HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-124 Layton Kinney Variance
APPLICA'l'IO~S
&
APPLICA'l'IO~
~A'l'blUALS
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
I
Planning Case File No. 0 J-- !ilc.t
Property Identification No. .;). S-- t: ~.- U~ -c
City of Prior Lake
ZONING/LAND USE APPLICATION
Type of Application
Brief description of proposed project
(Please describe the proposed amendment, project, or variance
request. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
o Amendment to Zoning Map
o Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Text
o Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
o Conditional Use Permit
[8] Variance
o Planned Unit Development
o Senior Care Overlay District
o Home Occupation
o Amendment or Modification to approved CUP or PUD
o Other
'K<:>A\lC'-t.\f'\"l OJ -thr-> ~(l~
-Sy"'-"\"Y\ \ ~@ , 'f"1O.q..L\ \ \f' y)'w.\')+
~ (9-1e,p \~-\4:p't- 'cdt.o I' W)
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone:
-Lo..u:t.l')y\ n ')1d. ~a "U) (,> ~ \. V) '(\~ ~
1'+4~~ 5\\1arl~ -' tl.C''''lV-rJl.MF'. ~\~V"" ~ ~p MN
. (home) 4L\~- L( \ 4q I (work) t~ A.
S3'l~
(fax)
Property Owners (if different than applicant):
Address:
Telephone: (home)
Type of Ownership: 0 Fee
(work)
o Contract for Deed
(fax)
o Purchase Agreement I
Legal Description of P1h:J;t~di~'l' shee~ if necessary):
I Lot ~ \ S . .V) N.o - ,~,
I
Fee Owner's Signature
t of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
have r d the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
w' 0 ~~:':;,U5f~::~ :?~;o, .,,;gn;, ~-M- O~
Signature ~' t7 "i>l\te , U
Date T~l'~l
..-............ . - .
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION .. ." _ I
(Required for POO, CUP and SC Overlay District applications) .I.
. J.:;I
D No
o Yes
WiUthe developers request financial assistance froIIltbeCity?
If yes, please describe the amount and type' of assistance requested (attach additional pages if necessary).
Will anyone other than the .applicantbe involved in the ownership,develop~ent & management oftbis project?
DYes (If yes, please attach alistofthenames and the role ofallpersonsinvolved in the project.) 0 No
1:\handouts\2001 handouts\zoning\zoning app.doc
PROCEDURE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Overview: When a person wishes to maintainlbuildlconstruct a structure in a manner that does not
comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a variance is required. Specific
requirements for property in each Zoning Use District are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Section
1108.400 of the Code sets forth the procedure and requirements for the review of variance requests. The
Code is available for review or purchase from the City's Planning Department.
Pre-Application Procedure: Prior to submitting an application for a variance, applicants are encouraged
to meet with the Planning Staff to discuss the following:
. Zoning requirements that apply to the property.
. Preliminary development or building plans for the property.
. The specific criteria of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the development or building plan.
. Alternatives to the proposed development.
. Variance procedures.
If a decision is made to proceed after the advisory meeting or meetings, a formal application is made.
Process: Within ten (10) business days of submission of the application, the applicant will receive
formal, written notice from the City about whether the application is complete. Within 30 days of receipt
of a complete application, the Planning Department will schedule a public hearing for review by the
Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission). The Board of Adjustment must approve or deny the
application within 120 days of receipt of a complete application.
Timinl!: Public hearings are scheduled for the Board of Adjustment on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each
month. Complete applications must be submitted to the Planning Department at least thirty (30) days
prior to the scheduled meeting to allow publication of hearing notice. The Planning Department will
publish notices in the Prior Lake American and notify the applicant and other affected property owners of
the date and time the proposal will be heard by the Planning Commission.
Staff Report: The Planning Department will prepare a staff report which: 1) explains the request; 2)
reviews the criteria for granting variances as contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and 3) provides a
recommendation.
Hearinl!: A public hearing will be held by the Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission). The
Commission will review the staff report and hear from the applicant. Public testimony on the request will
1:\handouts\2001 handouts\zoning\variance app.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
also be taken. The Board of Adjustment, after reviewing all of the information, will make a decision and
may grant a variance from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional
topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the
strict application or the terms of this Code 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.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately
adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in
which the land is located.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the owner.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of
fire, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the
neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area,
or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Code and the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of a Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary
to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Code to the affected property and
does not result from actions of the owners of the property.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for
granting a Variance.
Applicants are invited to use the overhead projector provided, and the exhibits prepared by Staff.
Any additional exhibits submitted by the applicant (at the hearing or prior to the hearing) such as
photographs, petitions, etc. must be entered into the public record and submitted to the Planning
Department for the file.
Appeal: The decision of the Board of Adjustment may be appealed to the City Council by submitting a
letter to the City requesting an appeal within 5 working days of the Board of Adjustment hearing. The
applicant, property owner or any affected owner or property within 350 feet of the site may appeal the
decision of the Board of Adjustment. Appeals are considered by the City Council following a public
hearing before the Council. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Planning staff will schedule a public hearing,
publish notice of the hearing in the Prior Lake American, and notify owners of property within 350 feet of
the site.
Recordine: If the variance or variances are approved, the applicant is responsible for recording a copy of
the certified resolution at the Scott County Recorder's Office. The certified copy of the resolution must
be stamped by the County Recorder as proof of recording and returned to the planning offices of the City
of Prior Lake before the issuance of a building permit for the project. The applicant must provide proof
1:\handouts\2001 handouts\zoning\variance app.doc
Page 2
of recording to the city and received a building permit within one (l) year from the date of approval or
the variance becomes null and void.
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
· Application Fee: Check payable to the "City of Prior Lake". The filing fee is $150.00.
. Signed Application: A completed application form signed by the owner or owners of the property.
Include authorization from the property owner on the application form or by attached letter of
authorization if an agent signs the application.
. Application Checklist: The attached checklist identifies the necessary information. Failure to
provide any of the required information will result in an incomplete application. The Application
Checklist will expedite the review of your application. Attach the checklist with the application
materials.
1:\handouts\2001 handouts\zoning\variance app.doc
Page 3
....[.-..--... .
VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
-eEY&LOPER:
1~L\58 S~a~elll''' \~() \ ~t.
~"('" \ fl"'l'l \ .p N\ t\l.5 't; ~ '1 d
. . ,
For City Use Only
."
Ji
A complete Zoning/Land Use Application form, signed by the applicant
and the fee owner of the property.
fl) A radius map and a list and 2 sets of labels of the names and addresses
g of the owners of property located withi~. of the subject site. These
shall be obtained from and certified by an abstract company.
- ---=-
1. The required filing fee of $150.00.
~ A certificate of survey of the property showing the existing and proposed
.... development in relation to:
. Property lines
. Structures, both existing and proposed
. Topography
. Easements
· Ordinary High Water Mark and bluff setbacks, where applicable.
. Impervious surface calculations and lot coverage calculations.
· Setbacks for structures on adjacent lots, where setback averaging
applies
5. If the survey is larger than 11" by 17", ten (10) full-scale copies of the
survey and supporting data and one 11 "X 17" reduction of each sheet
must be provided.
(0 . L ~'-tc:r - Ind IC-?L--h n3 Y\Cl rz{ sh ( tJ
rL ~.,€.. \ \ 'M \ Y\o..'f~ P\d<i r\-lOYl :? \ (L\'\ O-\'\d
J\d) \),. sbu:! ~'{ ~ \ \ '<Y\ \ V\ Ck.( 11 A.clch '\, 0 YO{? \ a. V'\
1) OQ..1.l...m ~ '(\ t 'I.
::D o<L1L~ e.-Y\ -l 1t
1) OCJ).., vn e.. 'V\-t. "11T
:D (!)<LV...vn~'Y\ t JY
(~:.~~)
Nf\
- c:; C-r ,'+C 1L9t
.~
\ ])0 U>.. 'VY)e. Y1i 'Sl1
r6
f'
,c-
Memorandum
TO: All Applicants for Land Use Applications
FROM: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
DATE: July 18,2001
RE: Required Information for Notification Requirements
Several Land Development Applications require published notice as well as mailed notice
to nearby property owners. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit a list ofthe
names and addresses of the property owners. This list must be prepared and certified by a
certified abstract company.
IN ORDER TO ENSURE PROPER NOTIFICATION, ALL PROPERTY
OWNERS LISTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A MAP IDENTIFYING THE
SUBJECT SITE AND THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION RADIUS. THE MAP,
AS WELL AS THE LIST, MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT
CERTIFYING THE LIST HAS BEEN PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED
ABSTRACT COMPANY. THE STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE
ABSTRACT COMPANY.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me
at 447-4230.
I: \handouts\certlist.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245
Received of :::I.t-1.,~A-z"ryf ./JYlCll~'6 .k~Yvr1R..-&,
~ {j /J } "/l,~'-('; (J /1 ,'-/j .. '47'1. ,/.
the sum of ~ \-lq:1L1~:tIZ/ L~J_Y.:::....H.~ I' "l. / 1C7...,~
- - ..../, / I
for the purpose of
$
!t)lJ. /J
1JIlAi,MI~/ t ~ -
RECEIPT # 41691
DATE:--.Crd-. #-~<OZ-
dollars
Invoice #
{brj, ~
Rec.eipt Clerk fote City of Prior Lake
v
,T~-@ ~_ 0 ''0' ~~" 'i
I II .
i LJ il
'! \~ii OCT 2 5 ml i
I \ I I
\L ul ;t;/
I
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Layton and Marge Kinney
DATE: October 25,2002
RE: Request for a Variance
We built our home in 1967, and have lived at this address in Prior Lake for the past 35 years.
Because our family has grown, our home no longer meets our needs. Weare requesting a Variance based on
our need for a larger dining area.
We bought our lot in January, 1967, and hired a local builder, Harold Gustafson, to build our home.
He carefully followed all zoning and building codes. No variances were requested or received.
When we moved into our new home, we were a family of four; we had two small sons, ages 5 and 1.
Our daughter was born in 1970. Our home has been a wonderful place to live and raise our family. Nnw,
however, our home no longer meets our needs. Both sons are married, and we have five grandchildren. Our
fatt1ily now numbers twelve, and we look forward to a son-in-law and more grandchildren when our daughter
marries. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday, birthday, or holiday dinner. Because
our family is so important to us, we are very distressed by our lack of dining space.
The only location to accomplish more dining space would be to expand our existing dining room on
the lake side. We are proposing a glassed-in three-season porch with French doors. When our whole family
is together and we need to seat more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, turn the table,
and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance out
enjoyment of our home and property. We are both retired senior citizens now, so we spend much more time
at home than we did when we were younger and busy working and raising our family. We are both in good
health, and plan to stay in our home for many years to come.
We wish to address each of the criteria for granting a Variance:
1. Our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our East side, as does the
shoreline for each of the lots immediately to our East. The main portion of our home is 104 feet from the
904 high water level. Because the shoreline curves, the lake gets closer to our home on the southeast side,
where the addition is proposed. The southeast comer of our house (where the dining room is located) is 78
feet from the shoreline. Our proposed addition is 18 feet by 16 feet. If we were given a pemrit to build the
addition per our plans, the distance from the southeast comer of the new room straight south to the shore
would be 60 feet, and the distance to the southeast comer of our lot would be 46 feet. We understand that any
Variance granted would require a minimum of 50 feet from the addition to the comer of our lot at the 904
foot level. We can redesign our proposed addition to comply with the 50 foot requirement. To build our
addition in any other location would be impractical and would not fulfill our needs. Therefore. we do believe
strict application of the Code would result in undue hardship to us.
Weare aware of the averaging method of detennining setback. A few years ago, that method would
have easily allowed a 50 foot setback for our proposed addition. The house to the East of us sits 29 feet from
the Water's edge. When we built our home. the house on the lot to our West was a completely different
building, and sat apjJloximately 50 feet from the lakeshore. When our neighbors sold their home, the new
owner had the old house moved off the lot. and he built his new house further away from the lake. The
distance from the southeast comer of the new house to the 904 level is 125 feet. The average, then, becomes
77 .25 feet. which is not helpful to us. Therefore. we must request a Variance in order to solve our need.
2. The irregular shape of our lot and the sharp curve of the shoreline are unique, and would apply,
generally. only to other lots on the back side of a point. as we are. Another unique characteristic of our lot IS
the topography, which, we think, is favorable for our proposed addition. When we bought our lot it had
never had a building on it. It was a natural hill, sloping up from the road to a height of 918.5 feet, and then
sloping gently down to the lake, which today is around the 903 foot level. It had a moderate number of
mature trees---oak. elm. maple. basswood. and ash. We designed our home to fit the lot. instead of grading
the lot to fit the house. We had two goals: 1) to preserve the natural terrain and 2) to preserve as many trees
as possible. The south side of our house is at the 913.4 to 914.8 foot level. The area where we want to put
our addition is level. Therefore, there is a gentle vertical drop of 9-10 feet down to the 904 foot high water
level. That great difference in the height of the land precludes any flooding problems.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for us to fully enjoy and use our property to
the benefit of our family.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
acljacent property on either side of us. Our proposed addition will not interfere with our neighbors'
enjoyment of their property in any way. It will not increase congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger offue, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance and the building of our addition can only improve the character,
development" and property value of our neighborhood. It could not possibly impair the health" safety, or
comfort of our area.
6. We don't know what all of the intents of the Code and Comprehensive Plan are. However, we
believe that the 75 foot setback from the lake requirement (the one for which we are requesting a Variance)
intends to protect both the lake and the land adjoining the lake. If there is a concern that building to within
50 feet of the lakeshore might lessen the area and time for adequate settling of run-off before it enters the
lake, we would be happy to recreate adequate area and time through landscaping. We could do that by the
use of either a swale or plants, or both. We are not opposed to having such landscaping being made a
condition of granting the Variance. With that in mind, we believe that the granting of the Variance and
subsequent building of our proposed addition would not have any adverse effect on either the lake or the
property. They will, in fact, improve the property.
7 . We do not request this Variance merely for our convenience. We have a real need. Our family is
vitally important to us. We are both retired. and our family is our highest priority. We have both the time
and the energy to devote to our children and grandchildren. We place a high value on family gatherings and
dinners as a way to help develop character and values. They also provide great family fun and build lasting
memories. It is very difficult for us to no longer have the space to seat the whole family for a family dinner.
This difficulty could be solved by the granting of the requested Variance and our building our proposed
addition.
8. The hardship to us as property owners does not result from our own actions. When we built the
house, we followed every requirement of the code that was in effect in 1967. We have cared for and
improved the property throughout our 35 years in our home. Rather. the hardship to us results from the
application of the Code setback requirement to our unique property.
9. Construction costs and/or economic hardship have no bearing on our request for a Variance.
In summary: The requested 50 foot setback has no adverse effect on the neighboring property
owners on either side of our property. It would solve our difficult situation of not having enough space to
accommodate our growing family. We. therefore, respectfully request this Variance be granted.
U you.
, ~~4
inney ~ MargeKinn~r--O
...., .'
FRANK R. CARDARELLE -Xi.
(612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifitatt ~f ~Uttltl?
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Book
Page
File .6 4/ g
--
.--
'I~
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
,. l
r ~ J 7~ .a
\ ~
~~
0,
\~
~
(X) -
.J:>~
~,
,J:.
\ 1_.
l-l
\
,
.I I
, ok} ~;w
\ 7/(;04. b
; / I '" , \I).. /
'\~~I~' p~.~Jr'
~/4 . .e"'d""
- ~~<~
() // /
(,' /'
/ \)jVJ\'1 J
1/ \/>' 1 \' ,.-11.
q \ I \ ./
'q()tr:/ ~o~ 0' " I
~ I
\ ~b' t'J
//
"~~
. ?o /'
~ ~o ,,'" " /'
......\S) r 'v ~()O?.
\ - -1~ 91,11
~' . ~v..t. 00 teO
(\0 \, '10' . ..t
??-'\:\Jl" 9():"~ '\st1"'"
t.' e~ . s'1\eo U
~ote1'
\
. \
.;:r / 'r'tJ 4
'-'r
I I
I
rrt s
!'fq't".,\
/ 'I .. ", J
~'1'
/'
-
c
+
~
~
~
I-
I
./
...,
\ C)',
, ,.
r
. I
.f .
,,,-/"
~
,
"
1'\ \
\ }
\ v
t'
lr
Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq. ft.
Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq. ft.
Exist.Hard ~over
Area: 4405 sq. ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sq~ft~
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
I
~
~ ~\ I _
A 1 _ I 0 {) -.----
. \ \.. ------
~-------
,
'w.t:---/
I hereby ~ that 1hIa Ie . _ and -.-at
laIIon of . aUIWY of the boundrlea 01
Scott
oaGhmenIa. It wry on NIid land.
Surveyed by ma on 1hIa 1 7 t h
day of S p n..teJnb.p r
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
~'" A
I f --1__
.---:. - -t'-
.... i
t!
~ I
I
.... --l t'9'€
5' I
'- : ' I
N I '-
11'3
<0
N Co
....
_ .co I I
- .-
- -
_ _ _ --.J - r 1---- -- - ~~
I ---.
N /
/
SO
....
,j
/'
t'-
/ ....
t! I
<i
\ ~.'
~~'
~
14'
"
. HOME CRAFTSMAN
I r
,1'11 ""
'-
'-
Name
Co
."
N
....
---------4
/
/
(")
N
V I
Ii f..._ /
1
co
N
~
/
SO
N
....
1
co
N
~
f...
/
/
,
,
,
-" I
-....--...:::'
~
.,err '1'
! (); /
~'\ / I~
\~~ /
-,,- ~
\
,
0)
~
6'8 -
'-,1'11""
10'6
1/4"= 1'-0"
.' 1
'C~JY'//
0.~
\~,)I ~@rno\YJ@J.
\l '1 '
i \' OCT 2 5 ~ :\ ,I
\ \~
-
Plan Type
Original Date
Scale
Drawings and designs are
preliminary only and not finals for
construction.
Layton & Marge Kinney
Proposal
10-22-02
Address
Project Type
Revision Date
Addition
Drawn By
Page #
rc:) Copyright of New Spaces
~ Lie. #1586
-ST.
1
_ _. _ .....L _ _ ___ _ - _ - _J .-J
,...
N
.--.--. ,~'6
2' _:c_
1'3...
Co
I
L-
00
....
,...
,...
c,.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ II
----- 1'611
__ 1'3 I
---- '
_....J
..1
_.1'3.
I
__11".
.1'
~
(")
I ~~
----
~.-
FAMIL Y
289 sq ft
in
411(1--.--
J
:..-~
1'3.
Name
Address
16'
('II
N
,...
I
,.
I
~
....
in
M
in Co
...
..---
---f!:.-~___
L
in
!:-
..-
_._L..____'.
:1
1/4" = 1 '-0"
Layton & Marge Kinney
Plan Type
Original Date
Proposal
7-10-02
Project Type
Revision Date
Addition
Scale
J~
No Scale
~~ @ ~ 0\0' IT; '~>.'
\, OCT 25m' -
L \ I II ~/
As Noted
Drawings and designs are
preliminary only and not finals for
construction.
Drawn By
JNZ
Page #
iC~) Copyright of New Spaces
~ Lie. #1586
Resolution
and ~inutes
m . 67- --O'W Pc-
,
fJ(l~. II-;)S-()~
'.
~.
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
RESOLUTION 02-020PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Layton and Marge Kinney have applied for an 29 foot variance from the 75 foot
shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to an existing single
family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD
(Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit;
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-124PC and held a hearing thereon on November 25,
2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, the effect on property v.tlues in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance,
and is not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the
shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue
hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the
R-1 use district. A reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall
garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists
on the property.
5. The conditions (shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to
other land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not
peculiar to the subject property.
I: \02files \02variances \02-12 4 \deny resolution.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
6. The granting of the requested shoreland setback variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner.
The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property.
7. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the
applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship.
8. The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback variance results from the actions
of the property owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling.
The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the
difficulty, not the area, width, shape or topography of the lot.
9. The contents of Planning Case #02-124PC 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 variance for the construction of an addition to an existing single family
dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1) A 29 foot variance from the required 75 foot average shoreland setback
to allow a 46 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) of Prior Lake. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.308 (2)
Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 25, 2002.
! " 1
A~~
Anlhony J. SbiIison, Commission Chair
0jS~, iJ
Donald R. Rye, com~ Development Director
1: \02files \02variances \02-124 \deny resolution. doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
_ JVovember25,2002
Lemke:
. Questioned staff if they would vacate the right-of-way. Poppler said the City
would not be in favor of it - do not know how much future traffic would be on
this road. It is not a policy. More than one lot would have to be vacated.
. Agreed with Criego, that reasonable use of the property is warranted.
. It is not a site line issue.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood, nays by Stamson and Ringstad.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #02-124 Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the
75 foot average Shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to a single
family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail NE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot Shore land setback
for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on
property zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and
located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail. The subject property is a riparian lot. A single
family dwelling, constructed in 1968, currently occupies the site. In order to construct
the proposed addition to the dwelling the following variance is required:
A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot Shore land setback to allow a 46 foot setback from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and
commented if the addition were moved to the west side of the home, the Shore land
setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or
demonstrate a hardship, the DNR would not oppose a setback variance of some sort.
However, the DNR believes the proposed variance can be reduced.
The fact the applicant wants to construct an addition for dining room space does not
create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. Furthermore, the proposed addition
would expand the nonconformity of the Shoreland setback. Staff believed the Shoreland
setback variance was not warranted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue
hardship and a reasonable use is currently present on the site.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Marge Kinney, 14458 Shady Beach Trail, her husband, Layton and Doug
Nelson the builder, were present. Kinney stated they would like to add a 3 season porch
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502.doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
to gather their family together in one place for birthday and holiday dinners. The home
was built in 1967. Their family has grown and the home no longer meets their needs.
They have 5 grandchildren and it is important to have the entire family together. It is no
longer possible to seat the family together for a dinner. Kinney stated the family is so
important to them they are very distressed by the lack of dining space. The home is no
longer functional for the families' needs. The addition would solve the problem for more
space.
Kinney said they were terribly disappointed by staffs recommendation and strongly
disagree with staffs findings. Kinney said she understood the minimum variance the
Commission will grant is 25 feet to allow a 50 foot setback. She stated she told staff they
would be willing to redesign the porch to comply with a 50 foot setback. Staff felt the
home was setback 64 feet and was already nonconforming. Kinney felt they exceeded the
setbacks in 1967 when they built their home and the area was Eagle Creek Township.
The lake has risen over the 35 years, and they have lost 24 feet of shoreline. She felt it is
not their fault the lake has risen creating a hardship. The Shady Beach area is unique as it
is a peninsula and fits the hardship criteria. Kinney disagreed with staffs 9 hardship
criteria responses and disputed each. She said it was obvious to them that hardship is
very much like beauty - it is "in the eye of the beholder." They strongly believe it would
be unreasonable to deny their request.
Kinney stated the variances should be granted in the name of justice. They were law
abiding, taxpaying citizens of Prior Lake for 35 years. She served on the Prior Lake
school board for 25 years, learning about establishing and enforcing policy. She learned
rules should be fair and consistent believing the City's rules are fair and consistent. One
should not make or enforce a rule simply because one has the power to do so. She
strongly questioned staff s recommendation to deny the variance. This addition will do
no harm to the neighbors or to the water quality of Prior Lake. She wants her home
functional to carry on family traditions and continue to be positive influence on their
children and grandchildren's lives.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. Would like to pass as the applicants are neighbors.
Atwood:
. For the very reason the applicant stated the loss oflakeshore, does not see how
further encroachment to the lake could be allowed.
. Questioned the applicant's second proposal. Kirchoff explained the second
proposal, but it was not shown on the survey.
Ringstad:
. Did not agree with Mrs. Kinney's hardship assessment.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502,doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
. Cannot Support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. Has never
supported encroachment.
. The applicant has reasonable use ofthe property.
. Hardship #5 - is to maintain the character ofthe lot.
. Will not support the request.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Ringstad. It all comes back to hardship.
. Traditionally, a 3-season porch or a lack of one does not create a hardship. There
is reasonable use ofthe property.
. Denial of this request does not create a hardship.
. The guidelines are State Statutes. It is not a convenience for the owners. Hardship
goes far beyond the dictionary definition.
. There is no clear hardship. Will not support.
Lemke:
. Has no doubt the Kinneys believe there is a hardship.
. Believes in supporting the protection of the lake. State Statute is a 50 foot
setback; the City's is 75 feet.
. Cannot see how this fits into the current ordinance.
Criego:
. Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on
protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface.
. Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50 foot setback, but it is 75 feet.
. The applicant is a 64 feet now, which is not an issue.
. The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for
lake setbacks. Ifthis was voted in, there would be a flood of requests and why
would their requests be any different than the applicants?
. The Commission feels strongly on these issues, they are somewhat lenient on
some issues, such as side yard setbacks. This is a fairly large size home.
. Believe strongly on the 75 foot setback. For that reason the Commission must
stick to the requirement.
Stamson:
. Appreciated Mrs. Kinney's rulemaking opinion.
. The Commission has to stay consistent with the ordinances. They have taken a
very defined approach on lake setbacks.
. The tradeoff with the 75 foot setback is the 30% impervious surface. In order to
justify that, the Commission has to be consistent in the lakeshore lot variance
procedures.
. This variance has to be denied. It does not meet the criteria.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI 12502.doc 10
"_. ,,_"._,'_._..~_"_~.,4<'_~"'_'~_'-_"_'_'''''_''__''_~~
. Planning Commission Meeting
November 25, 2002
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02-
020PC DENYING A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT
SHORELAND SETBACK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
6. Old Business:
A. Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of
an amended survey for the approved variance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25,
2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On March 25,2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-0IPC, approving
a 14.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 10.5 feet to the rear property line
rather than the minimum required 25-foot setback for the construction of a single family
dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 15358 Breezy Point Road.
In November, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a grading permit for the
construction of the single family dwelling. The survey submitted with the grading permit
differs from the approved survey in that the style and location ofthe house have changed.
On the new survey, the house is located further back from the road than the original plan.
The house is also located closer to the side lot line (10' as opposed to 25') than the
approved survey. The house is still located 10' from the rear lot line and at least 50' from
the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The setbacks shown on the revised survey are
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and with the approved variance.
Staffs comments were if the Commission felt the survey was consistent with the original
intent, a Motion should be made to amend Resolution 02-0 I to include the revised
survey.
Ken Boyles presented an overlay of the proposed change. It will not affect any of the
variances. The house is actually smaller and the impervious surface is less. The
applicant never solved the utilities problem to the lake. Now there is no need for the
extra fill required with the original proposal. The only difference is that it is a different
smaller home.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned the closest distance from the 904 OHWM. Kirchoff responded it was
50.6 feet.
. No problem with the ch~ges. Approve.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502.doc II
FRANK R. CARDARELLE"1\[
:612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifieatt ~f ~Ut\lty
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
prior lake, MN 55372
Book
Page
File 6 4 / g
.--
1
. ~ \
....................
....................
....................
....................
PROPOSED ADDITION
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
;t . l
I 7 -f',-;S-
C$3
\ -6'" 0
. ~ l;:>-
0,
Iron Mon.Found
---
.}:t" / 'M'i ~
\
'. \
~
~
~
I,
\
0\
\
~
.-
,.\
\ /; \
\ / v
II"
Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq. ft.
Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq. ft.
Exist.Hard ~over
Area: '4405 sq. ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sq~ft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New land Cover
I
~
~ .9' ,~ _
. ~1" __ __}~ .__./
~-,.-"~
,
v..-
MY of Sf>ptf>mhp r
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
I heteby ~ ..... 1hIa Ie . ..... llllCI ~.cI r.p'......IaUon of . .llIWy of lhe boundrIe. of
Scott
Lot 2, Shady
Surv.yed by m. on 1hIa lIth
. 2QQZ....
I
L
Location V1ap
for Kinney Appeal
f"
r
~:-
.~
~/
<e
-<
<
~
o
'jj
-.....
.............
~~cAR...,.clLEHILLRONE _
--
~~~-
J-
~
Prior
Lake
~
~
N
A
---=-=-IJ J^
",-/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
.. A A---1_
. -~!'-
- ~I
~ I
.- 5' ---.":'L-1~'9 ;
1'01 I
11'3
co
~ to
1'011
I
!O
f
!'-
"
~I
,
I
L
~./
1\ 1;
\ \,
\ "\ /
'.n 4><
6' " /
\ ?~i
\, , \
Y
14' .
/
,,1'11',
J
"
Name
/
J-_ ~._
6'8
10'6
r'
I
I
I
I I
~I:
----~ I
~ ,. =- == - II
'U__ . I
I
I
l'l-
~
Co
I
I
r>
N
I; _c
I-. I
1
.,
N
~
(Q
!:!
1
.,
N
~
1-.-
, I
~':Z
117
;' ,~
\C::::-,'o~': '.:,11 .;;<" /
\',~
~:o./ '~_
, 1'11"
, J
SJl
....
1/4"=1'-0"
Plan Type
Original Date
Layton & Marge Kinney
Proposal
1 0-22-02
Address
Project Type
Revision Date
Addition
~~:~~:~\~
Scale
Drawings and designs are
preliminary only and not finals for
construction.
Drawn By
Page #
tC:) Copyright of New Spaces
~ Lie. #1586
Overheads
Presentation
~aterials
L\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
__ocation \IIa-)
for <inney Variance
\ r-'vY
~rl.
~~
~
--
L-
N
A
400
I
400 Feet
I
o
~
1/
SHADY BEACH TRl
(
-----~
- --~~
FRANK R. CARDARELLE'''. \''L
~612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifieatt ~f ~UtUt~
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake. MN 55372
Book
Page
File 64 /g
.--
. ~:
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
fl
I A- 7~ 4
C$)I
\ ~
I~~
0,
Iron Mon.Found
~
,~
/
/
/
?~~\ / 4-.1 '
/:"lD \ ,10 I
\ ~ " , ,. "'. I
. \~C'~' P'~_ \Jr
d/4 __ E",.; -"'''<",
o f' /
(,' .
,\~. .. /
/ 0;/ ,,'.,.,
ff \ ''.;
/ .... ',V ~Q
'jl j\,/
/j \1 I
q' \ I
, tr;' A ~ ~
'II) // . 0 J /
;& ~ I
..., .....
.. /D'~~:--~ Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
\ ~ ~ House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
/ / Flagstone Walk: 560 sq.ft.
,\ ~ Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
. ,.~ Patio Area: 510 sq. ft.
() ~o' '" ~o /' ,/ Exist.Hard Gover
~b.. ~-V/ ~ Area: 4405 sq. ft.
~~ -J~ 1\11~00 23% Land Cover Existing
~' , /~'t. Q tee <3 Proposed Addn. to House:
. OR \.\X 36, 3.,ct 288 sq ~ ft.
?~\" 90\' \'\, st1' Tota 1 Hard Cover After
c\e'" heu. v
~ te1'S" Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
~3. 24.5% New Land Cover
\
. \
----
.J;r / 'rlJ 4
.-.J}
-
c
"""""
\..:i
~
~
,-
I
\
,/
...,
\ C' ~
, ..'
r
I I
I
H
,
oor 2g_ I
-' ,.:;
...
..'
, I) \
, I v
tr
I
~
~ 19\ I _
, '" '? " ... -;33- -//
~. ~----
,
v..,,'
Sutv.yed by m. on lhla-1Lt h
day 01 <:;p~tplJlbpr
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
I hereby ~ lheIlhla Ie . ...... IIIIcI -..G1 repr.....lallon of . a""",y of lhe boundrIa. 01
Scott
FRANK R. CARDARELLE '.\'\L'
:612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie. MN 55344
Qt~ttititatt ~:: ~UtUtl:?
Survey For
Book
Page
File t6 4 / g
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
t ~ t 7~ 4
\ ~
~~
0,
.--
----
.J:Y / LMJ 4
~
~
~
I,
t~tq.< /
I\. ') ",'.
{, ,
1'\' . I j
/ ~..d t /
f'J1l .? /
/.1'
...
...\
\ I; \
\ /"
It'
\
~
~ .9\ f ~
, /\"\'1/' ,;!!--/
,
\.v-
'"
. ~ ~
Iron Mon.Found
\
\
'-'i\' \
.~
\~
\
H
\
(1:1' 2 gm
./
,j
;
Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq. ft.
Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq.ft.
Exist.Hard ~over
Area: 4405 sq. ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sq~ft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
Lot 2, Shady
I hereby ~ IheI .. II . lNa WId -..0\ rapr......\aUon of . .urwy ollhe boundrIea of
Scott
. oactvnanll. II any on NkIland.
, 2.00Z-.
---
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
SUrv.yed by m. on .. 1 7 t h
d.yol SP!"tf'mhf'r
FRANK R. CARDARELLE ,.. \,\1_
:612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifieatt @f ~UtUt~
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Book
Page
File ~4 /J>
.--
l--\
'r~
....................
.'..................
PROPOSED ADDITION
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
[ A- 7~ 4)
~0;31
\ ~
'~~
0,
1":::;40.
Iron Mon.Found
---
-J;r / iMJ 4
\
\
H
\
l..' L '
S ,t.. ~
~d t60 ~ \ \ 04-/l OHW
\ 7 ~ 904./)
:" I ' , "\.
~\~~~4P"" E-..;..,
0,/ I ..- ~~<c.
II I ,
,\ n,. . / ,I
/ ,,',~../ I;) I I ,
'.:)iY J\ / I ,
If \/l 1 . '" tI:f 2 g am f)
'" \ I ../
\ ''It) tr~ ~ D~ 7f -
~ ~ I
. /()' ~ -:) Land Area: 19,170 sq. ft.
\ ~ ~ House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
/ / Flagstone Walk: 560 sq.ft.
,\ ~ Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
. ,.. ~ Pa t i 0 Area: 51 0 sq. ft .
() ~o' ,.. ,,0 ./ / Exist.Hard ~over
\S)~ >-'V" 2 Area: 4405 sq. ft.
"/ \1/200 23% Land Cover Exi sti ng
~ . /~t 63teG IjJ Proposed Addn. to House:
\O~ \.,~ ~(), '\ c.t 288 sq. ft.
?R ., go~.l.' n,\ stf Tota 1 Hard Cover After
c\e'" eu v
~ ters~ Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
~3 24.5% New Land Cover
._):1
,
-
c
~
~
~
~
I'
,/
....,
\ C' ~
\ ,.
r
. I
>
....
...'
\ I; \
\ I v
,('
\
~
~ ,9\ ,_ _
"'~', .... -;~ ,_/
~-~--~
,
~t:--.
Surveyed by me on Ihla 1 7 t h
day of S p r.teIl1P p r
-
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
I heteby -ufy lhaIlhIa II . ...... WlCI ~.c\ rapreaan\allon of . aurwy ollila boundrlea of
Scott
December 4, 2002
Layton & Marge Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN" 55372
RE: Variance for addition to single family dwelling
Case File: 02-124
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kinney:
This letter is to officially inform you that on November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission,
acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied your request for a 29 foot shoreland setback
variance for the construction of a living space addition.
Enclosed is an executed copy of the original Resolution denying the variance for your
records.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at 447-9813.
Sincerely,
Cynthia R. Kirchoff,
Planner
Enclosure
.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ml'( L:.I...,!Uf"'\LVrrVf'\lUl'Ul I I:.1VWLVTc.n
November 26, 2002
Anthony Stamson
Planning Commission Chair
16095 Wren Court SE
Prior Lake, :MN 55372
Dear Mr. Stamson:
Enclosed please fmd Variance Resolutions 02-017PC and 02-018PC for Mark Danes, 16308
Park Avenue, and Resolution 02-020PC for Layton and Marge Kinney, 14458 Shady Beach
Trial NE, as adopted by the Planning Commission on November 26,2002. Please review
and sign the Resolutions and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 447-9813. Thank you.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Sincerely,
~,):""\-{f;(' (-'. ,L-: !(-;t.rc::-/~.)'
_-c- JI' , I,,~~./-- t~
_ 1 , \
Cynthia R Kirchoff, AICP -------
Planner
Enclosures
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
October 29,2002
Layton & Marge Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance for an addition to an existing single family dwelling;
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE (Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2)
Case File No.: 02-124
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kinney:
On October 25, 2002, the City of Prior Lake received the above referenced development
review application. This letter serves as your official notification that all of the necessary
submittals have been received and the application is complete. At this time, your variance
application is scheduled for the Monday, November 25, 2002, PlanninE Commission
meeting. You or your representative must attend this meeting.
The City review process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to progress in
a timely manner that provides a complete and professional review. Occasionally, however,
due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60-day review period.
This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60-day deadline for
an additional 60 days from December 24, 2002, to February 22, 2003.
If you have questions relative to the review process or related issues, please feel free to
contact me at (952) 447-9813.
Sincerely,
~~'
Cf(fi<r -r-vL" d/1'
Cynthia R. Kirchoff, 1 V
Planner
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Cynthia Kirchoff
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us)
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 11 :29 AM
ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
Re: Kinney Variance
If the addition was moved to the west side of the home, the lake setback
would increase. The addition dimensions could be reduced (say to 13 or
14 feet wide, versus 16 feet) to further reduce the lake setback
variance.
Assuming the applicant can successfully
oppose a setback variance of some sort.
be made to reduce the variance, though.
please. Thank you.
argue hardship, DNR would not
It does appear efforts could
Let me know how this goes,
>>> Cynthia Kirchoff <ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com> 11/13/02 8:46 AM
>>>
Hi Pat-
Just wondering if you have any comments on the subject variance. It is
a
request for a variance from the average shoreland setback.
Thanks.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP
Planner
City of Prior Lake
(952) 447-9813
(952) 447-4245-fax
1
,0-U'L,.t i 01 wI D9-
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
I PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
PID#:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
I
I PROJECT REQUEST:
I
r+
I
I
1
,+
,+
1+
I
1+
I
DISTRIBUTE TO:
Frank Boyles
Sue Walsh
Ralph Teschner
Chris Esser
Bob Hutchins
Don Rye
Jane Kansier
DNR - Pat Lynch
County Hwy. Dept.
MNDOT
SMDC
Mediacom Cable
KINNEY VARIANCE (Case File #02-124)
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 77 .25 foot
average shoreland setback for the construction of an addition
to a single family dwelling.
Layton & Marge Kinney
Layton & Marge Kinney
445-4149
SITE INFORMATION
25-046-022-0
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE
R-S/SD
R-UMD
Review and comment on variance application.
+
+
-i
Bud Osmundson
Sue McDermott
-
APPLICATION FOR:
Administrative Land Division
Comprehensive Plan Amend.
Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupation
Rezoning
Site Plan
Preliminary Plat
PUD
Final Plat
+ Variance
Vacation
Fire Chief
Bill O'Rourke
Minnegasco
Watershed Dist.
Telephone Co.
Electric Co.
Met. Council
roate Received 10/25/02 Date Distributed 10/29/02 Date Due 10/14/02
I Complete Application 10/25/02 Date Distributed to 10/29/02 DRC Meeting NA
Date DRC
I Publication Date 11/16/02 Tentative PC Date 11/25/02 Tentative CC NA
Date
1 60 Day Review Oat! 12/24/02 Review Extension 2/22/03
1:\02files\02variances\02-124 \referral.doc
Page 1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Kinnev Variance) for the following:
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Water
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
Assessment
Policy
Septic System
Erosion Control
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
Natural Features
Electric
Grading
Signs
County Road Access
Legal Issues
Roads/Access
Gas
Other
Building Code
Recommendation:
Denial
Comments:
Signed:
Approval
Conditional Approval
Date:
Please return any comments by Thursdav. November 14. 2002, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
I :\02files\02variances\02-124\referral.doc
Page 2
November 20,2002
Layton & Marge Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the November
25,2002, Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are
expected to attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak
regarding your proposal and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13
on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting, please call me so
your item can be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. If you have
any questions, please contact me at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
Connie CarCson
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr .doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5C
CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT
SHORE LAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
14458 SHADY BEACH TRAIL NE
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO-N/A
NOVEMBER 25, 2002
02-124
Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for
the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at
14458 Shady Beach Trail (Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2). The property is guided Urban
Low /Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is a riparian lot. A single family dwelling, constructed in 1968,
currently occupies the site.
In order to construct the proposed addition to the dwelling shown on Attachment 3, the
following variance is required:
1. A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to allow a 46 foot setback
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake (Section 1104.308 (2)
Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
BACKGROUND:
The property was platted as Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2 in 1954. The lot is 19,170 square feet
in area and complies with the current shoreland ordinance in terms of area and width. The
buildable area on the lot is approximately 5,000 square feet.
According to the survey, the existing dwelling is set back approximately 64 feet from the
OHMW of Prior Lake, and thus maintains a nonconforming setback. Two decks on the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 2
lakeside of dwelling are not depicted on the survey. Staff estimates that the existing deck
above the proposed addition extends 4 to 6 feet from the dwelling, so the existing lakeshore
setback is likely 58 to 60 feet, and the deck over the patio to be 10 to 12 feet from the
dwelling. The property was not within the City of Prior Lake when the dwelling was
constructed.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant would like to construct
a 288 square foot (16 feet by 18 feet)
three-season porch addition to the
lakeside of an existing single family
dwelling. The extreme southeast
portion of the existing dwelling
encroaches into the 75 foot
shoreland setback, thus it is
nonconforming. The addition
proposes to encroach further into the
required shoreland setback
The applicant has submitted an alternative addition plan denoting a slightly different design
that is approximately 260 square feet in area (see Attachment 5). This design would add
approximately 2 feet to the setback. However, the applicant has noted to the staff that this
addition is not preferred.
According to Section 1104.308 of the zoning ordinance, "on shareIand lots that hcn:e 2 adjacent
lots with existing j" ~...;pal stn<<tures on both such adjuu:J u. lots, any new residential st:nu:ture ... may !X? set
back the dklus= setback of the adjacent stn<<tures /i.1n the ordmary higp mtter (OHW) leu:l or 50 fret,
uhK:her:er is greater." According to the survey submitted by the applicant, the structure on the
property to the north is set back 29.5 feet from the 904 contour and the structure to the
south is 125 feet, so the average setback is 77.3 feet. However, the maximum shoreland
setback is 75 feet. The proposed setback is shown as 46 feet (although it scales as 50 feet),
thus the 29 foot variance.
Although the structure likely complied with applicable ordinances when it was constructed,
the dwelling currently maintains a non-conforming shoreland setback. The zoning
ordinance permits construction on a legal nonconforming structure provided that it does not
"extend, expand, or intensify the rlutlUH'JLIII~j." The proposed addition seeks to expand an
existing nonconformity by encroaching an additional 18 feet into the required shoreland
setback.
According to the survey, the proposed addition complies with the minimum side yard
setback and total site impervious coverage does not exceed 30 percent.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124 \PC ReportDOT
j
Planning Repon - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 3
Deoartrnent of Natural Resources (DNR) Comments:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and
commented that if the addition were moved to the west side of the home, the shoreland
setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or demonstrate
a hardship, the DNR would not oppose a setback variance of some sort. However, the
DNR believes that the proposed variance can be reduced.
Aoolicant's Perceived Hardshio:
The applicant believes that the shoreland setback variance is warranted because "our home
no longer meets our needs. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday,
birthday, or holiday dinner. Because our family is so important to us, we are very distressed
by our lack of dining space... The only location to accomplish more dining space would be
to expand our existing dining room on the lakeside. We are proposing a glassed-in three
season porch with French doors. When our whole family is together and we need to seat
more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, turn the table, and expand into
the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance our
enjoyment of our home and property."
Also, "our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our east side,
as does the shoreline for each of the lots inunediately to our east."
VARIANCE HARDSHIP FINDINGS
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that:
1. Where by reason of na...." .....ness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason
of exc':'l'l:onal topographical or water conditions or other ':'A~aordinary 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 lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance, and is
not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the shoreland
setback. provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue hardship for the
property owner in developing the property as permitted in the R -1 use district. A
reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall garage, is present on the site.
Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists on the property.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other
land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124\PC Repon.OOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 4
The condition (i.e., shoreland setback.) applying to the land in question pertains to other
land within the R -1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not peculiar to the subject
property.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A shoreland setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial right of the property owner. The property owner already enjoys a reasonable
use of the property.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the
public streets, increase the danger of rae, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the proposed variance may affect the perception of an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property. Requested relief will allow a structure to encroach
further into the required shoreland setback and expand a nonconforming setback.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the shoreland setback variance may impact the character of the
immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health, safety, and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "conserve natural resources and
environmental assets of the community." Allowing the encroachment into the
shoreland setback, which intends to protect the water quality of Prior Lake, is
inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities or prohibit
their expansion. Allowing the addition would expand a nonconforming setback.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant
because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124\PC ReportDOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 5
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to
the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback results from the actions of the property
owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling. The proposed footprint of
the three-season porch addition created the difficulty, not the area, width, shape or
topography of the lot.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does not believe that economics plays a role in this variance request.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to an exiting single family
dwelling on property zoned R-l and SD. A comer of the dwelling encroaches into the
required 75 foot shoreland setback. The proposed three-season porch addition encroaches
even further into the required shoreland setback, so it expands the nonconformity of the
existing structure.
The fact that the applicant wants to construct an addition for dining room space does not
create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. Furthermore, the proposed addition
would expand the nonconformity of the shoreland setback. Staff believes the shoreland
setback variance is not warranted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue
hardship, as a reasonable use is currently present on the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the
construction of an addition, based upon the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant the granting of variances.
2. A reasonable use exists on the site.
3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the shoreland setback.
ALTERNATNES:
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variance the Planning
Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting the
vanance.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124 \PC ReportDOT
Planning Report - Kinney Variance
November 25, 2002
Page 6
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated
hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REOUIRED:
The staff recommends denial of the variance request. This requires the following motion:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-020PC denying a 29 foot variance from
the required 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to an existing
single family dwelling.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Applicant's letter
3. Survey
4. Addition plans
5. Alternative addition plans
6. Applicable regulations
7. Resolution 02-020PC
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-124\PC Report.DOT
_ocation VIa)
':or <inney Variance
~~yl
~~
~
------------
~
~'
ATTACHMENT 1
V
1/
I _
SHADY BEACH TRL
-,
N
A
400
I
o
400 Feet
I
v_
~~2
r-.. r;::1 '.
I '" ~ . , \,
Ir\~LS 1.5,1:'\
,I i II II:
V~\ I \'
\: OCT 2 5 2002 'I I;
_ \ji :1,;)
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Layton and Marge Kinney
DATE: October 25, 2002
RE: Request for a Variance
We built our home in 1967, and have lived at this address in Prior Lake for the past 35 years.
Because our family has grown, our home no longer meets our needs. Weare requesting a Variance based on
our need for a larger dining area.
We bought our lot in January, 1967, and hired a local builder, Harold Gustafson, to build our home.
He carefully followed all zonin~ and building codes. No variances were requested or received.
When we moved into our new home, we were a family of four; we had two small sons, ages 5 and 1.
Our daughter was born in 1970. Our home has been a wonderful place to live and raise our family. Now,
however, our home no longer meets our needs. Both sons are married, and we have five grandchildren. Our
fatftily now numbers twelve, and we look forward to a son-in-law and more grandchildren when our daughter
marries. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday, birthday, or holiday dinner. Because
our family is so important to us, we are very distressed by our lack of dining space.
The only location to accomplish more dining space would be to expand our existing dining room on
the lake side. We are proposing a glassed-in three-season porch with French doors. When our whole family
is together and we need to seat more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, turn the table,
and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance out
enjoyment of our home and property. We are both retired senior citizens now, so we spend much more time
at home than we did when we were younger and busy working and raising our family. We are both in good
health, and plan to stay in our home for many years to come.
We wish to address each of the criteria for granting a Variance:
1. Our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our East side, as does the
shoreline for each of the lots immediately to our East. The main portion of our home is 104 feet from the
904 high water level. Because the shoreline curves, the lake gets closer to our home on the southeast side,
where the addition is proposed. The southeast comer of our house (where the dining room is located) is 78
feet from the shoreline. Our proposed addition is 18 feet by 16 feet. If we were given a pennit to build the
addition per our plans, the distance from the southeast comer of the new room straight south to the shore
would be 60 feet, and the distance to the southeast comer of our lot would be 46 feet. We understand that any
Variance granted would require a minimum of 50 feet from the addition to the comer of our lot at the 904
foot level. We can redesign our proposed addition to comply with the 50 foot requirement. To build our
addition in any other location would be impractical and would not fulfill our needs. Therefore, we do believe
strict application of the Code would result in undue hardship to us.
We are aware of the averaging method of detennining setback. A few years ago, that method would
have easily allowed a 50 foot setback for our proposed addition. The house to the East of us sits 29 feet from
the water's edge. When we built our home, the house on the lot to our West was a completely different
building, and sat apploximately 50 feet from the lakeshore. When our neighbors sold their home, the new
owner had the old house moved off the lot, and he built his new house further away from the lake. The
distance from the southeast comer of the new house to the 904 level is 125 feet. The average, then, becomes
77 .25 feet, which is not helpful to us. Therefore, we must request a Variance in order to solve our need.
2. The irregular shape of our lot and the sharp curve of the shoreline are unique, and would apply,
generally, only to other lots on the back side of a point, as we are. Another unique characteristic of our lot is
the topography, which, we think, is favorable for our proposed addition. When we bought our lot it had
never had a building on it. It was a natural hill, sloping up from the road to a height of 918.5 feet, and then
sloping gently down to the lake, which today is around the 903 foot level. It had a moderate number of
mature trees---oak, elm, maple, basswood, and ash. We designed our home to fit the lot, instead of grading
the lot to fit the house. We had two goals: 1) to preserve the natural terrain and 2) to preserve as many trees
APPLICANT'S LETTER
as possible. The south side of our house is at the 913.4 to 914.8 foot level. The area where we want to put
our addition is level. Therefore, there is a gende vertical drop of 9-10 feet down to the 904 foot high water
level. That great difference in the height of the land precludes any flooding problems.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for us to fully enjoy and use our property to
the benefit of our family.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property on either side of us. Our proposed addition will not interfere with our neighbors'
enjoyment of their property in any way. It will not increase congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance and the building of our addition can only improve the character,
development, and property value of our neighborhood. It could not possibly impair the health, safety, or
comfort of our area.
6. We don't know what all of the intents of the Code and Comprehensive Plan are. However, we
believe that the 75 foot setback from the lake requirement (the one for which we are requesting a Variance)
intends to protect both the lake and the land adjoining the lake. If there is a concern that building to within
50 feet of the lakeshore might lessen the area and time for adequate settling of run-off before it enters the
lake, we would be happy to recreate adequate area and time through landscaping. We could do that by the
use of either a swale or plants, or both. We are not opposed to having such landscaping being made a
condition of granting the Variance. With that in mind, we believe that the granting of the Variance and
subsequent building of our proposed addition would not have any adverse effect on either the lake or the
property. They will, in fact, improve the property.
7. We do not request this Variance merely for our convenience. We have a real need. Our family is
vitally important to us. We are both retired. and our family is our highest priority. We have both the time
and the energy to devote to our children and grandchildren. We place a high value on family gatherings and
dinners as a way to help develop character and values. They also provide great family fun and build lasting
memories. It is very difficult for us to no longer have the space to seat the whole family for a family dinner.
This difficulty could be solved by the granting of the requested Variance and our building our proposed
addition.
8. The hardship to us as property owners does not result from our own actions. When we built the
house, we followed every requirement of the code that was in effect in 1967. We have cared for and
improved the property throughout our 35 years in our home. Rather, the hardship to us results from the
application of the Code setback requirement to our unique property.
9. Construction costs and/or economic hardship have no bearing on our request for a Variance.
In summary: The requested 50 foot setback has no adverse effect on the neighboring property
owners on either side of our property. It would solve our difficult situation of not having enough space to
accommodate our growing family. We, therefore, respectfully request this Variance be granted.
~ank you.
~ '" ~ ~
~ . .-7~'
~ ~ . Vvv 7- ~./YlP4A
Laylo inney ~ Marge Kinne ?
FRANK R. CARDARELLE ~..
:612) 941-3031
Eden pra~~~dM~u~m:TACHMENT 3
C!tttttf ttau ~f i)urUtl1
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Book
Page
File~
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
'Ii'
PROPOSED ADDITION
r r- 7-f".'7J'
~
, ~
"t-"t,.
o.
Scale.
. Denote Iron Mon.Found
.-
--
y/'riJ4
l
.-
\"
't
~
~ /
...,
w \~ \ C,',
{,.
~ \ "...
:1
..
\
-'
, I' \
\ , j
'''-
I
'\
....... .? \ I _
'\ /l lJ -_
/0,7 _ I a ,/
.\ \.-/- -_/
\.1--
I hef.tly Mftft IhIIHt.. . w. MCI -...
..,... aurwy.,... ~..
Scott ~.-.._.......~ '"
. HChmMU, . M'I on ukt land.
,"""oy'" by In. on ....--.ll..th
....,'" Spptl'mbPl'
. 2QQ2.....
Frank R. Cardarelle
Stale Reg. No. 6508
SURVEY
..Y.L
N
4'6
2'~
11'3 --.--
10
.,
II
iTI
1.1;
:i!
"
:!I
'I
!ii
en
Iii
iii
i!i
-L
11'J
~: ~~=_jJ
:
j
I
I 1'3.
;i~
:i
1~1..
~
.~
~rl
~
',,"j
, '
I'
,il[~
'," ,
I: I
i, I
FAMIL Y
289 sq ft
'~
~
,ii
J
16'
Name
Layton & Marge Kinney
Address
1/4" = 1'-0"
Plan Type
Project Type
I"
~
'"
\0 Co
~
to-
Proposal
I"
N
!
No Scale
~~@ @rnO\0'[;
: r\ ! OCT 2 S ~CJ~ : I :
01 I ,IL' I
U 1\,./ !
Original Date
Scale
~
-~
i!
-i
-I
~
7-10-02
As Noted
Drawings and designs are
preliminary only and not finals for
construction,
Revision Date
Drawn By
C, Copyright of New Spaces
~ Lie, #1586
Page #
Addition
JNZ
L
I
I
I
I I
ltl
------~I
,I.,. ____ I r
'--- ~. I
----i--~---
,I
11'3
\0
IS' :'-"'1'9
"':
i
\0 .
~ '"
'" II
f
~
,I
f
I t-
~':'
<?
\ \
\, u'.
.n
6'
)>
Ci
m
:a
z
~
~
)>
C
c
=i
6
z
"'0
~
)>
z
en
14'
1--
T:
/'
"t,/
~ ~,,///-
Y
"'-
~1'11
6'8
1'11",
10'6
I
I
I
"'t.
i)~
II /
./ /
":I /
/ i I~'
It-
;0
.
~
1/4"=1 '-0"
I"
N
..: --t
co
N
j
\0
~
co
N
~
;..
9>
~
i
~~
Scale
i,r, 15 tr> fa O"W7 "2 ' !
:~D~.\L5 ~ IS \:.J LS, .
:\ ! ,'~i?;; !.
,I \: Il." cl " h
!l I jl;/' \
L- -:J:I!
...
~
~
I
4
U1
Name
Plan Type
Drawings and designs are
preliminary only and not finals for
construction.
Layton & Marge Kinney
Address
I Project Type
Proposal
Addition
Original Date
10-22-02
Revision Date
Drawn By
Page #
@) Copyright of New Spaces
Lie. #1 586
ATTACHMENT 6
Zoning Ordinance
public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property
rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the non-significant
conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The
covenants must limit the total number of watercraft allowed to be
securely moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require
centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable
locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alteration.
The covenants must also require all parking areas, storage buildings,
and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as
much as practical, from view from public water, assuming summer,
leaf-on conditions.
1104.308 Placement. Desion. And Heioht Of Structures:
(1) Piers And Docks: Setback requirements from the ordinary high-water mark
shall not apply to piers and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be
controlled by applicable state and local regulations.
-+ (2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On shoreland lots that
have 2 adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent
lots, any new residential structure or any additions to an existing structure
may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the
ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other
provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In cases
where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has
an existing principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure
and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging
may not be utilized when an undeveloped shore land lot is adjacent to two
other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a principal structure
be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone.
(amd. Ord. 99-18 - pub. 11/15/99)
"
>
.~
The following shall not be considered encroachments into the lakeshore or
bluff setback:
a. Yard lights and nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in
the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts.
b. Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized illuminated
signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety
and security purposes if these meet the regulations of subsection
1107.1800.
c. Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from
the principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line.
d. The following shall not be encroachments on front yard requirements:
City of Prior Lake
May 1, 1999
l104/plO
APPLICABLE REGlI..ATIONS
ATTACHMENT 7
RESOLUTION 02-020PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 31.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 77.3 FOOT AVERAGE SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Layton and Marge Kinney have applied for an 31.3 foot variance from the 77.3
average shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to an existing
single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
SD (Shoreland Overlay) at the following location, to wit;
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as
contained in Case #02-124PC and held a hearing thereon on November 25,
2002.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance,
and is not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the
shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue
hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the
R-1 use district. A reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall
garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists
on the property.
5. The conditions (shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to
other land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not
peculiar to the subject property.
1:\02files\02variances\02-124\deny resolution.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
6. The granting of the requested shoreland setback variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner.
The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property.
7. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the
applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship.
8. The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback variance results from the actions
of the property owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling.
The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the
difficulty, not the area, width, shape or topography of the lot.
9. The contents of Planning Case #02-124PC 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 variance for the construction of an addition to an existing single family
dwelling as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey:
1) A 31.3 foot variance from the required 77.3 foot average shoreland
setback from to allow a 46 foot setback from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. (Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.308
(2) Setback Requirements for Residential Structures.)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 25, 2002.
Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
I: \02files \02variances \02-124 \deny resolution. doc
2
FRANK R. CARDARELLE ~
:612) 941-3031
Land surveyATTACHMENT 1
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttif ieatt @f iUtll~lJ
l
/ ~ I
/ .
1-1,,0 ~ 4-.7 OHW
. 0 I
I,.' '10'f.b
l' :,..,.... ',/; ~
. U~jf4P~" ~h~~
.- ~h< c:.
o f /
It I,
"fI., /. ./ /
~ \, -":i IJ ~~ rn @ ~ 0 \'!l ~ '\j
~:.v \~ I ,
, y?// fa2g_ i
'/. I ' 1./
~ -:>Y '
~o I I
~ I
\ / c;~' ~-:)
,_\ / ,,/'
.,~/
. (,,0 .;
~~o'-..; '1. /'
.....'" r -V" ()()~
\_-1/ 9(\1/7:
~. 'v,.'i. oa.teO
"n \.."" 'lOt 'I.
~\l.\v'" 9()'?l.;J ,."t1"c.
'i.,e'l' ",,,eo Q
'IIatef
\-
Survey For Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Book
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
A- 7->.~
J1 I:P ,-
I ~
~~
a,
,-
-----
.v1'MJ~
\.l
-t;.
~
',-I
~
\
"
\ I; \
\ / v
';
I
'\
___ ,9\ I _
- I\~ \/' -}3!---//
'1~
Page
File~
,
'I~
Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq.ft.
Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq.ft.
Exist.Hard ~over
Area: 4405 sq. ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 Sq. ft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
Lot 2, Shady Bra ~o. 2 "
. 01 . MlrWY .. Ihe IJoundriN .,
Scott Counly,__"''''''Iot!:..:., .... ,.................
daycl Spptpmhpr . 2illl2...' - . --........: ' F'rank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
I hef.a.y '*"1 '* He '-. Ne MId ........
.......od .. mo ......-1ll h
1 IbARL_\ G
~O'l'lCES
.
-
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
sr~
~JNNE!P
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
TO A SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest
of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on:
Monday, November 25, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 75 foot shoreland
setback for the construction of an addition to a single family
dwelling.
APPLICANT:
Layton & Marge Kinney
SUBJECT SITE:
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally
described as Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2, Scott County, Minnesota.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to
this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-
9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written
comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are
or are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 14th day of November 2002.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject site on November 14,2002.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124\Mailed N otice.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
TO A SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest
of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on:
Monday, November 25, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from the 75 foot shoreland
setback for the construction of an addition to a single family
dwelling.
APPLICANT:
Layton & Marge Kinney
SUBJECT SITE:
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally
described as Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2, Scott County, Minnesota.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to
this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-
9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written
comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are
or are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 14th day of November 2002.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject site on November 14, 2002.
L: \02FILES\02variances \02-124 \Mailed N otice.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FRANK R. CARDARELLE -S:::L
:612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifitatt ~f ~UtUtlJ
Survey For
Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior Lake, ~IN 55372
Book
Page
File~
\'
-
.-
1
'I~
PROPOSED ADDITION
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
;-- ~
f C$> I 7~T
, ~
~~
0,
1"=40'
Iron Mon.Found
.Jd:" / +tJ. 4
I
\
\
~
~
'l\
1,'1
..
\
-'
(\ ,
vi
/
'r
,
~ ,9\" I _
/.l D - _
'\? ~/' -}!---- --
'1-:
......eby Mtttt .... HI.. . w. ...... oorT.ot
donfllf.-urwvolfM~ot
Lot 2,
MChrnen&I, . any on MId iend.
Scott
......,... ... me on....--1l.t h
day.. Spptpmb""
2.QQ2...,
Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg, No. 6508
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF scon )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
CD1tl1A ~ r~tYl of the City of Prior Lake, County of Scott. State of
Minnesota. being ~uly(~orn, says on the ILIfY' day of '1I\Ai\) , ' 200~. she served
t~e attached list of persons to have...,~ interest in thel1A'~.-f-r>v- \(..tUA'-U..-(
\) f'1 J\{-A!U~ 1:t:o 2--- lor. by mailing to them a copy the~of,
enclosed 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 , 2002.
NOTARY PUBLIC
L. 'DEPTWORKIBLANKFRM\MAlLAFFD.OOC
}Ie
NEW ABSTRACTS
CONTINUATIONS
CLOSING SERVICE
REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS
TITLE INSURANCE
RECORDING SERVICE
SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC.
223 HOLMES STREET, PO. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
DAVID E. MOONEN
Phone: (952) 445-6246
Fax: (952) 445-0229
) rn@ rn 0\\:'7 [E:,
OCT 2 5 2002 ' ; I
: i I
lei
L
October 21,2002
Margaret and Layton Kinney
14458 Shady Beach Trail NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
To Whom it May Concern:
According to the 2002 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons
listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners ofthe property which lies within 350 feet of the following
described property:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2, Scott County, Minnesota.
I}/^
David Moonen
President
MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
RICHARD W VALENTINE, II
14454 SHADY TRL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
PHILIPP R HILL
324 1 AVE W
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
MAE MICKLEY
14476 SHADY BEACH TRL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
KYLE E SCAPPLE
5775 BIRCHWOOD AVE NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
CITY MANAGER
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
DAVID A & JANET L LINDE
14464 SHADY BEACH TRL
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
VAUGHN 0 LEMKE
14472 SHADY BEACH TRL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
MARY ANN PRICE
14480 SHADY BEACH TRL NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
MARK B & LISA K CULP
5787 BIRCHWOOD AVE NE
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
CARL S FRITSCH
4925 XERXES AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410
i-:-,Y'f~'J'II"il". A .--- \ ~ I "'r,~-
,~"...UI ~ ~w-1-f",-~
" :,
'... ,
\ -,
.
. '
,:-. ....
, .
;,:::~~'~;l~:~:!7'~;<f' 'rSi;i;.:~;r;F'if.;'~;:::j;~Yf;;:~~:':,r1;t;t~{'"':J'~:t:~'~~~;;.;~~,~:MHi;:':i:?g~A}~~iUj~}i?'.'l
l:. L,.
~:J
/. II::; IT'. ~;c
\ ~~~~~;: ~;~~..~~ ;
...~ .--:-:- . ....:.,...;.. I
J'lC ~ "'~"-:-.. I
~ ~ ~......... J
IIOAD
L-
41'
-~
I I
, 4 \
1tt'
. .
. .
-I
4
I' I
I
c. .....
.U.. .
ounaT .
2
. I , I
-~
.
II II
.
~
.. .....0.
.....1'
-
I
.
~
:
!
i
!
..
. .1
~I , 1 roW'" "
t.
~ I.
II
" "
I I. 14
+~
, ',: \
'0 \ " \ '. )
-"'-.
OlIn"
PRIOR
LAKE
~ ~J~
,--- I. ,Il '~_ 1 II :::
~ -;:~ ,"
r ' ' .0 ~_~~..:::=--- -
..-~
~-
.".,.
..,,, ."IM
.....
"
t,:../
~'
PID SHSRTN SHHOUS SHSTRE SHGITY S SHZI HOUSGS STREGS STT A PRPLA T PR LEGAL 1
250460000
252050570 SGAPPLE,KYLE E 5775 BIRCHWOOD AV NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 5775 BIRCHWOOD AV N PLAT-25205 SAND POINTE 2ND ADDN 7
252050580 GULP,MARK B & LISA K 5787 BIRCHWOOD AVE NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 5787 BIRCHWOOD AV N PLAT-25205 SAND POINTE 2ND ADDN 8
250460160 FRITSCH,CARL S 4925 XERXES AVE S MINNEAPOLIS M 55410 0 PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 15
SECT-25 TWP-115 RNG-022 12,91A IN
259250221 PRIOR LAKE, CITY OF 16200 EAGLE CREEK A V PRIOR LAKE M 55372 0 GOV L T 5
250460060 MICKLEY,MAE 14476 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14476 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 6
250460070 PRICE,MARY ANN 14480 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14480 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 7
250460050 LEMKE,VAUGHN 0 14472 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14472 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 5
250460040 HILL,PHILlPP R 324 1 AVE W SHAKOPEE M 55379 0 PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 4
250460030 L1NDE,DAVID A & JANET L 14464 SHADY BEACH TRL PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14464 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 3
250460020 KINNEY,LAYTON G & MARGARET L 14458 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14458 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 2
250460010 VALENTINE,Ii,RICHARD W 14454 SHADY TRL NE PRIOR LAKE M 55372 14454 SHADY BEACH TRL N PLAT-25046 SHADY BEACH # 2 1
::>ro Jerty OJ\n1ers vvit ,i n
350 feet of Kinnney Variance
---~
--'
--~.
-- I
;ij
I I
:::
\
l .--'
.---'---
.-l-
500
I
500 Feet
I
o
~
N
FRANK R. CARDARELLE "- ,-V_
(612) 941-3031
Land Su rveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifitatt @f ~utUtl?
I
,I . ., :
U/ .1,
!V \ ''-/
... ',~./ '\)Q
'YiY J\/
"I I
\ I'
~ D' -;;
~ /
\ / ,i y~
. -- 4~ /
, (.0 ,/
~ ~ 0 '-..../ '1".-/ '
,\SJ r 'V I~()()~
\ - -J/ 91,1
~' , ~~t. t\a:te(\
(\0 \.. '16, . c't
v\l-\\.ll'< 9Q3.;J '\ s't1"
(\ e'" s"ec.\ ~
'i\ a. 'te l'
l,
I,
\
.J
Survey For Layton Ki nney
14458 Shady Beach Trail
Prior lake, MN 55372
Book
SHADY BEACH TRAIL
? -,
I A- 7->.~
t$)1
\ -'0'
~~
0,
.--
--
.J;Y / 'rl.~ 4
\
\
'-"l
~
~
~
,.
~(~
! 'I q . t, /'\
/-{. ,/ j
I ~/'/ t 1 /
1'f
i' fl'1' /
,//
'"
\
~
'"
...\
(\ \
\ I
\ '"
,-
II'
I
~
~ ~\ I _
, ~1 '. '" -l!!-----/
~~~--~
,
v.....-
Page
File ~ 4/ g
1
'~
i>U IU~A(~L€., ARXr\:
7 I' Y. 1 ~ I -=' S /~ 'J 6
land Area: 19,170 sq.ft.
House Area: 2195 sq.ft.
Flagstone Walk: 560 sq. ft.
Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft
Patio Area: 510 sq. ft.
Exist.Hard ~over
Area: 4405 sq. ft.
23% Land Cover Existing
Proposed Addn.to House:
288 sq~ft.
Total Hard Cover After
Addn.: 4693 sq.ft.
24.5% New Land Cover
Lot 2, Shady Bra No. 2 ~
I hereby -'"Y lhoIIlhIa Ie . .... and -.a'" repr.....1alIon 01 · aurwy 01 the bouncIrIea 01 ~~ .. ..Ja ~
Sea t t c-ty. Mnnaaola IIl\4lIha ~0I bull~ ~~ oachm.,,\a, If MY on - aanci.
Survayadbymaonlhla-.J.l.th "'01 sPlltemhpr . 2.OQ2.... ~~} Frank R. Cardarelle
State Reg. No. 6508
--
...~--. ,
w~
~ C P U-2R"", ct
,f)-' ,creL.cU-d.. 4l--L+h eu~ <-- -
&.-c.LL ~) - LfLO \ J
0- ( 0(1 oJLQ".J (,L-t ~U I
LC4- I
f) re0 Jp
Al;'--(-t Z-UJl2-
.I-\''C--c (2.U/cJ-
,-I
r'," f1...J)~ O.<.+t) CU'-IL - 77 2 ~
/), ~\ C r 'e. ~.(;L. " ' ,~ -.-:-/" (
.. ud--Y0--- ,<JJL-t\<:Z9._L~c... - ~u
L:.'( LY. t u
r-
---....,.-/
~~Wf;:~\~.''.l,... ";.,i:~-~~~,,,'~'.~i;i!:\\
.,.i"'\ ,._,' ~.; "'t i~ ,-....,..,. ( ", _ ";."~'!!'?-~-~:-:f;;~"~~~1r~~,""'<"':O:::~- (~~~~tW:.?!:W. ~:.
'... " ~~~'~ .... ,':!'.")i"~"'.~ \;~,:.;;;.~ '- ;. '.~' .'" ,"...IIi..,:'
.'~
Motion by Larson to approve a 12 foot side yard v~riance. for 16661
Highway 13 since the existing structure has an 8 foot setback and
the proposal is consistent wi th a future service street, secondPd
by Felix. Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed.
At this time a 10 minute recess was called.
rhe meeting resumed at 8: 30 P. M.
)(Item III, request for a 5 foot side yard variance, r.l 57 fout 1ake- r
shore variance and an 18 foot front yard variance for 14480 Sh~
Beach Trail. Mr. Donald Price was present to answer questions.
Mr. Price commenterl that he will be raising the house to a 909
elevation and remodeling the cabin to make an asethically pleasing
structure in the neighborhood. This is a triangular shaped lot
and very difficult to work with.
Mr. C. E. Mickley, 14476 Shady Beach Trail N.E., stated that Mr.
Price assured him that ~ater run-off and drainage will be adequate-
ly taken care of. (1
City Planner Graser commented per memo dated August 16, 1984.
The Planning Commissioners had concerns over dra inage, access. roof
line, elevations and screened part of the porch.
Motion by Arnold to approve d ) foot west side yard variance for
garage and screened ,porch , a 60 foot lakeshore variance, ana an 18
foot front yard variance sin~'~ it is consistent wi th the character
of the area and not detrimental to the property vnlues in the neigh-
borhood and the publics gen~rdl heaJth and welfare, seconded by Felix.
Upon a vote taken, the motion was duly passed.
Item IV, continuation of Animal Ordinance. t1arty Schmitz stated that
there has been a great deal of research done and the submi tted melllO
is the result.
Ci ty Planner Graser cOlTfl1ented that he 5.s in contact with t;'.e Ci ty
Attorney and they will workout the fine points.
Motion by Loftus to approve to recummend to the City Council to amend
~ the Zoning Ordinance Section ~ by addin~ paragraph Q, and add the
definition "livestock" to the Zonin~l COGe and also amend the Civil
Code 10-1-1 'Ni th the question regardt.lg the use of the term "no person"
being deleted, seconded by Larson. U;.;on a vote taken, the motion passed.
Motion by Felix to adjourn the P1annlnq Cl)lnmlsslon llX!ctinl) of August 16,
1984, seconded by Loftus. Upon a vote lilken, t."'e motion was duly passed
and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 ?M.
~
....
.>"...,
...
i
PLt,NNlNG COMr-1J':lSIOH r-rrNU'rSS D('('or:1b"'~' II 1 f)7C;
'J'hr.. m^l"tinr; 0"" '~.h'" p,!,,;()~ L~k~' Pl;mnine- Commj~si.(")n :'Ul(; "0.11,,(1 t.~ n;"rl'?r!it
7:'35 p.r~. D~"er:1h(\r IL 107') by ChnirrrV\n Bissrmr'i't.. r'kmb,,:,t'l 1)'!"osf"n+ '.Ner" Chairman
Bi ss()n~.t;+, Comr;;i~~3i.l)n8r::; Tho),]'.,'l son. Bllrns, .j' obsr,. HOUT,S, Coun.:-i.1.man Busse and
kimini st:rat.; vc /l.sAl stan-t G....as~r.
'}''1(' c0!"....~ction tn th~ minutp.s n r the Nov('mbor ?O,
'rho:: n<'_r:1" j n Jacl{ NO;"R'ttld inst.t;nd of .TA.ck Harstad.
al>,lJJ (ill e the minut"!s 8.5 a~(\nded. secrmded by .J ohst
passed.
"r.;; :<; r-;.~
1975 me~t.;np W~8 ~ name ch.ange.~
Thorkelson made a motion to
and upon I:l vote taken was duly
F'irst item on '-,he agenda ..ras a V('....; anrf' request for Mr. Len Gr?.ssini.. .Jobst
questioned ""h')'~b..:r thr.> lot line was thfJ real l.)t 1 infJ or .thl? high level mark.
A ~otion was mnde by 'rho~k(\lson to approve the variance as requested, seronded
by Burns and upon a yct.e taken it Has duly passed.
Tn0- sign ordi.nence was rpvi cw~d and af7.pr Clom'" rev; s'ing. waR rt'~H1Y to br. typed
up as a final d!"aft. It. was deci.dpd tha't. i~h8 Ci t;y Staff ..rill assign the fees
for signs. Mot~nn .../as made by Thor)::elson to ayJn ave thp a'7lendp.d ordinan~e.
seconded hy Houts, upon a Vl"'7,P tal':en. it. Has ct'",1y T.1ass"'d.
Mob on \.:as mad'" by J obat t,o ;vi.~ou~n tht? Planning CQ:mri~f:\ on Hef't.ing ~md stiirt / 'S' j
the Gropnb....iar PUD Puhlic Hearing. The Planning Commiss~on meeting to bf' '.
contj nucd.
Gr<-'enbria,r PUD Public Hpar;ng \Jas C:?.11sd t.o order At 8:110 P.!-!. Chairman Bissonett
gave a brief;1rnspnta!- 1.0n on tho ] ,3.st Publ i c Hearing and brought everyone up to'
date on the qup,sti:n18 from the preVious lr.eeting. 'l'hf! meeting was th1;)n opened
"to the public. Earl Evans wmt;.dt.o kno..r Hh'2'rE' the figures for t~H:! amount. nf
school ap;~ children .,nr" obtained. t>1r. Ed Bj rdsong s'1:;at,ed he thought this was '.~
the responsi.biEty 01 t.he school board. The second questi.on was t.ho drainage $..
prlJblo,:!. It ,..ao d~ci dod t.ha:'-, Mr. D,wid M"Gu:tre \o/M in ('hp,;,'R'I" of thi ~ and he waul
t.akt> care of it. The. third 1Uf"sr.ion was 'thr.? acc"ss and egress to tho. PUn. Mr.
Ray Bang stated t.hn.t. 'he was 3(jt~sfier:l \o,,;Ul t.he "?ngjnr:~rs point of' Vif"F. r-t:-,.
L",\orrenr;'" S"h'v;"~ nh st,a t,.,~ h,. ""'f'U1 d lil-:'" 1,1"' hClVI' hi:-; p.n€jno."'~ pl'es~nt. when the engine
~~~ G~pp.nbriC1~ PUD ~1nnA t~t:> road n~ar Mr. Schweich's prop~rty. Tho~kf"lson mace
a. moi~ i 'in to approve t.hp. outl i nl> plan ...r:i tob ::'he!'l~ st.:i pu1ati t"\n~:
1 . TORt Mr. l.aHr"'n....'" S~h".;F)ich I s E'n~in';el.. and l'olr. McGui1'0S engineer Hork
togpthe~ on some kind of acces~ from the east.
? For ~very apartml1nt. uni.t bunt, .'tPPT''1 mt:.st b~ a, single
'I'hat set.bn('k !'<!quirem",nts b0. ("rnnrcod to ?5 fr.(')t. for corner It"\ts.
)J 000n I3Da~cs have to meet. final al,);J. \..a1 ',.,rj.th ",h'" Pn:--k Bnard.
a
~)
5.
That thp road on the Hest be moved up to tie with Brookflville Hills.
. .
. . .".
. .
It- ""_~,
~-':i~:";"~I.;'-'"- ,;;,");
..
I"',
!1
,\
III
'""".....
~
~
!{i.r
,i'
~ "I'
,;?:-
;~
, .
.'
~'- ,}...., ~
~.~~,
~1i,<,.,
." 0,
';M~~'~
"l'~
I). That ...,...,,1 '1r'''p!,,~ b0 j'lY'('wi rl"rl .....,..0 "hr.> fiv!,' P"",., "'xr"'pt: lons t.o the
h l gh ';"'n:=;'; r,y ar~a on 1-,lll? "!A.S t:.
MOLic'. v1;)8 ~"rondr"l hy Bt:f'Sn ann upon:t Vf'-!;f' t!lv"'n Blt~ns. Hout.s: Bis!lon"tt"
BU:1r:;P <lnr.!. Tho"lv'l s'~n v");~0d fnt' ~.h" mo.,~ on, and .J obst vot~d al:;aj,n~t,. M0tion
w~s dUly n8~s"d.
Motion HrJ.<1 mAdl' b,y l'hOY'knl--;rm 1.0 .<'c.1"'1.'rn t.h(~ mnetin;;: 11,1. 10:15. sr>condl?(j by
Burns and mept.'jn~ ",'as duly Cid;o\1!"n':ld.
,.,
',"
'. '1' "',",'.
\~{
'I
~f
l
~:
..
"
.l
'*
if.
f
(4,'
rI
~
: l
j'
"
I
.. 'i
~,
~1
J:
~~v ,
,~,..' ~
'j'
~.
. -~,----,.,~-,..~~--_.__._.
Lf';.~ C', ~,_.
._.~ ,.".".,,?j
I (LJ., r/ c~ 1 ~f' n I (u ~;t-.
I '--fy 7 (r;' (~'.. i ", r. "~( tj- fl_lt cuU', 1 1-(
((' , "/, ~(- (I l,.'') ( f' (t -J t ",) A.. ( 'L,,- ld ('-.( ,} "--- L' -C,--.,/ \.. (L/ 7 (, (,_
Ci-c /' 0'"--0 '--~i- L ( '--f - \ (/ <er 1 J
.._ (L0J ~~){L..(t,-;j l)jC~('-( r, flC .:J)
\ q '-i 1,)-
I L I L.{ Lc:' C~
,..() .J \ 0... (( ~I
I) 4 7v)'
C L kj
)
(J)( (L (Vl 'f> e
l (~-v \,A/ VI( kC
t, l (Lrc~.Jn (lJ_
( :),~ ~ ' /(1-/ "))
1 ) (( (t ~J
/))(Cl..cl'
t) (, .~.})
f . .. l n_.-..:, ('-..c () f'r l,~
.. \.../>!) C \... ( C, t -"'- \..
. . c.- f I - t L' i ( /- i { -. Ir/ t"I) " /' d
'(' \ (c ' I C\ l-~ / \) l_ C' ( . L L C (~ ~,L \.. lA, 1'<.. ........ I . I. L, f
)
Ie(' { f' ,"f' -/ A.. '
, ~ ((",,\ L t, ',./") ( ('
\. ~, yJ ( L s ..' '-..... '- "---
10\({-' C'J)
t. (~" (( 'f" ~l/.- ,./1\
\......./1 " (, ("''1 , _r- ,.., -.'- I ) J)
( 'I
( L .J
\ 44'7.9- &%) U-i ~ c<-Q1 P-['/
.""
---'
-----
--, .
'.
I
,
,...
/
.1/
.-.>>.
,
I
o
I
/
.-
/
/
I
/
)9--' Ll.76
\ "
/,(
"/,, \:
/ ~
7 ~,
" I
\.
fOI.N PVR :
JUI'lE 1089
SURvEY
:' I~
,:~ h.
~'~; Y7'
'Yi~ ~ I
o ~~ /
,2::.. /
... 0 I
QJ ~ I
~ ~ I
~ I
,:J <<lJ /
. .I <<t-
'. V 1-...0 I
~~~l-' 1 /1
~ //!~lt6, \ \
" I ~ 7
,,( ...?~ Q \
/ ',"00 ." rlHI
/ ['- (iOS')) ~
~' ~":'9~~.6__
.......... ~Q Z9.n 0
f - ,...". \
t ".,':-C' :~~... ;,.., N ~
" \ 1 ......, I q.oq~c,'" If\ \~}-
"- _._-4~~ q Co" 0 ~ \
"'" ~ qJ _ 0 10. No,,, " " B6. .--
,- -........: '" N * I......' I .--
... ;J;.- 0 ,," rlMI 10,00
.," ,IIt[, .,. 1......,1 j
~ ......._ ,.. ,IM[ I...
I....""L _ ~ _ _ 908.5,
gOt> 5 ,- _.- C9.~!:i) ~, cp'b
/\ 0\
./. ...,
/ \.., \ 'I ,-
~.. ,l- _ \<11' 'lh
. ~ r
I ~1......-fA, "uB fL
,/"" \ 908 82
>~ . ~' _"O,-"~
., !9 ,.,.V . ... .. - -
,,)., . -- 'I
,j- ;.1 ,0 " , \
to qO J \ ./ '_ .
. / ' /,,,,,:.~ ;' y
",..... .\<--, . I "..
. ,/, t,cf ~ , ;' . /: I y~
\/" ~/;~/' /' \'" ~;.:"
,/ ,~/' ~\
/ '/ / "~ ~ \
\ ~ ,t>' .'"-: \ yc'/ , \ fD I N
e.:>" . y 'l- .,
, ~~;P ~ ,~t;r/
0" .,- --.....,J~ <y/
~ ,/ ~~v- 0;' ,. ~ /~~ t-
. ~ ~ r
./' ..0 ~ t,V
.- gO ,~.
. .' ~
t-" ~
- ~~
/
~
Q;~
~
~,
/
/
/
/
/"
III
o
J:
!Y~
Qj'
, -
o
.~
,IUB [l
910.00
.~
0'
n, :
I/'l' '
\, ~
'1 -
.1910.2 :
I
18
\ "'
11
"
/
, .-
,-'
~'
,p:.' .
~' to"
~"',.t- ",c,
.... ".
qO
3
P::N
~ 10
l _' -- -
'"-N
~1O
t'o-o
,~
'0
IZ
~C:J
A..',.,.
~-:>"
to+o
~
/
/
/
<;)4-
~o '?~~
,,'"
,,-'l-~"'/
to ~ go... /to~
If ~~~Q ~'Do
"" o~ ~ ~1 "-'
(jo~ "'c,\.)
,fb
I.)
,
ti
"OTE SHEO '.__./
E"CROACIIES
"
'-'0
~
/
/
'\
.. qP~
16:39 "
('
\
1I1~
- I
- -0 '
~ N I
'"
-a-tOt-
--
,
.
o
...
o
f\
l. t
III 0 -
,,= to I
- 0 I
~ Z ~.
,,- -
:': ;4;"'- 3
. '1.~.4_ _- .'
- - .
\-t>-"-'i.
O~ O'l.'~
~~~ ~\.. 'l-ro9,9~
l'
DESCRTP'l'JON:
Lot 5, SliMlY AEI\CU NO. :~, ~,cott Cou'nty, rHnnesota. !\lso showing tll... location of
a' t C): i st i nq improvements and encroachments onto and off froll1 sa iel pt'operty if
any.
Noms I Aenehmark elevat iOIl 907.34 top nllt Ot hyckimt at the N\', eol". Lot 5.
909.2 Denotes existillCJ Cjcade elevation
It
(~~~:'3) DWOTfS PHOPOSEO FItIlSHEO GRAOE ELEVATION
/J \\c., ~/frI"jt O(IS)I\~
\~c)
l5by\ {L.C~
r~ cXS, h lYe..
.
~
~
'.'i}~,.' \...... ......
'I,"t, . ':;~':- "
.",";"\'.~ ,t'l!~~ ,.........
;~\;' _( :t.:: :~~~~:1~;,;;.":~: .', ~'r/"~: .. "- "
,'-:(;,.' ""~QI . --- ,
",;.~\!t1~1i,;;~,?:,"l:?~;"" "',,: .._
....' '"'i~rl ~,,: "., " '\, )~,.:~C\. ' ' ,,' ',,',.'
",\. \'~,', . r 1~~...J'..~ " "'lt~~.,-~.'
,~, :~~\~~I r;', '_ .,~.. '~:~...~~:tj)tf . ~, ,'::'.~:;>~.,
~" ~,,~ 1.. V ~.".,~'y. ,'!%~A~' ',.. I.. ",1" '.
t\.~,J",,,,,~, .' ,.,~, . '. ',. ",-I
r. ; 'J'f:U\~', ''''''1...' . ,~. " ~..:~, ),1~,1' r." ' ".
. ':'".,(I't.~...-".;, .'-.. ~ I ,. .,~ '~!j<.""!,, ' , .,
'J.,I~ '.'<~ ~f.', ~"\f. :. ,. "~'..:tA(~'A' ~~ "
?~i,i\",~ ~'~<'1 .\ ,\.;'I:>~:\:j~~fJ1Ci~' '" ---
i;l~,~' ~ ~\';'. .:I:',\,~~, ,.:-; ~:,,~,,~,~!,. <~';'?(;,:,(:.
'~'l.\.:' .....:,,<'., . ,,":' ,~...,:".".".,.,
1,',1' .' ....", -.f,', ",', I. ""'1,."." .
\:H', :,.,'.:~:\ '-'<a '.;~,.:,'>,\:,,;-\.;;,!,.,{ .':<.:.~~:~'> ',:~"~,;~-~:,,, ,".\, .'
'h" ", " ~, ':,i','.' "; :~~:""',,~;'fJ1"~'" " ..
""" , ""-l~,O .,', '" ",);,,''''h',''7'f '7"..,'
<ittl, ". "', ,~- ~ '~" :..., ',""~~;::\:':,~'~' ~""~':":""\'~"
'~I'i>'\ ""'-:."""'~' ";.'. ',,' (....,
'V '.'oJ ...... ~$I)',' ,
) \ ~~QO"
", I~;SO""""':'" ,', ' ' ,
11<9'6.(;/01, ...........: "
'1/ >'.0 9'.9" '. '
~ '>>. VO, It- '-. '.;:.
'7 '''?'~.s .
~ .....~I .~ ",
~ .....,
\ r,.,?-,\~.---\
" \. \ set} ~\
,~ '" \ \'(o~o ~ . \
-'6 ~ ~ <s C,0{',)t;! \
~ -:. - ~ \~
6l ~ 9, l1' _ ..J
Cl,) -\0 0-0, ,) \ .~c, ..-
.....0 t-o ..-
ae. ~ ~ ~ ~ \-..-"-
.:;::. ~- --:, '2,0.
....
~ .
/\-
-/"o.<:J
'"" '----, --
~
......
...........
......
'.....,
..........."
"-.....,
.....
".
....
:,
./
......
.....
/
........
.':.......
"
~.
---.- '-.......... / ~,/
~-~ --' ,~j
, ~ ~~'.' 1" '~"(~i
".. ',"i:\'I'~I, ,~~:' :'~,~; ',}'
" '. ';* ~ lr', . I
. ,.'1:
,~~
.....
',,\ '
,...."",~,l
;Qj:I'
1/"0.' ,
~eljO
~O';
-,' ~
/
/
i \t~G
t.~ \ S"St.
,",ou
~~ ?-. -
')'.
/'
//1
If
I,
I
.~
/-
...... (l--
I,
I
I :
1'IJ690/8' ,,' .,
/3 W.
20.00!. JY
R = 11050
A=2303S'39"
- "L= 45.6()'-
\ \ ~ fO'
9'~
"
II
Ir
~ Vol'
\
\ '" \
0__
I l1) o'
<l- Ii E-'
, a.,
~O
Or--:
~N
I
.~..
... " '<
II
W
't;.1-IS\,{\Q
,",o\lSe
/.,~
q/
'/-'
_ .' eO'!> C
- -- <<O~ , .'\::...
/ ;7-\ \ ':> ~\~ <:>~
--- \1,\ o~O
~69J
~~~~
~
./"
\o~
f'~ E.~'
6
"1. 30
90J'
leA
/ze
/
/
/
/'
",~,./
::::
5' Gu-B<2....t ~cUL/ lJ-C!L12L.
o () I L [L/<-C. 4..h oy-(..
J te) I (yLNI t L(} 'CLrZL
Q/' 10,0<1
FD 1/2" I 1\:
per Nov 1980
InfornlOllon
Lot. '7, ~~:Il\f)Y BEACH NO. 2, Scott County, r1innesota.
sho.vinq l:he locCltion of the existinq house as nCM
then..'011.
I I
'EY PREPARED FOR:
- MI CKLEY
6 SHADY BEACH TRAIL
R LAKE t MN. 55372
Vo' '~y Englneerlno CO., 'nc.
<;,.w-r I,f) c.;. 1r.~"I) ':~/HVt(I.'N r,UI"
,-pnNKI.IN TRAIl. OF':ICE C()'V(l()M''VI''~.
rv ,OR I .111(f.. MINNF. SOT ^ !)~.1" ;;
rf.!. r''''~'''''VF ((t,(') 44' - ?~7r
447-J?41
14-+,l(J Cbl-\CLct~ (~ULe^-. nt..
89-14
'g . -7. cv (1
.... -. -..
",' -
/ . ~c\-\ TRAIL 90~ ,4. .- -
;I' ~~ e 85
/ ~sA 'g4-;6' 4 ..
. ~~ 0
/ 9~ C)~
~~ 'b0 \
/ -; \
". V } --
~
vases ~ I I
906.3 I I
/
, I / I ...
I " ~
\ IE
Q
~ ~ I
. "
. II " , - -,
...
,. II
~
, t
I
()
-
I
~ ~ '.!;~:
-N ~ :
0.... ....
_ . \0
NCO ci
.n_ 0\
o N -
~,
%~
. ?
,
~I
~
Q
....
~
" :
<<.i......
......
:..\
.~
~ \-Cf
'~ ~-~
~. . 0
s', N 0
... 0\ 1'\ .. 4"-
-= :'A --Ii"" ..
. ~1t'C"'"
I '
/-
- .' - - - . -,"I
.-. 21' ~ .
'4 '/Z" I "';./
, ~...cto.d ,
\....
~r....
.'
,....... .
. 0.'
~,.o ~ '"
\l1~~'" -~. ' ~
\,/(,.... Qt~' ..,.......,
,..ft ..... ~
~'.,
"'. .-/ 0 00....."
,f> ~. ,0 ~.~
, ~ " e'"
..--- . ~6
~
NOTF:~:
~ . .211"
f.t' .. 1/'1,.' .:. - -' --'
....,; "... /'
.,.Iay
~
..
8.M. Rl. qOR.7~ Floor elevation of
~xlstinq house on Lot 6
90R.2
"
~enote5 existinq qrade
elevAtion
..
-
JO
\..~~ E.
(~~~!) denotp.s proposed finished qr
elevation
~~ \O~ ff)'f-z.
E.\..'
,69
'!J"Z
denotes proposed direction c
~urface drainaqe
Set qarage slab' elevation 908.43
OF:SCRIPTION:
r~t Area to F.1evation 904.0 -
14.685 sq. ft.
Lot ~, SHAOV R~1\~" tIt). ;., ~"c,tt COlUlty, Minnenota. ^1~,:() ~"':hC'",i nq the location of t.he
proposlJd U,"lraqf~ i.'Hi .,t<lkncl l'lli'; L~th rtay of M",y. ".lf4C).
--
i
30 6(\
.'.____, ..' -1
.CALf: IN FEE T
~ 'ron monument se'
"Gt" won "'orMIrnent found
,I
, hereby certify Ittat "", lurYe,
wos pr'ft)Orect by me or unct.. ~
dlrKt '''""vi,ion OM "'Gt I Gm
o dilly Ltf:eMed Land Survevor
undeor the low, or",. 5to.. of
~;"ne'ota o~ A
/0. "...'. .' ~ ~
. "".' .. .
- -.:..".. ~. 1:1: .....~......-.......
OnteL,. //",-,; Ltclftle NO. 083
. ,7"
..
'".F. NO 6107
,.., , !I' ..
-~
,
, .~'~.
,...
,
.~.~
~t.:
.' ..
.. "
.... .
ft)' '
fA
"
~
. t<..= .(i2 - - -
--
P- ,69.5"6
ft.&': 8S.S6"
~
j
,
!.....l ,It I ! _48.S$"
'...: 83.3
" ---
, - - - --[2 -, ,
" .",7!41/
", '
.. '
.. ,
.....
cfC- ~ 6
.v ~
I g5{;~ '~'~
~ 6 . tytJY ~~ct-
~c,~c~
~ T
...
t"I
,07
f zl, J
pl; f
.
f it
J...~
8"
<- "J~
~
61.%'
,
'0
~
...
....
A
......
~
y
f
I
t
I
,
,
,
,
,
.
t
\
\ \ \! \,
" , l J
\. " .
: :1:.;;;' ~
~~~.' ~.,
\<.
:'~/ \.
,of..
f>~
',.,\
',.:..'" "'" .
,',~~<t'~! 'l _
. . ,~ ' ~
. ,:. s,i 1:..; "
,~\ .~ ", :.e;,J' tfHf'<
,
Scale: 1"= 60'
I C\ 54-
au
~:t
'I ~' -t
.
...
.,