Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-138 Marge Kinney AppealResolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLATE~FILEINFO.DOC RESOLUTION 03-01 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: LEMAIR WHEREAS, On January 6, 2003, the Pdor Lake City Council considered an appeal by Marge Kinney to construct a 288 square foot garage three-season pomh addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2 WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overtuming the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variance should be upheld. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Marge Kinney has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a thee season porch addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-lSD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2 b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 75 shoreland setback as contained in Case #0-124 and held a headng thereon on November 25, 2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the vadance request did not meet the hardship cdteda and denied the request. d. Marge Kinney appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on December 2, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-124 and Case File 52-138, and held a headng thereon on January 6, 2003. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 l:\02files\02appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page I 3) 4) f. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed vadance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, dsk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. g. 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. h. 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. i. A shoreland setback vadance 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. 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. k. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship. 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. The contents of Planning Case File #02-124 and #02-138 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the following requested variance: a) A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback. Passed and adopted this 6th day of January 2003. YES NO Hau~len X Haugen Blomberg X Blomberg LeMair X LeMair Petersen X Petersen Zieska X Zieska {Se l} Frank Boyles, City Manager l:\02files\O2appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 6, 2003 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a 29-Foot Variance to Allow a 40-Foot Shoreland Setback (Marg and Layton Kinney) Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Mar.qe Kinney (14458 Shady Beach Road): Submitted an outline of her presentation as well as exhibits that would become part of the record. Introduced her twelve family members, and continued to discuss why she is appealing the Planning Commission's ruling. Believed the Planning staff misunderstood the nature of the variance application, and that the Planning Commission was in error. Stated that another applicant with the last name of Boyles received a variance. Responded to some of the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting. Noted that many friends and neighbors supported their proposal. Commented at how difficult the process has been and recommended several suggestions to improve the process, including pre-application meetings with customers. Believed several inconsistencies existed in the Planning report, noting that a 25 foot variance was requested rather than 29. Further discussed the size and shape of the porch and the misstatements within the staff's findings. Referred to her letter previously submitted to the Council and included in the Council materials, discussing the lake level impacts to the property over the past 30 years and the responsibility for those impacts. Discussed each of the 9 hardship criteria and her interpretation of hardship versus that discussed by the Planning Commission and included in the staff report. Further discussed comments and misassumptions of the Planning Commission and clarified. Proposed an alternative in the event that the original variance request is not granted. Closed by asking the Council to weigh the good against the harm granting this variance may create. Zieska: Asked how the "lost: area of the lot was calculated. Kinney: Advised that the lost area was calculated from the odginal plat and the 904 high water mark. Hau,qen: Submitted a letter by David and Janet Linde raising concerns about the Kinney addition and impacts on their property from water runoff and entered into the record. Clarified the purpose of the public hearing format. Also clarified that the City Manager is not related to the Boyles family referred to by Ms. Kinney. Kinney: Advised that she had talked to the Lindes, noting the numerous variances required to build that particular house. Did advise the neighbor that they would make every attempt to mitigate any runoff impacts with landscaping and any other means requested by the City. Blomberg: Asked the size of the current dining area and what area was located behind the existing dining room. Kinney: Advised that the dining area is 10x12, and that there is a spare bedroom next to the dining area, but that they were hoping, at some time in the future, to use that bedroom for a time when they can no longer get up and down the stairs. LeMair: Asked if the proposed addition was a 3-season porch or 4-season porch. Kinney: Explained that the addition was not being hooked into the existing forced air heat, and therefore was considered a 3-season porch. However, they are proposing including a gas fireplace and hopefully will be able to use the addition year round. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carded. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 6, 2003 The Council took a brief recess. LeMair: Discussed his review of the home and its limitations. Also discussed the encroachment of the lake on the lot. Commented that he tried to look at each variance situation individually and noted how close the other homes in the area are to the lake. Concerned about the impacts on the property to the east. Would support a variance, but would like to see the addition at least 55 feet set back. Zieska: Discussed the case that Mrs. Kinney referred to in her comments, insisting that each case must be reviewed on the individual merits. Further clarified that, despite the applicant's calculation, the requested variance appears to be 29 feet based upon the survey submitted by the applicant and prepared by a registered land surveyor. Further commented that the hardship is created because of a change in circumstance rather than any limitation of the lot. Discussed that one of the purposes of the 75 foot setback requirement was to limit the impact of the water runoff into the lake and preserve water quality, both of which seems to be of importance to the applicant. Further discussed the other hardship cdteria and the rationale used by both the staff and Planning Commission in determining that all nine criteria have not been met. Supported the Planning Commission decision and the recommendation of staff as identified in the agenda report. Petersen: Commented on how the lake level will continue to fluctuate, and it is one of the issues homeowners deal with when owning lakeshore property. Did understand the concems of the Kinneys, noting that he has some similar circumstances. But, believed the variance request was one of convenience. Blomber,q: Also appreciated the concerns of the Kinneys. Commented that many families enjoy holiday meals at multiple locations within the home and therefore is not convinced that this circumstance is a hardship justifying a variance. Did not support extending a further nonconformity. Believed putting the addition on the other side of the house eliminated the runoff concern and the setback issues. LeMair: Added that if the other Councilmembers are not of a mind to support the original request, he would support having the addition on the other side of the home. Hau,qen: Thanked Mrs. Kinney for her suggestions and feedback with respect to customer service, and noted the efforts the City is making to improve the service it provides. Further discussed the emotional reaction that is typical of requests of this kind. Advised that this Council cannot do a lot to correct the actions of the past, but can only do its part to consider what is best in the present and for the future. Further advised that because of the possible impacts on the lake, he could not support this particular application, even though he empathized with the applicants concerns. Suggested that staff work with the Kinneys on their alternative proposal which was to locate the addition in a fashion that the current incursion into the 75 foot setback is not increased. The Council discussed parameters whereby they may conceptually support a second application assuming no further incursion of the setback area than presently exists on the property. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-01 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 29-FOOT VARIANCE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, BIomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND WAIVING OTHER APPLICATION FEES IF THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS. Layton Kinney: Commented that additional fees are not the issue. Would support the Council's other discussion about supporting a 64-foot setback. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes January 6, 2003 VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Mayor Haugen asked the audience which agenda item they were in attendance for, and moved that item to the next one on the agenda - (Comp. Plan amendments to Stemmer and Spring Lake Park Property) PRESENTATIONS Presentation on Alternative Sites for Police Station / City Hall~ Community Center (David Kroos) Bo¥1es: Briefiy reviewed the process to date and introduced David Kroos. Kroos: Discussed the size of the pamel that would be needed which was identified through the needs analysis. Reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of seven site alternatives including the existing City Hall site, the Lakefront Park site, the CH Carpentar site, the existing Post Office site, the Priordale Mall site, the Snell property, and the Norex property. Also recommended that only four of the sites remain under consideration, including the Lakefront Park site, the CH Carpentar site, Snell property, and the existing City Hall site. Also believed other properties had recently been suggested that were not included in the original analysis. LeMair: Commented that he'd be interested to know if additional properties could be acquired around those properties that were identified as too small. Zieska: Suggested discussing the sites proposed and narrowing the list to fewer sites. Believed its imperative to move the project forward for a number of reasons including the current needs for the community and the cost of money. Noted that the Shepherd of the Lake site is not within the City limits and can therefore be eliminated. The Tower Street property is too small. Petersen: Agreed. Blomberg: Agreed that some of the properties just don't make sense, such as the Shepherd of the Lake site, and would be a waste of time and energy to pursue. Hauflen: Commented that the 2020 Vision and Strategic Plan clearly identifies a civic campus and community center that provides a gateway to the Downtown area, and builds a Downtown environment. Reviewed the properties and reasons he would eliminate a number of other sites from further consideration. Zieska: Suggested reviewing the criteria and remaining and additional sites at a work session in February. Councilmembers agreed. OLD BUSINESS: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing a Change Order as Part of the 2002 Improvement Project (City Project 02-11) McDermott: Reviewed the agenda in connection with the staff report. Blomber.q: Asked if the sod that had not been laid was included in the contract bid. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION: JANUARY 6, 2003 7A CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSlER, PLANNING COORDINATOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 46 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK (Case file #02.138) Marge Kinney has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a living space addition. History.: This agenda item concerns an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a variance from the required 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a three season porch addition on property located at 14458 Shady Beach Road (see Attachment 3). The subject property is a riparian lot located on Prior Lake. According to the survey, the existing dwelling is set back approximately 64 feet from the 904' MSL of Prior Lake, and thus maintains a nonconforming setback. Two decks on the 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. The deck over the patio appears to be 10 to 12 feet from the dwelling. The shoreland ordinance requires all principal structures to maintain a 75 foot shoreland setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, held a public hearing to consider the item and denied the variance for the addition by approving Resolution 02-020PC. The Commission determined that the variance request failed to meet all 9 of the hardship criteria. In its discussion, the Commission cited concern about further encroachment into the shoreland setback and lack of a hardship as the justifications for denying the variance (Attachment 4). On December 2, 2002, Marge Kinney submitted a letter appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the setback variance (Attachment 2). 162~00~~)~.n~.~l~,~r~d~,olHinnesota ~5372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Current Circumstances: The appellant 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. As previously noted, the dwelling maintains a nonconforming shoreland setback and the proposed living space addition would encroach into or expand the nonconforming shoreland setback. The zoning ordinance permits construction on a legal, nonconforming structure provided that it does not "extend, expand, or intensify the nonconformity." The proposed addition seeks to expand an existing nonconformity by encroaching an additional 18 feet into the required shoreland setback. At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant expressed concern with how staff interpreted the term "hardship." State law authorizes municipalities to regulate land use and to grant variances from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance in instances "where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." Specifically, Minnesota Statute 462.357 Sub. 6 (2) states" 'Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems." Essentially, if a property owner can construct a use that is legally permissible in the use district in which the property is located within the buildable area, a hardship is not present to warrant the granting of a variance from the zoning ordinance. Applicant's Perceived Hardship: 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 immediately to our east." Issue: The City Council must determine whether it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested 29 foot variance. L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 2 Variance Hardship Standards: In reviewing this appeal, the City Council may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by mason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject 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 am peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The 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 fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the proposed variance may affect the perceived 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 L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 3 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. It is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship. 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 existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SD. A corner of the dwelling encroaches into the required 75 foot shoreland setback. The proposed three-season porch addition seeks to encroach further into the required shoreland setback. The staff recommends denial of the 29 foot variance from the required 75 foot shoreland setback to allow a 46 foot setback for the construction of a three- season porch. This recommendation is based on the following: L:\02FILES\02appeal~Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 4 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: 1. A hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant the granting of the variance. 2. A reasonable use is present on the site. 3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the shoreland setback. The hardship is created by the design of the addition. It would be possible to add onto the existing house at a different location as there is ample buildable area on the lot. The City Council has three alternatives: Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance as requested by the applicant. The attached Resolution is consistent with this action. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the requested variance. 3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1: A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested 29 foot variance from the 75 foot front yard setback to allow a 46 foot set~ack for a living space addition by adopting Resolution 03- Frank B~Ci~ Manager 1. Resolution 03-XX 2. Location map 3. Appeal letter 4. Survey 5. Addition plans 6. November 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 5 RESOLUTION 03-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, On January 6, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Marge Kinney to construct a 288 square foot garage three-season porch addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2 WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variance should be upheld. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Marge Kinney has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a thee season porch addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-lSD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2 b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 75 shoreland setback as contained in Case #0-124 and held a hearing thereon on November 25, 2002. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 l:\02files\O2appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page I 3) c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request. d. Marge Kinney appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on December 2, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-124 and Case File #02-138, and held a hearing thereon on January 6, 2003. f. The City Council 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. g. 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. h. 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. i. 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. 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. k. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship. 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. The contents of Planning Case File #02-124 and #02-138 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. l:\02files\02appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 2 Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the following requested variance: a) A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback. Passed and adopted this 6th day of January 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blomberg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager l:\02files\O2appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 3 Location IVlap for Kinney Appeal SHADY ~EACH TRL AMSI. EWC iect ~or Lske N Marge Kinney 144.58 ShaCt¥ Beach Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 Api~EAL ~ETTER 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. We are 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 bom 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 family 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, mm the table, and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance om- 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 fi.om 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 fi'om the shoreline. Our proposed addition is 18 feet by 16 feet. If we were given a permit to build the addition per our plans, the distance fi.om 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 apphcation of the Code would result in undue hardship to us. We are aware of the averaging method of determining 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 differem building, and sat approximately 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 fi'om 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 10t 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 gradhlg 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 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-offbefore 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 t~om 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. you. Layto~ey ~ We, therefore, respectfully request this Variance be granted. FRANK R. CARDARELLE ',612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 certificate of Survey Survey For La,ton Kinne~ Book Page.~ File ~; ~/z~ 14458 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake. MN 55372 PROPOSED ADDITION SHADY BEACH TRAIL ~, ',~ ~ 1"=40' o. · Denot( Iron Mon. Found <~ 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 Scott ~w~. 17th ~w~ ~pt~mb~r . Lot 2, Shady Beaj~ No. 2 ~ State Reg. No. 6508 SURVEY ~'I'ION PLANS Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 Lemke: Questioned staffifthey 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, Lernke 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 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. 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 29foot variance from the 75foot Shoreland setback to allow a 46foot 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 Shoreland setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or demonstrate a hardship, the DN'R 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\02pcminutesWIN112502.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 staff's recommendation and strongly disagree with staff's 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 staffthey 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 staWs 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 leamed 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 of lakeshore, 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\02pcminutesWIN112502.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 · Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. supported encroachment. · The applicant has reasonable use of the property. · Hardship #5 - is to maintain the character of the lot. · Will not support the request. Has never 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 of the 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. If this 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 tradeoffwith 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\02pcminutesWIN112502.doc 10 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 02-01PC, 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 of the 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. Staff's comments were if the Commission felt the survey was consistent with the original intent, a Motion should be made to amend Resolution 02-01 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. Kirchoffresponded it was 50.6 feet. No problem with the changes. Approve. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN112502.doc 1 1 APPLICATIONS APPLICATION MATERIALS L:\TEMPLATEkFILEINFO.DOC kAarge Kinney 445B ShadY Beach Trail Prior I_aka, MN [~9372 0 Z --,9 ~,6 FAMILY 269 sq~ Scale As Noted No Scale Odginal Date 7-10-02 Revision Date P~g~-Page # Drawn By JNZ Drawings and designs are pfeliminaPJ only and not finals for construction. (~.) Copyright of New Spaces -- Lic. #1586 III. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Marge and Layton Kinney Introduction Why we are appealing the Planning Commission's ruling A. Disagree with the Planning Commission's denial of our request. B. Opportunity to respond to some of the Commissioners' comments. C. Support from friends and neighbors D. Whole process has been very difficult ..... riot"user-friendly." Corrections A. 25 foot variance requested, not 29 B. Size, shape of porch open C. Misstatements within staff's findings D. Corrections to "Location Map for Kinney Appeal" E. Staff Conclusion (pg. 4-5) IV. History V. 9 Criteria VI. Response to comments of Commissioners Commissioner Atwood 1. "For the-very reason- the applicant stated the-loss of lal<eshore, does not see how further encroachment to the lake could be allowed." (page 9) "Questioned the applicant's second proposal. Kirchoff explained the second proposal., but it was not shown on the survey." Commissioner Ringstad 1. "Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. Has never supported encroachment." 2. "Hardship #5 is to maintain the character of the lot." (2. Commissioner Stamson 1. Hardship 2. "The guidelines are State Statutes." D. Commissioner Lemke Commissioner Criego 1. "Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface." 2. "Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50' setback, but it is 75'." "The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for lake setbacks. If this was voted in, there would be a flood of requests and why would their requests be any different than the applicants?" 4. "This is a fairly large size home." F. Chairman Stamson .... Closing remarks "The tradeoff with the 75 foot setback is the 30% impervious surface. In order to justify that, the Commission has to be consistent in tl~e lal4esl~ore lot variance procedures." VII. An "Alternative.' VIII. Closing/Plea January 9, 2003 Layton & Marge Kinney 14458 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 Variance from shoreland setback Case No.: 02-138 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kinney.' This letter is to officially inform you that on January 6, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution 03-01 upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of an addition. Enclosed is a copy of the Resolution for your records. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 447-9813. Sincerely, Planner Endosure 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 14464 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake, Mn Prior Lake City Council Re: Variance for 14458 Shady Beach Trail, Mr. and Mrs. Latyon Kinney Dear Council Members, Our house is immediately to the east side of the Kinney's, the side where the remodeling will be added on. Our concern about the variance is that water drainage from rain water runoff may become a problem for our property. The Kinney house sits higher then our property and during heavy rain water runoff from the front (street side)moves through the side yard (the east side of Kinneys yard) and across our lake side yard (south). We are concerned that if the new addition roof line is to close to the grade down to our yard we will experience even more water runoff. We did not express our concern at the 1st hearing on this variance because we were told by Mr. Kinney that the variance had been declined. Sincerely, David and__~Ja~net Linde December 31, 2002 Mrs. Marge Kinney 14458 Shady Beach Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the January 6, 2003, City Council meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting or have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810. Sincerely, Connie CarFson Connie Carlson Planning Secretary Enclosure I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTt_!NtTY EMPLOYER December 4, 2002 Marge Kinney 14458 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 Variance from shoreland setback for living space addition Appeal Case File: 02-138 DeeMs. Kinney: On November 2, 2002, the City of Prior Lake received your appeal from the Planning Commission's decision concerning the above referenced variance. This letter serves as your official notification that all of the necessary submittals have been received and the appeal request is complete. At this time, your appeal is scheduled for the Monday, January 6, 2003, City Council meeting. You or your representative must attend this meeting. Please feel free to contact me at 447-9813, should you have any questions regarding the appeal process. Sincerely, Planner 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HEARING NOTICES L:\TEMPLATEkFILEINFO.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. REQUEST: An appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to allow a 46 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling. APPELLANT: Marge Kinney SUBJECT SITE: 14458 Shady Beach Trail, 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 City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria. Prepared this 23ra day of December 2002. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner City of Prior Lake To be mailed to property owners within 350feet of the subject site on December 26, 2002. L:\02FILES\02appealkKinney appeal\Mailed Notice.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 ~ ',612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For certificate of Survey Layton Kinney 14458 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 Book Page File ~ ~/J~ SHADY BEACH TRAIL Scal~ 1 ":40' · Denot( Iron Mon. Found ,, / · / Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft. House Area: 2195 sq.ft. Flagstone Walk: 560 sq.ft. Concrete Driveway: ll40 sq.ft Patio Area: 510 sq.ft. Exist. Hard ~over Area: 4405 sq.ft. 23% Land Cover Existing Proposed Addn.to House: 2B8 sq.ft. Total Hard Cover After Addn.: 4693 sq.ft. 24.5% New Land Cover Lot 2, Shady BearJ~ No. 2 ~ ?~} , ,,'l ) \ .~ Stale Reg, No. 6508 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) (~f)~& ~0~ ofthe City ofPrior Lake, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, being duly t~wom, says on the ~ day qf_~22.:~,, 200.2, she served t.he attached 1,ig of persons to have gn interest in the ~\~/[]kfl.13~ ~'~i'k~ ~-{)~' 17'~_ , bymdi~ing to them a copy thereof, enci~se~] l'h ~n envelo[e, 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:~DEPTWORK~BLANKFRM~MAILAFFD. DOC Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5162® RICHARD W VALENTINE, II 14454 SHADY TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 DAVD A & JANET L LINDE 14464 SHADY BEACH TRL PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 PHILIPP R HILL 324 1 AVE W SHAKOPEE MN 55379 VAUGHN O LEMKE 14472 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MAE MICKLEY 14476 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MARY ANN PRICE 14480 SHADY BEACH TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 KYLE E SCAPPLE 5775 BIRCHWOOD AVE NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MARK B & LISA K CULP 5787 BIRCHWOOD AVE NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE CITY MANAGER 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CARL S FRITSCH 4925 XERXES AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410 P,,,A T 0--I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. REQUEST: An appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback to allow a 46 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling. APPELLANT: Marge Kinney SUBJECT SITE: 14458 Shady Beach Trail, 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 City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria. Prepared this 17~h day of November 2002. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on December 21, 2002. L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\Paper Public Hearing Notice.doc Cynthia Kirchoff From: Sent: To: Cynthia Kirchoff Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:07 AM Prior Lake American (E-mail) Hi Deb- Attached is a public hearing notice for the Kinnney appeal. Thanks. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 (952) 447-9813 (952) 447-4245-fax Paper Public Hearing Notice,do... Lo(~tion Map for Kinney Appeal N