed 30%
of the total lot area. The applicant must submit a certificate of survey and
impervious surface calculation worksheet identifying the impervious surface
on the lot.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
The Planning Commission also directed staff to draft Resolution 02-009PC
denying the following requested variances:
A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than
the minimum required 25 feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional
Standards (4)].
A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum
setback of 62.5-feet as required by setback averaging [City Code
Subsection 1104.308(2)].
o
A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet,
rather than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open
Space (8)].
A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback
7-feet to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for
building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance Section 1102.405 (6)].
RECOMMENDATION:
The two attached resolutions are consistent with the Planning Commission's
direction for approval of a variance for a structure setback to the rear lot line, and
for denial of the requested variances for a structure setback from the rear lot line,
setback to the OHWM, sum of side yards, and setback for a building wall over
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\CnsntAgndaRpt.doc Page 2
50-feet long. The staff recommends adoption of Resolutions 02-008PC, and 02-
009PC.
It must also be noted that the applicants' have appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. This appeal is scheduled for a public
hearing on August 5, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES:
Adopt attached Resolution # 02-008PC approving the rear setback variance
with five conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under
the circumstances, and adoption of Resolution #02-009PC denying the
requested variances for a structure setback to rear lot line, setback to the
OHWM, sum of side yards, and building wall over 50-feet.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
This action requires two motions:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-008PC approving a 9-foot
variance to permit a 16-foot structure setback from the rear lot line with five
conditions; and;
A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-009PC denying the requested
variances for a 21.77-foot variance to permit 3.23-foot rear yard setback; a
12.5-foot variance to permit a 50-foot setback to the OHWM; a 0.7-foot
variance to permit a sum of side yards of 14.31-feet; and a 2-foot variance to
permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet to a side lot line.
L:\02FILES\02vadances\02-068\CnsntAgndaRpt.doc Page 3
LAKES AND PLAINS REGIONAL COUNCIL
of
Of United Brotherhood of Carpenters a~d Joiners of ~merica
842 RAYMOND AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114
PHONE (651) 646~7207
F, oc (651) 645-8~;18
July 17, 2002
City of Prior Lake
Attn: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Horsman,
Due to a work-related commitment, I cannot attend the City of Prior Lake Council
Meeting of August 5, 2002. If possible, I would like to request that I instead be
permitted to attend the Council Meeting of August 19, 2002, in order to
participate in the hearing on variances that will be held concerning the property at
16502 Inguadona Beach Road. I can be reached at 651-271-1922 (Cell #) for
confirmation of the new hearing date. Thank you for your time and consideration
of my request.
/~g~n ce rely, t~"~
Dennis Perrier
Organizer
LAKES AND PLArNS KEGZON COUNCIL
of CaXe ,NT aS aNY lom as
Of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
842 I~Yi~IOND AVENUt~
ST. PAUL, /VlIN~OT.A S$114
P~o~r~ (651) 646.720"/
~ (651)6~S-831S
,,.FACSIMILE ~SI~IISSION COVER SHEET
DATE ,7//?/~z..,
/ NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW (EXCLUDING COVER PAGE)
FROM: ,~#,~t.,d /~,o'/~".
SENT BY:
MES SAGF_.,/C OM/VIENTS:
COI~DENTIALITY NOTIC~
The documents i~ this transmission may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. The
mforrnation is intended only for the usc of the fladividual namod on this t~usm~io.n sheet. If you are not
into-haled recipient, you are h~reby uotified that ally disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking of any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibi~l and that the documents should bo returned to the
sender immediately, If you have received this in error, please notify the sender by telephone immediately.
s~
August 15, 2002
Dennis & Karen Perrier
16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the August 19, 2002, City Council
meeting. The meeting will begin 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,
Jane A. Kansier
Jane Kansier, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blan kfrm~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
Planning Commission Meeting
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 8, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Popple,
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 24, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Consent:
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case #02-068 Dennis & Karen Perrier are requesting variances for front,
side, sum of side yard and rear setbacks for the construction of a new single family
dwelling on the property located at 16502 Ingnadona Beach Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Karen Perrier
for the construction of a single-family dwelling and attached garage on nonconforming
platted lots of record located at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle. After a revision on the
survey, the applicant is eliminating variance #1, a 1.8 foot variance to permit a 25 foot
structure setback to the front property line:
1. A 1.8-foot variance to permit a 25-foot structure setback to a front property line,
rather than 26.8-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot rear yard setback, rather than the
minimum required 25 feet.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN0708022.doc 1
3. A 12.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 50-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 62.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
4. A 0.7-foot variance to permit a combined sum of side yards of 14.31-feet, rather
than minimum of 15-feet as required for the sum of side yards on a
nonconforming lot.
5. A 2-foot variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet
to a side lot line rather than the minimum required 9-feet for building walls over
50-feet.
The Staff felt the proposed dwelling may be redesigned and reduced in size to reduce or
eliminate variance requests 2, 3, 4, & 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to variance requests #'s 2, 3, 4, & 5, as proposed by the
applicant and staff recommended denial of the requested variances.
Staffrecommended the following conditions be included with approval of any variances
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission:
1. The resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey to depict the approved
variances and all conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission, along with the
proposed finish grades with drainage and an erosion control plan.
3. The applicant shall submit an application for a Lot Combination of Lots 17, 20, &
P.O. 21, and create one legally transferable document (Deed), and shall record said
document at the Scott County Land Records Office.
4. The applicant/owner shall remove all existing impervious surface areas on the
combined lots to create a total impervious surface area equal to or less than 30% of
the total lots area.
5. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Ringstad questioned if the proposed house would fit anywhere else on the property?
Horsman responded there would have to be another side yard variance and went on to
explain the rear yard setback averaging.
Criego questioned if the existing garage would stay on Lots 20 and 217 And does the
impervious surface include the garage? Horsman said the impervious surface was
calculated with the boathouse, garage and common property. The applicant meets the
impervious surface requirements.
Comments from the public:
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesXMN0708022.doc
Applicant Dennis Perrier, 16502 Inguadona Beach, explained they are trying to improve
the neighborhood and have worked with the City for almost 4 years. The house is over
the property line and will have to demolish their home and start over. They have lived in
the home 29 years and plan on retiring here. He realizes it is a non-conforming lot and
pointed out they are under the impervious surface requirement. Perrier said they could
eliminate 2 variances if he reduces the home by 2 feet and would only need the rear
variance. They have expanded their property to the east and south. Another point is that
part oflnguadona Beach Road was always on his property. Back when it was a gravel
road people could not make it up the actual road in the winter, so when the road was
paved Perriers deeded a portion of their property and traded a portion of the common area
to the north. They are very limited with the lot size and are proposing a rambler so it
would fit into the neighborhood.
Lemke questioned the ramifications of losing 2 feet on the home. Perrier felt it was
necessary for asthestics and it is still a small house. He also pointed out numerous
variances given to neighboring homes.
Criego questioned Perrier if he would consider a larger home with 2 stories. Perrier
responded they considered it and went on to explain the huge obstructing 2-story homes
on the lake. The rambler fits into the neighborhood.
Gene Tremaine, 16500 Inguadona Beach, said the Perriers are really trying to meet the
requirements. Tremaine explained he was forced to put in a huge 2-story, but looks like a
3-story from the lake. It would be nice to have a rambler in the neighborhood. It gives
some distance between the lots. Tremaine said the neighborhood has been trying to
improve their homes and are supportive of the Perriers' request.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
· Appreciated the applicants' willingness to be flexible and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. A rambler would have more appeal to his neighbors.
· Supported staff's findings with the 2 foot side yard and there is a willingness on
the part of the applicant.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with staff's findings. Support a variance for a rear yard setback.
However, it may be necessary to move the 2 feet and remove the other variances.
Criego:
· If the Commission agrees with staff then the applicant is reducing the length of
the home by 12.5 feet.
· The average width of a lot is 50 feet. This one is 55 feet and historically have
stayed with the total 15 feet distance between properties.
· Agreed with staff, a very nice home can be managed with only one variance and
that is with a rear yard setback variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~IN0708022.doc
· Understand reducing the length of the home is a burden on the applicant. But to
have a home 40 by 75 feet long on a substandard lot is pretty unusual. Have
never seen that before.
· Questioned if the eaves were included with the setbacks. Horsman responded the
applicant is proposing 2 foot eaves. He should not have a problem. There is no
encroachment. There may be a problem in the stoop area as proposed.
Lemke: · Most of the house is 32 feet Mdc. The widest part of thc home is 40 feet. It is a
modest size - 1,800 foot square house.
· Lemke questioned the rear yard setback. Horsman explained thc setback
averaging would bc under the 9.2 foot variance. The proposed setback is $0 feet.
· This is making the house much smaller with the 2 foot reduction.
· Only needs to eliminate small variances.
· On non-standard lots - 50 feet have been the guidelines. It is a reasonable usc of
the property.
Stamson:
· Concurred with the majority of the Commissioners and staff. The hardship
criteria have been met but a reasonable correction to eliminate the hardship would
be to draw the house back to the averaging for the OHWM.
· Explained lake creep. This is a classic example. This home is drastically close to
the lake than the adjoining properties.
· The applicant could easily build a two-story. A small foundation size does not
mean a small house.
· The applicant does not want to have a 2-story. He has a small lot, there are some
tradeoffs. The Commission is not eliminating his ability to build a reasonable size
house.
· Agreed with staff- it is reasonable.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· The neighboring homes are not going to be demolished soon. As proposed the
applicant is actually moving the structure away from the lake.
· Understood lake creep, but has a hard time when the applicant is moving the
structure back from the lake.
Stamson:
· The reality is the house can be pushed back. It is a replacement home.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson there are other ways to scale down. The fact of the matter,
is that it is a small piece of property. This house will be further towards the lake
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes~VIN0708022.doc
than the neighboring properties. A precedence should not be set.
of neighbor's rights.
Agreed with staff's position and conditions.
Approve the rear yard setback.
It is a violation
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST, 1, 3, 4 AND 5 AND
MODIFYING REQUEST 2 TO PERMIT A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
REAR YARD SETBACK OF 16 FEET INCLUDING STAFF'S 5
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Ringstad and Stamson. Nay by Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
B. Case #02-075 Bernard Carlson is requesting a variance to the required rear
yard setback to allow the construction of an addition to Carlson Hardware Store
located at 16281 Main Avenue SE
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Bernard Carlson
(applicant/owner) to allow the construction of an addition to an existing commercial
building on the property located at 16281 Main Avenue. The proposed addition will be
attached to the side of the existing building and extend to the rear lot line. The request is
for a 1 O-foot variance to permit a O-foot structure setback from a rear property line rather
than the minimum required 1 O-feet.
The City Building Department noted the applicant must provide soils and structural
engineers' plans on the method of protecting the adjacent buildings. The City
Engineering Department commented the existing manhole is under the concrete of the
loading dock, and a new manhole outside of building slab envelope must be built. In
addition, the line from the new manhole to the existing becomes a private service.
Integra Telecom noted existing telephone lines that service building will need to be
relocated.
The Planning staffhas determined the variance request for the rear yard setback does not
meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision to expand the existing
building due to economic growth and the need for additional space for storage and
display of materials. The applicant can redesign the addition to meet the required 10'
setback with a comparable yet smaller addition. The staff therefore recommended denial
of the requested variance.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcsXMN0708022.doc
ESo
July 17, 2002
Dennis and Karen Perrier
16502 Inguadona Beach Cir
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the July 22, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HVVY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you have any
questions, please contact me at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Connie Carlson
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blan kfrm\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
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Horsman
Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:07 PM
'legal@swpub.com'
Public notice for Prior Lake American published date 7/20/02
Deb, please cancel the public notice I e-mailed you on 7/16/02 for the property at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle.
publish date for this notice has been revised to August 3, 2002.
Thank you,
Steve Horsman
The
OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
AN APPEAL TO THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO REAR YARD SETBACK,
OHWM SETBACK, SUM OF SIDE YARDS, AND SETBACK FOR A
BUILDING WALL OVER 50 FEET LONG, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD
(SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16502
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
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 C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, August 19, 2002 at 7:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPELLANTS:
Dennis & Karen Perrier
16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from
a point on the South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the
Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21,
40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence
South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing,
along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00
degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the
intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said
Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a
distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\publish note. DOC ~
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of
said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
REQUEST:
The appellants are appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny their requested variances to the rear yard
setback, OHWM setback, sum of side yards, setback for building
walls over 50 feet long, to allow the construction of a single-family
home with attached garage on the vacant lot located at 16502
Inguadona Beach Circle.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
heating should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 952-447-
4230 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. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the hardship criteria.
Prepared this 29th day of July, 2002.
Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be published in the Prior Lake American on August 3, 2002.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\publish note. DOC 2
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
~)!~,/~ (-/~~~oftheCityl)f. PriorLak~,CountyofScott, Stateof
Mi-rn~e~ota, ~eing duly sv~om, says on the ~ day ~ ~002, sh~ served
tl~ a.tta .c,l~ed l!st-of person~ to have an interest in th~'
./,~,t~ qi,~'~Lt,"k, , by mali~li~g to them ~ ~op~, thereof,
e/~closed in an envelope, postage 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
[ :kDEPTWORK~BLANKFRIVlhMAILAFFD. DOC
OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
AN APPEAL TO THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO REAR YARD SETBACK,
OHWM SETBACK, SUM OF SIDE YARDS, AND SETBACK FOR A
BUILDING WALL OVER 50 FEET LONG, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD
(SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16502
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station /ti, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, August 19, 2002 at 7:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPELLANTS:
Dennis & Karen Perrier
16502 Inguadona Beach Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as Follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from
a point on the South line of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the
Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21,
40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in
INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds,
Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH,
adjacent to said Lot 17, of said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence
South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing,
along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a
distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36
seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00
degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to the
intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said
Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a
distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\mail note. DOC l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of
said Lot 17, to the point of beginning.
REQUEST:
The appellants are appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny their requested variances to the rear yard
setback, OHWM setback, sum of side yards, setback for building
walls over 50 feet long, to allow the construction of a single-family
home with attached garage on the vacant lot located at 16502
Inguadona Beach Circle.
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 952-447-
4230 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. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the hardship criteria.
Prepared this 29th day of July, 2002.
Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed on August 8, 2002.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\perrier appeal\mail note. DOC 2
~U~I~INO PF..RUlT SUR¥~y
PREPARED F~:
DENNIS PERRIER
1~2 IN~A ~A~
~ ~E MN. ~72
FAX (a~) ~4s-~3~.
VALLEY SURVEYING C0., P.A.
16870 FRANk'UN ~RNI.. SE. SUI~ 250
PRIOR L,M(E UN, ~5372
PH. (952) 447-2570
FAX (952) 44.7-2571
ATTACHMENT I - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
DENNIS PERRIER
16502 INGUADONA BEACH
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55.372
PH. (952) 447-6012
FAX (651) 645-8318
VALLEY SURVEYING CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE. SUITE 2.30
PRIOR LAKE MN. 55372
PH. (952) 447-2570
FAX (952) 447-2571
; , . ,,,,,
~_,..., .~ .............. 3
' .. _1! ', ii' .~,..70.: / ~1/': /: ///
k_~ )/"
/ ~ / /
'I '~ '~ ~ / ~-~.'
, '%. .., ,. -'~_
?'~. ~ :~../ ',',,,,
t: ~ I 'x, ',,,,
\ ,
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: I
Lot 17, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota. together with that port of the
20,00 foot driveway as shown on said plot of "INGUADONA BEACH". adjacent to said
Lot 17, of said plot described os follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 17, of said plot; thence South 01 degree
26 minutes 27 seconds East, assumed beorlng, along the southerly extension of the
west line of said Lot 17, o distance of 5,.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51
minutes 36seconds East o distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18.
minutes 13 seconds East o distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41
minutes 47 seconds East o distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the
easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North 75 degrees 14.
minutes 06 seconds West o distance of 10.51 .feet to the northeast corner o1: said
Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the eostedy and southerly lines of sold
Lot 17. to the point of beginning.
Containing 9.,350 square feet to elevation 904,
· Denotes Iron Monument Found
0 Denotes Iron Monument set and
marked by License No. 10183
L.___.b3ITTIthis Permit
Building
Survey wes prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I om e
duly Licensed Lend Surve~r under the
laws of the State of Minnesota,
0 f'~
!