The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-134 Van Pelt Appeal Resolution and ~inutes ... /:2-1-03 ~ f-t'o 0 3 ~dlD?5 ~ . L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC 03-/0<1 VO-v\. ~ ~ City Council Meeting Minutes December 1 , 2003 Hines: Advised that a preliminary plan was submitted with the variance request without the deck on it in order to facilitate the process of having the structure reviewed for compliance. It was never the intention to build a house on the lake without a deck. Kirchoff: Clarified that two permit applications have been submitted. The first was submitted showing no rear porch and a front-loading garage and has been approved for a building permit. The second was submitted adding the porch and showing a side-loading garage which has not been approved. Zieska: Commented that this is already a non-conforming lot. Did not believe it is right to grant a variance to further push the limits of a non-conforming lot. Believed the variance request is for convenience rather than hardship. noting that the applicant has submitted a survey without a deck that has been approved so a house can be built. Second, the applicant indicated that he requested a front yard setback because it would be easier to get than a rear yard, further indicating the variance is one of convenience. Third, the applicant advised that a rambler style was chosen rather than a two-story because it was more cost-effective per square foot. This also indicates convenience rather than hardship. Lastly, the applicant indicated that the home needed to be larger given that it is a lakeshore property in order to financially balance the cost of the lot to the cost of the home. Did not believe the reconstruction of CSAH 12 was relevant. Based on the circumstances in this case, believed the variance request was for convenience. Hauaen: Agreed that the hardship criteria do not appear to have been met. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR. TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8. Pace: Commented that it is often difficult for staff to sort out the findings from the discussion articulated at the public hearing. The Council has articulated clear findings, but another option would be to direct staff to prepare a subsequent resolution for subsequent Council consideration. Zleska: Asked if there is an issue with the 60-day rule. Kansler: Did not believe timing was an issue. MOTION BY ZIESKA. SECOND BY LEMAIR TO WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8 FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair. the motion carried. Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning CommIssion Decision to Deny a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition on Property Located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue Sf (Case File #03-134) Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. LeMalr: Asked the definition of the "reserve area", Kirchoff: Explained that the area is private park or common area for the Oakland Beach area homeowners. The building setback from that area is 25 feet. . Zleska: Asked if the difference between a deck and balcony is that a deck has ground support and can therefore be a larger structure. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes December 1, 2003 Kirchoff: Confirmed. Blomberq: Asked the size of the proposed deck. Kirchoff: According to the survey. the proposed deck size is 12'x24'. Hauoen: Asked if standard building practices are that a door and ledger board are installed when no deck is permitted. Kirchoff: Commented that logically it makes sense that if a door and ledger board is incorporated, a deck would follow. It is misleading for a property owner. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Tom Van Pelt (14624 Oakland Beach Ave. Sf): Thanked the City staff and Councilmembers for their efforts to find a solution to this issue. Commente~ that the first variance application was by a prospective buyer, and upon denial of the variance. he believed the City should have required the builder to re-submit plans. The building inspection could also have required the door removed and replaced with a window. It is misleading to a buyer if a door and ledger board is included. He purchased the home after its substantial completion from the outside. It seemed from a reasonable standpoint, a deck could be added. LeMalr: Asked if 12 feet of land can be bought from the Oakland Beach association. Van Pelt: By its bylaws, the Association property cannot be sold. Zleska: Thanked Mr. Van Pelt for his attempts to work this issue through staff. Blombera: Asked if the applicant had been told that a deck could be constructed. Van Pelt: Advised that the contractor said a deck could be constructed. Steve VesDested (14662 Glendale Ave.): Commented that aside from ordinances in place to protect property. the uniqueness of this property is overlooked. Did not believe allowing a variance of this type adversely impacts the neighborhood, the City, or the common area. Believed common sense should prevail and that the City was negligent in not requiring that the deck door be changed during the inspection. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. ,LeMalr: Believed a mistake has been made, but did not believe it is the City's responsibility to regulate these types of circumstances. Commented that it appears that the neighbor's deck is closer to the lake that this one would be. Was not certain a balcony would be a feasible option. Would be in favor of allowing a variance but would like to see the stairs reconfigured as to not further encroach the setback. Zieska: Empathized with the VanPelts, but the record and past practice indicates that no deck should be permitted. This house was constructed within the past 3 years. Did not believe there is any material change from the first two times variance applications had been submitted. Suggested that the City further review its ordinances to require that house plans for new construction include a footprint for a deck, or not allow homes to be built up to the rear lot line. Supported the Planning Commission denial. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes December 1, 2003 Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember LeMair, and would support a small variance in this case because the property abuts a common area rather than the lake setback. Blomberq: Asked if the City can tell a builder not to include patio doors. Kansle~: Advised that under the building code, a patio door is considered a large window. Under the zoning ordinance. a balcony is not considered a rear Y?lrd encroachment. Blombera: Pointed out that the record indicates that a deck would not be added to the home, that the City was responsible in its action, and that a variance should not be granted on that basis. Did believe that a variance is warranted on the basis that this property is peculiar in that it abuts a lakeshore common area, does not encroach upon an adjacent residential lot, and still meets the 75 foot shoreland setback. Just as she supported a similar proposed ordinance amendment, she also supports this variance. Hauoen: Discussed having rules vs. using common sense. Ordinances are in place to guide property as a whole. Concerned with having builders advise prospective homeowners that decks are permitted when in fact they are not. Commented that there is enough argument to the contrary and gray area in application of the hardship criteria. Believes the ordinance should be revisited. Supported the variance. Zieska: Asked Councilmember Blomberg if the rationale is that the rear yard setback can be smaller due to the open reserve area. Commented that there is a lot of emotion involving the fact that there is a door and ledger board. What happens when builders start constructing homes without a deck, but with a patio door? Blomberq: Advised that she supported the variance, and the ordinance amendment that was considered several weeks ago. because the private common open space could not be built on. In those cases, believed it acceptable to build up to the rear property line. Believed that a distinction can be drawn between variance applications that abut common open space but still meet the other required setbacks such as the shoreland setback, and homes that are constructed in general. Hauaen: Repeated that Councilmember Zieska's concems are the very reason he believes the ordinance needs to be discussed further so that builders are required to indicate decks on the building footprint. Blombero: Repeated that this property is unique in that it abuts a common area, and that is the rationale for using the variance tool in this circumstance. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Kirchoff: Clarified that the variance proposed in the staff report is for a 12'x24' rectangular deck. It was not the deck submitted by the applicant. Any style deck would need to be constructed within that 12'x24' footprint. Pace: Asked what distinguishes a deck from a balcony. Kansler: Explained that a deck requires supports to the ground where a balcony is cantilevered from the house. Also noted that as long as the design of the deck fits within the granted setback, it can be any style. VOTE: Ayes Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried. 7 Doc. No. A 643793 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER SCOlT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Filed and/or Recorded on - 01-29-2004 at 02:45 Receipt:352105 Pat Boeckman, County Recorder 01 Fee: $20.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The undersigned, duly qualified and Planning Secretary of the City of Prior Lake, hereby certifies the attached hereto is the original true and correct copy of RESOLUTION 03-208 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-l (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE #03-134 VanPelt 25-115-011-0 (!/l1LMA) / r1 h Ph Connie Carlson -......... 7 City of Prior Lake I?at~4.th~si~9tp. day of December, 2003 .~;,:. c ',~ ~ '.''-I! ~ t;",'/.. <,,' ........,... ~ " /',,>: :. -:"::-' . - < , '."': :< ~~, ~ .. '. l.....\ \ '. ~ . -J . t'" . l : - : ,f , . ::: :(CitySeal) .~~~~i'~". ,. r, -^, ';'::,'~~".:.: . .' '., J,Ide;v,0r~\1l!~k~\tri1ecopydOc -',If;,; ,'; . '.- ,. 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 03-208 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: LEMAIR WHEREAS, Tom and Dina Van Pelt applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code to allow a 13 foot rear yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts and located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File 03-121, and held a hearing thereon October 27, 2003; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request; and WHEREAS, Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31,2003; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council finds that the requested Variance meets the criteria for granting Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for granting a Variance. 3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be overruled, and said Variance should be approved. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: www.cityofpriorlake.com . - ~.- -, ~ - - - - . 1. U,"-,,;)VIULl \..1Ialll t;..,;) v..vvj\V..1-.L,VO.UV\,.. - .la5'"' . Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 a. Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31, 2003. b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. c. The City Council determined the extraordinary and exceptional conditions unique to this lot include the following: i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District. iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within the platted subdivision. iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. d. The City Council finds that because the property abuts a platted Reserve area a peculiar condition applies only to this property and those immediately adjoining to warrant the granting of a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance. e. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. A home with a patio door on the second story without any type of balcony or structure may cause some concern for public safety. f. The City Council determined that the Variance would not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood because the proposed deck addition meets the 75 foot minimum required shoreland setback and minimum side yard setbacks. g. The City Council finds that property owners are responsible for knowledge of Zoning Ordinance provisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council finds the appellant's reliance on the builder's representation that a deck was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance was not unreasonable based on the unique conditions pertaining to this lot. h. The City Council finds that it is reasonable for a purchaser to believe that a second story deck is permitted on a home meeting all of the following conditions: i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in with and 100 feet in depth. ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District. iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within the platted subdivision. r: \reso\ uti\p \anres\2003 \03-208 .doc Page 2 iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. j. This Variance is granted because of uniqueness of the property and the conditions set forth above. The Council will not be sympathetic to Variance applications where new structures are built with second floor doors and ledger boards in the hopes they can use this Variance as a basis for asking for similar treatment. This Variance is unique because of the reasonable reliance the property owners placed on the representations of the builders that a deck could be constructed. 5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-121 and Planning Case File 03-134 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby overrules the decision of the Planning Commission and approves the 12 foot Variance from the 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck addition as shown on Exhibit A, with the following conditions: A. The resolution must be recorded by the applicant at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. C. A revised survey shall be submitted by the applicant with the building permit application indicating the location of the existing dwelling and proposed deck. An impervious surface worksheet shall also be submitted. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003. I Haugen I Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska YES X X X X X NO Haugen Blomberg LeMair ~J~ {Seal} City Manager r: \reso I u ti\planres\2003\03- 208 .doc Page 3 Overheads Presentation . Materials L\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC , " Mark Pahl ConstructionW Deck Plan )4' Glass Railing 4'-0" r- ~ l = 14'-0" --I Existing House . Scale 3/16" = l' 6/14/03 12'-0" , _ocation vla) '-:or Van Pelt Variance / / ~ , j \ \~AVE$E G> r m Z -J 0 \ V f? -- - Prior m RUSllC RD ~ \ \ \\ Lake (j) m. \ \ \ \ . ~~Ubjecl Properly I 200 I o 200 400 Feet I N + ~ J PLAT OF SURVEY -- FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH SCOTT COUNTY. MINNESOTA \ I I I -------------1 I 11.60 ~ //."'///// I : I I : I / I /.' ,/",,;' I I ~' I r------1Z--i-----\ ;, I ~.. . , o Scale 30 FD liP i \ I ///;' I I L--------:..-___-1 I \ :;t / ";,' 24.88', I I 13 I \ feet I I \ I I \ \ '-' I f~~ 90 '------~---__-~ ~~ \ /l \ (''y'', I (y' ~ tJ ~ t' ~:;t_l>-'" .. MO. "" \ ~.~, v I LL ,~, I "t . '- I (-- (1:': ,1\ ~~;~r' IL.... .... ~ ~ --' ,LLJ (' ~,\~......' \ / I I ) ( ~--.j ,-I ) <1: // \ "I'-l<\'.T W~\\( (//~~L:'". ~,~. / / )\ I [' /./; i I ) \ ~1 r~ 'pEe,< 'Ii \ 1462~ \ ~ ~l>l~') \ \ P^TIO ~LOCKS-J 1/ r:1 I I "\~~:~ \ ~.l -1 \ '~;. "\~~ ~ I / \ I ./............:\ ,"-S^NO ~~ I I( \ ,,- "\RO~-' ~:a! \ ( ...\\..- ~ rDll' ~ \ ,,!I\ ~j!: ~ l'- ~-GR^Vil- ~N"89.58'56' ::J 100.22. f! .. !'TO ..\....li' ~ -II It. N ~ "'-\ 27.27 -r-~ - \ \ 5.~ ,....! -~,'-\';t'\lS!>l. \.-1., /".I.~. /. .__ v; --\-. \~I \ \ ~\~l \\ \ \ Oi , I ..,/ / ..... ..r H^LF DECK I') - ... '......u. L , //'\.' t. /~;//. \ //.' /N~ . "1 -1 _ / I UPPER LEVEL--_ - \-/ ;'" f 0>> .~\ 5 00, , \ >_' ..... \ . \al \ i5 \ \; \ ~-----\ - \.] :. .S,'. ~.,., ~.~!.' '. \ .'R 01.' 1 t~.. (~',: ~) ~ ( \J~~~~tSE I / ~ /, ~ ' ~ ~ \ ~' .'":'"'", . ~ou ..' '" ~,: ~!;;- \ ""': . vr j / = (, ~ STONE & ~,ONC. 880 ';-, \ tJ.. ~ ~ ~. / . u\ > \~~. U',' i, \",/,/ ~', \i'. . \ . \ ~":--'" -..,. , ';, \ 159 ~. ) . L1.Q!.L ~' ,II" "'( , ,I. .-4.l ~~, \ ",\. " ~ ~, ~ '-" ....I'"" :;.:;1~ \""'\'u'u \\5'l7 .l:-lr.....\\~J:J~-'- _~ __ '. .:w\~ '\\.'\ g u ,0.. V - - ~4. 72 - +- - ~. \ \ \ '\, " \_ \ ~y "MR 'I l.r '-';~~1t.I\\.\t\(. g 't\ t\ 89\4_\'44. E'\ 10Q. .08. \ . \ ".\...."'\ "\ .' \... \ \\. \' __, 91 n ,\090" \\\Q\ "\ \\ ~\ \ \ ,,\ \ \ \ \\, '\\\r\ j.:J ./ \ \ ,9 ,9. \~ ...'. .... .. .n \1' .-.. .j ". .~) III '\ " (.:.~~ 'q '~ /~. .~\\ "' \ \ \ \ \ I' j' '~~" . , .,< \ \00....'" " \ , -' r" ,'( J\...... \ ,'\... \ ~\ \ \, '" '.... fD IP , in "I ->- / / /' // {:> Qj \ \ \ ( ~ . 6 '{~~\ X xo.... o (lO \ \ NOTE: THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVA nONS LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT o IRON MONUME!()T -0- POWER POLE lIJ TELEPHONE BOX lID GAS METER 'tf HYDRANT t><l WA TER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF # 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER LOT 16, ELEVATION.. 928.00 . "...--- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE , I , hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02 ~"/FAr Reg. No18..:f 2..-1 Dote: /2. -/4 -0 () L' J ?l) , Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc. Drown Checked LEI DBO Job No. Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Architects 00- 047 Dote 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 (612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806 8-31-00 Bk-Pg 107/61 Original Reports L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DECEMBER 15, 2003 5G2 CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION (Case file #03.134PC.VAN PELT) DISCUSSION: Historv: The City Council held a public hearing on December 1, 2003, to . consider an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 12 foot Variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck addition as requested by Tom and Dina Van Pelt, 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. The City Council supported the Variance because the platted Reserve area between the subject property and Prior Lake creates a peculiar condition to warrant relief. The platted Reserve is dedicated to the lots within the Oakland Beach plat and is unlikely to be developed. Moreover, the City Council found that the proposed deck will not impact the character of the neighborhood because it meets the 75 foot shoreland setback. The Council attached the following conditions to the rear yard setback Variance. These conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a building permit for the deck addition. 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a . building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. 3. A revised survey shall be submitted with the building permit application indicating the location of the existing dwelling and proposed deck. An impervious surface worksheet shall also be submitted. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc consent report.doc www.citVofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Conclusion: The attached resolution is consistent with the City Council's direction for approval of a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance to allow for the construction of a deck addition. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has two alternatives: 1. Adopt attached the attached resolution to approve the variance as requested by the applicant. 2. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motion is required: REVIEWED BY: A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution 03-XX overruling t; decision of the Planning Commission and approving the Vanance subject tJre cond"ions. ~lJ/~~ Frank t;Jil'f/Manager L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc consent report.doc 2 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 03-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Tom and Dina Van Pelt applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code to allow a 13 foot rear yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland) Districts and located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File 03-121, and held a hearing thereon October 27,2003; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request; and WHEREAS, Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council finds that the requested Variance meets the criteria for granting Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for granting a Variance. 3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be overruled, and said Variance should be approved. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: www.cityofpriorlake.com I"OJ fillS'''' 'ffllals'OJ JJ4 HIlA pllltl",I'I'~..,<i' _'M1~..... D~f'. 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 a. Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31, 2003. b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. c. The City Council determined the extraordinary and exceptional conditions unique to this lot include the following: i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District. iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within the platted subdivision. iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. d. The City Council finds that because the property abuts a platted Reserve area a peculiar condition applies only to this property and those immediately adjoining to warrant the granting of a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance. e. 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan. A home with a patio door on the second story without any type of balcony or structure may cause some concern for public safety. f. The City Council determined that the Variance would not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood because the proposed deck addition meets the 75 foot minimum required shoreland setback and minimum side yard setbacks. g. The City Council finds that property owners are responsible for knowledge of Zoning Ordinance provisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council finds the appellant's reliance on the builder's representation that a deck was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance was not unreasonable based on the unique conditions pertaining to this lot. h. The City Council finds that it is reasonable for a purchaser to believe that a second story deck is permitted on a home meeting all of the following conditions: i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in with and 100 feet in depth. ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District. iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within the platted subdivision. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\approval resolution.doc Page 2 iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. j. This Variance is granted because of uniqueness of the property and the conditions set forth above. The Council will not be sympathetic to Variance applications where new structures are built with second floor doors and ledger boards in the hopes they can use this Variance as a basis for asking for similar treatment. This Variance is unique because of the reasonable reliance the property owners placed on the representations of the builders that a deck could be constructed. 5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-121 and Planning Case File 03-134 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby overrules the decision of the Planning Commission and approves the 12 foot Variance from the 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck addition as shown on Exhibit A, with the following conditions: A. The resolution must be recorded by the applicant at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. C. A revised survey shall be submitted by the applicant with the building permit application indicating the location of the existing dwelling and proposed deck. An impervious surface worksheet shall also be submitted. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003. YES NO I Haugen I Blomberg I LeMair Petersen Zieska Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pe1t\approval resolution.doc Page 3 FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA I I \ I-----------,~I I I I I I \ I I 1------1T.-~----_I I ; I \ro IP FD ~P \ , I I L-----___,:____-.l I \ i3 "~ ,.... \ \ ~O \ \ CJ \\ A" I I <( ~-- \----~'..\------, 2{ \ ~ )f ;'-" I '?F ~,'-" ,." -\ V I [ ':" ~~:~~I '. .- jot , " . \ -2~ do \ . /'-) \~~' '~t;,.-: \ l'~l'.T~- ~\0:('7)7R~L-~.ll.<JtFl ] /,/ ) '-~l1MBERI'wAlL~' \ R 1\ X'?'fl"\ J~ \ . _ .-. .BIIV NOUS I' ( I I , 1\) '\ ~i r~~ 'pt: ~ \ 1~2~ \ ~' ~~~ \) \ ~"OO"""'-' ';'.1 I I '\ ~\t\~2~ 1,1 \ \ \ I 1 I ,"-SAND AIll~ I " \ \ -., _ .;::~ II \\. ~~' - \ \.. lIP. ..,1\ ~j!::l! ~""_GR^'IU- / -~ r ~ '~N89'58'56 EI =~ l00.~ ,:1 .. ".........., I ~ V"'E" ;; C7I '-I 27,2' -f::l \- \ \. 00\\ \-~\ \,<I\"l ~ I.. _ CO! -4-~': \ \ \.. \, ~t \\ 1 crt I \ / .... ~ \ ,~~lfER~l-\_~ --t~~" i ~~~".\\:jf.r\.y~;\;1 ~~,\~~( \ 1~~t\ I ~ / / ~ ' !i ~\ eN \ ~ ' I~'" 'El \'" .~i I ~ If" STONE "'\ONC.8BO\-\ \ ~_~~-t .\J~~'I.. ..\.\'\\-A-\~'.~~', l-' 'Vl' ~ I, I / ~ '~,- ,~? ...~ \,_1 \'2'\--::::,\_~"~;:r,,,', ~" ~N 0 if: co \) --- 247'l.-~ .;:.-\ \ 'i:.I..w \-'1_ \ \\.~, . _ I \...~ ,\"' &\ 'j ",j. ~,.I< i:'; ~.. 1\ 89\'49\'44\E'\ IOQ.08 ',-, "'. '\.-'f;t' \ \ I ~...... ...~ 'I '", \ \ \ \ '-. '., \ I, \ \ \ '. I of- \~ ""~~ \ \ \'" \,', '. \, '.. ;. ',: ,,, ... ." :~, ' '~\::?:~ \~ ". \ \ .~) ..'>. \~ .~, .-" to ..I V {'J: .: l.~ II) I I , \ ~ \ " .. q....'.::q \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ I i I . .-.; "",,."" ,,,")\~,.p, ' \j~,"~'" PLAT OF SURVEY ~ Scole in feet , o 30 60 NOTE: THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT o IRON MONUME~T -0- POWER POLE rn TELEPHONE BOX I!:I GAS METER 'r::f HYDRANT l><I WATER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF , 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00 --- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision on~ that I om a duly registered lond surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02 ~y~/ ~4 Reg. No/a4/- Z".( Dote: I Z_:/to 0 Ll~ Hansen Thorp J I Pellinen Olson Inc. "'f' 'l) Engineers' Surveyors. Landscape Archlte< 7510 Morket Ploce Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644 (612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806 I', , I EXHIBIT A - lOot.. 8-31-00 I Ilk-I'll 107/61 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 LeMair: Agreed with the comments of Councilmember Blomberg in that minimum setbacks have been applied. Believed that a property owner giving his architect parameters to design an acceptable home within the ordinance guidelines should be something that can be accomplished. Did not believe there is hardship, Hauaen: Commented that he is having difficult seeing any hardship given these circumstances, Hines: Advised that a preliminary plan was submitted with the variance request without the deck on it in order to facilitate the process of having the structure reviewed for compliance, It was never the intention to build a house on the lake without a deck, Kirchoff: Clarified that two permit applications have been submitted. The first was submitted showing no rear porch and a front-loading garage and has been approved for a building permit. The second was submitted adding the porch and showing a side-loading garage which has not been approved, Zieska: Commented that this is already a non-conforming lot. Did not believe it is right to grant a variance to further push the limits of a non-conforming lot. Believed the variance request is for convenience rather than hardship, noting that the applicant has submitted a survey without a deck that has been approved so a house can be built. Second, the applicant indicated that he requested a front yard setback because it would be easier to get than a rear yard, further indicating the variance is one of convenience. Third, the applicant advised that a rambler style was chosen rather than a two-story because it was more cost-effective per square foot. This also indicates convenience rather than hardship, Lastly, the applicant indicated that the home needed to be larger given that it is a lakeshore property in order to financially balance the cost of the lot to the cost of the home, Did not believe the reconstruction of CSAH 12 was relevant. Based on the circumstances in this case, believed the variance request was for convenience. Hauaen: Agreed that the hardship criteria do not appear to have been met. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8. Pace: Commented that it is often difficult for staff to sort out the findings from the discussion articulated at the public hearing, The Council has articulated clear findings, but another option would be to direct staff to prepare a subsequent resolution for subsequent Council'consideration, Zieska: Asked if there is an issue with the 50-day rule, Kansier: Did not believe timing was an issue, MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8 FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION, VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. ,- Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition on Property Located at 14624 Oakland Beach A venue SE (Case File #03-134) I Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, 5 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 LeMair: Asked the definition of the "reserve area". Kirchoff: Explained that the area is private park or common area for the Oakland Beach area homeowners, The building setback from that area is 25 feet. Zieska: Asked if the difference between a deck and balcony is that a deck has ground support and can therefore be a larger structure. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Blomberq: Asked the size of the proposed deck, Kirchoff: According to the survey, the proposed deck size is 12'x24', Hauaen: Asked if standard building practices are that a door and ledger board are installed when no deck is permitted. Kirchoff: Commented that logically it makes sense that if a door and ledger board is incorporated, a deck would follow, It is misleading for a property owner. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Tom Van Pelt (14624 Oakland ?each Ave. SE): Thanked the City staff and Councilmembers for their efforts to find a solution to this issue. Commented that the first variance application was by a prospective buyer, and upon denial of the variance, he believed the City should have required the builder to re-submit plans. The building inspection could also have required the door removed and replaced with a window. It is misleading to a buyer if a door and ledger board. is included. He purchased the home after its substantial completion from the outside. It seemed from a reasonable standpoint, a deck could be added. LeMair: Asked if 12 feet of land can be bought from the Oakland Beach association. Van Pelt: By its bylaws, the Association property cannot be sold, Zieska: Thanked Mr. Van Pelt for his attempts to work this issue through staff, Blomberq:Asked if the applicant had been told that a deck could be constructed. Van Pelt: Advised that the contractor said a deck could be constructed, Steve Vesoested (14662 Glendale Ave.): Commented that aside from ordinances in place to protect property, the uniqueness of this property is overlooked. Did not believe allowing a variance of this type adversely impacts the neighborhood, the City, or the common area, Believed common sense should prevail and that the City was negligent in not requiring that the deck door be changed during the inspection, MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMair: Believed a mistake has been made, but did not believe it is the City's responsibility to regulate these types of circumstances. Commented that it appears that the neighbor's deck is closer to the lake that this one would be, Was not 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 certain a balcony would be a feasible option, Would be in favor of allowing a variance but would like to see the stairs reconfigured as to not further encroach the setback. Zieska: Empathized with the VanPelts, but the record and past practice indicates that no deck should be permitted. This house was constructed within the past 3 years, Did not believe there is any material change from the first two times variance applications had been submitted, Suggested that the City further review its ordinances to require that house plans for new construction include a footprint for a deck, or not allow homes to be built up to the rear lot line, Supported the Planning Commission denial. Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember LeMair, and would support a small variance in this case because the property abuts a common area rather than the lake setback. Blomberq: Asked if the City can t~1I a builder not to include patio doors. Kansier: Advised that under the building code, a patio door is considered a large window. Under the zoning ordinance, a balcony is not considered a rear yard encroachment. Blomberq: Pointed out that the record indicates that a deck would not be added to the home, that the City was responsible in its action, and that a variance should not be granted on that basis, Did believe that a variance is warranted on the basis that this property is peculiar in that it abuts a lakeshore common area, does not encroach upon an adjacent residential lot, and still meets the 75 foot shoreland setback. Just as she supported a similar proposed ordinance amendment, she also supports this variance. Hauaen: Discussed having rules vs, using common sense, Ordinances are in place to guide property as a whole. Concerned with having builders advise prospective homeowners that decks are permitted when in fact they are not. Commented that there is enough argument to the contrary and gray area in application of the hardship criteria, Believes the ordinance should be revisited. Supported the variance, Zieska: Asked Councilmember Blomberg if the rationale is that the rear yard setback can be smaller due to the open reserve area. Commented that there is a lot of emotion involving the fact that there is a door and ledger board. What happens when builders start constructing homes without a deck, but with a patio door? Blombera: Advised that she supported the variance, and the ordinance amendment that was considered several weeks ago, because the private common open space could not be built on. In those cases, believed it acceptable to build up to the rear property line. Believed that a distinction can be drawn between variance applications that abut common open space but still meet the other required setbacks such as the shoreland setback, and homes that are constructed in general. Hauaen: Repeated that Councilmember Zieska's concerns are the very reason he believes the ordinance needs to be discussed further so that builders are required to indicate decks on the building footprint. Blomberq: Repeated that this property is unique in that it abuts a common area, and that is the rationale for using the variance tool in this circumstance, MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, Kirchoff: Clarified that the variance proposed in the staff report is for a 12'x24' rectangular deck. It was not the deck submitted by the applicant. Any style deck would need to be constructed within that 12'x24' footprint. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 Pace: Asked what distinguishes a deck from a balcony. Kansier: Explained that a deck requires supports to the ground where a balcony is cantilevered from the house, Also noted that as long as the design of the deck fits within the granted setback, it can be any style, VOTE: Ayes Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried, c.._. . The Council took a brief recess, Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition 2830 Fox Run NW (Case File #03-131). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, Blomberq: Asked for a definition of a .villa" style home, Kirchoff: According to the PUD, villa homes are single family attached or detached homes on smaller lots. On this home, there are no lower level patio doors. Blombera:Asked if the golf course will always be a golf course, Kirchoff: The golf course use can be changed through an application for amendment to the PUD by the owner and approval by the City Council. Petersen: Asked the size of the proposed deck. Kirchoff: Advised that the proposed deck is smaller than the old one, approximately 14'x20'. Pace: Clarified that the intended use of the City's Private Use of Public Property Agreement was not to prospectively allow construction within an easement, or a waiver of the City's right for infringement into an easement. LeMair: Asked if there was ever a permit issued for the deck. Kirchoff: No permit was issued. The staff cannot tell when the original deck was constructed and has assumed that the deck was included after issuance of the certificate of occupancy since it was not included on the survey for the house, Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open, Jim Bates (attorney for the applicant): Advised that the proposed deck does not protrude further than the initial deck. Also advised that the lot size is .46 acres. Submitted a letter dated November 28, 2003 from him to the City Council on his interpretation of the state standard for variances, Further noted that State statute allows City's the variance tool to provide relief for property owners from the strict application of the ordinance. Noted that the McCoys bought the property with the initial non-conforming, illegal deck and that the excessive impervious surface existed at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Clarified that the door faces to the rear of the house even though it is on the far east side of the home. There is no significant impact upon adjacent neighbors and indicated that the golf course representatives do not 8 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM: DECEMBER 1, 2003 7C CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION (Case File #03-134) MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: INTRODUCTION: Historv: On October 27,2003, the Planning Commission denied Tom and Dina Van Pelt's request for a rear yard setback Variance for the construction of a deck addition on property located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE (Lot 16, Oakland Beach). The Commission held the house was not designed for a deck, and the lack of a deck is not considered a hardship. Furthermore, the Commission remembered the builder stating, during the public hearing for lot area and width Variances, that a deck would not be added to the house. Backaround: Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance permits any owner of affected property within 350 feet of the subject property to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission) to the City Council. On October 31, 2003, the Van Pelts appealed the Planning Commission's decision. DISCUSSION: Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1 SO and guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, The property was platted as Lot 16, Oakland Beach in 1926, The property is a non-riparian lot because a platted "Reserve" area is located between the subject lot and the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake. Due to the type of lot and its location from the lake, the 75 foot shoreland setback and 25 foot rear yard setback both apply. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\<:e 11i:.1r',.,,1.Itiorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 There is considerable history on this property. Table 1 provides an overview. TABLE 1 VARIANCE HISTORY OF 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE DATE APPLICANT REQUEST ACTION 9/25/00 Eagle Creek Lot area and width Approved* Villas variances to construct dwelling 12/21/00 Jane Crosson 12' Rear yard setback Denied variance for deck 1/21/01 Jane Crosson Appeal PC's decision to Upheld deny rear yard setback variance for deck *No additional variances permitted In 2000, a building permit was issued to Eagle Creek Villas for the construction of the existing single family dwelling. Two decks were shown on the building permit plans, one on the upper level and one on the main level. Upon review, the building department staff crossed off the decks and noted "No Deck with this Permit," however, the patio doors shown on the plans were allowed to be installed on the main floor. A ledger board was also constructed beneath the patio door, The decks were not shown on the survey submitted with the building permit. View from Prior Lake Issues: The applicant would like to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot (288 square feet) deck addition to the rear of the existing dwelling as shown to the right. A platted "Reserve" area is located between the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake and the subject property. (Note: All property owners within the subdivision own a private platted reserve area. It intends to provide lake access to all lot owners, regardless if it is riparian or non-riparian.) Since the property is not L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report.doc 2 technically a riparian lot and has a rear property line, the principal structure must maintain the required rear yard setback. Section 1102.405 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard setback. The deck is proposed to encroach 12 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback, and maintain a 13 foot rear yard setback, According to the survey, the proposed deck is 97 feet from the ordinary high water level (904'). The required setback is 75 feet. The deck plan and the survey are inconsistent. The deck plan submitted with the Variance application indicates a deck 12 feet in depth with a curved staircase that encroaches further into the setback, but the survey shows a rectangular-shaped deck. This report is based upon the deck shown on the survey. (Note: Staff permitted the applicant to utilize an existing survey for this Variance application.) At the time of original building permit, impervious surface coverage was proposed to be 29.6 percent. A portion of the platted reserve area was utilized in the calculation. The Shoreland Ordinance limits impervious surface to 30 percent of the lot area. As mentioned above, this is the third time that a Variance has been requested for this property in as many years. In 2001, when the same rear yard setback Variance was requested, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied the request because the deck was considered an "afterthought," and if a deck was originally intended the builder would have included it in the design. That applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, who upheld the Planning Commission's decision, finding that the setback Variance did not met the nine hardship criteria. Also of note, on August 18, 2003, the City Council denied an ordinance amendment that would permit a 10 foot rear yard setback on lots separated from the ordinary high water level with a platted reserve area. Variance HardshiD Findinos: Section 1108.400 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that: 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such 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. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc 3 Lot area and width Variances were granted in 2000 to allow for the construction of a reasonable use on the property. A reasonable use in this case is a single family dwelling, because the property is zoned R-1. The strict application of the rear yard setback does not create a practical difficulty, because access to the rear yard can be gained via the lower level patio door, and a balcony can be built on the second story. The inability to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot deck does not constitute a hardship. In the past, the City has not considered the inability to build a deck, even when a patio door is present, an undue hardship or practical difficulty. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The rear yard setback applies to all properties in the R-1 use district. Since this a relatively new construction, a deck should have been designed in conjunction with the dwelling that meets all required setbacks. If that was impossible, the contractor should have sought relief from required setbacks when the Variances were granted for lot area and width. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The granting of the rear yard setback Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property, because a single family dwelling is present on the property. If a deck was necessary, it should have been incorporated into the design of the dwelling. Moreover, the site currently has rear yard access with the lower floor platform deck. 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. It does not appear as though the Variance will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or negatively impact 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 L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc 4 the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the rear yard setback Variance will impact the character and development of the neighborhood because it will create a new rear yard setback when an undue hardship has not been demonstrated. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented through required minimum yard setbacks. A Variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the appellant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The Variance serves as convenience to the property owner. It is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty. If relief were necessary, a setback Variance would have been requested with the lot area and width Variances. 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. Although the applicant did not construct the dwelling, they designed a deck that encroaches into the required rear yard setback. The builder did not make a provision for a deck on the original Variance request, so the hardship results from the action of the applicant. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Staff does not believe that increased development or construction costs or economic hardship are the basis of this request. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc 5 CONCLUSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: The applicant would like to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot (288 square feet) deck addition on property zoned R-1 and SO. In order to do as they request, a rear yard setback variance is required. The strict application of required rear yard setback does not pose undue difficulties on the development of the property. An existing single family dwelling complies with required setbacks, and a balcony can be constructed on the main floor. (Note: A balcony cannot have ground support.) The current application is the second request for a 12 foot Variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback. In 2001, the Variance request was denied because that applicant did not demonstrate a hardship. The situation has not changed for staff to support the request for relief. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends denial of the Variance. The Planning Commission concurred with staffs findings and denied the Variance request. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. 2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and grant the appeal. In this case, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the Variance. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. Staff recommends Alternative #1. This requires a motion and second to adopt a motion and second to adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested Variance. However, should the City Council overrule the decision of the Planning Commission, the following conditions shall apply: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc 6 3. A revised survey shall be submitted with the building permit application indicating the location of the existing dwelling and proposed deck. An impervious surface worksheet shall also be submitted. ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: 1, Resolution 03-XX 2. Appeal letter 3. Location map 4. Survey , II 5'1J~ ' '!:.:anning Commission meeting minutes Frank 80 s, C' y anager L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report, doc 7 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 03-XX A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Tom and Dina Van Pelt have appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny a rear yard setback Variance for the construction of a deck addition on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) at the following location, to wit; 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The City Council has reviewed the application for the Variances as contained in Case #03-134PC, held a public hearing, and upheld the Board of Adjustment's decision hereon on December 1, 2003. 3. The City Council 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. Lot area and width Variances were granted in 2000 to allow for the construction of a reasonable use on the property. A reasonable use in this case is a single family dwelling, because the property is zoned R-1. The strict application of the rear yard setback does not create a practical difficulty, because access to the rear yard can be gained via the lower level patio door. The inability to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot deck does not constitute a hardship. In the past, the Board of Adjustment has not considered the inability to build a deck, when a patio door is present, an undue hardship or practical difficulty. 5. The rear yard setback applies to all properties in the R-1 use district. Since this a relatively new construction, a deck should have been designed in 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 conjunction with the dwelling that meets all required setbacks. If that was impossible, the contractor should have sought relief from required setbacks when the Variances were granted for lot area and width. 6. The granting of the rear yard setback Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property, because a single family dwelling is present on the property. If a deck was necessary, it should have been incorporated into the design of the dwelling. Moreover, the site currently has rear yard access with the lower floor patio door and platform deck. 7. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population by re~ulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented through required minimum yard setbacks. A Variance to reduce the required minimum rear yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. The Variance serves as convenience to the property owner. It is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty. If relief were necessary, a setback Variance would have been requested with the lot area and width Variances. 9. Although the applicant did not construct the dwelling, they designed a deck that encroaches into the required rear yard setback. The builder did not make a provision for a deck on the original Variance request, so the hardship results from the action of the applicant. 10. The contents of Planning Case #03-134PC 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 City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying the following Variance, as shown on Exhibit A- Certificate of Survey: (1) A 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear setback (Section 1102.405 (3)). 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc 2 Passed and adopted this 151 day of December, 2003. YES NO Haugen Blomberg LeMair I Petersen I Zieska Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc 3 PLAT OF SURVEY FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA \'1 Scale in \ \ \-----------,~~ \ \ \ \ ,\ ,------1z---1-----i \ ;1 \ \FD IP FD ip \ \ \ \ 1-________:____-1 \ \ 13 :=l ,.... \ \ I \ \ ) Jo \ \ ~, \-----;:x ------4 ;~ \ . , ~,....J' '0." .\ ((1'.):, V" I \ '?)" I' '_ t '. .- ,~, 14 (""'\ .~\ ~~.~t' \ / \ I~ (0~'"'\""''' \ ! / I '-~-l<~~~j(W~\ \ <: (( /R~KL;r.:-,.-r ..... ~ ~J '~I ,~,- F ;\) \\~ x,~ R~l~~ /\ li'~~ <;.t\ ~ - \ · "T' \ \ \.;~\ '- ,/!!~, \ I \ / .....\ f 0 - .~' ~..,~ \ \ \" ~ I. \ \ ~ 31\ '1~~ I \..~-GRAViL-... 'NB9'58'f: E -~ lQO. \.. I....",~ I I 0> -\ "." - -" '"\- \ \. .00\' -::j\ i'''\'.-\' ;\:.1/. __ '_ 0> .., \ \\' \' 0'1 \1 \ . I '. .... / HAlF" DECK ,., ~~,. 2; //'X// /;~~'/\//V/'\),.~ i 1h..~ '" --1 _ ! " UPPER ~li-- --I-~', l!l; \ rilOO \ ' \ ; 0 \ ~ (' \ "1PROP~SEl ~ I \ ' \ ~ ~\. .. ::~ \ ~ H\)~ ~} ~ $D~VfJi.A J / ~ I : ~ \ ~ ~"'II~- \.l \' ~ \.J:'" " 15 I, I J,.. ',- .-.... ..~ ..I \'~7'i'~\ _ \B'J.I... l(l ,\ \.. \ 'f' _ \;) ~--'2"'72-" -f- r".w \-'1- \ \' \. \ \,"' l~Y'v,,~ \", ~ :,; .~,;, ",I< :;; \ " 89\'4 \'44\ E'\ IOQ.08, , \ ". ' \- \ \ \,._1 \ \ ".,,~ ~ '<i- \ \ \' , \ \ \ \ \ 90"~ '. I \ \ . \, \ \,. " ",,\'0 \ \ ~" \ \ \ ".n \. c" ::-' ", .~; :7;: \ "', ",;1 .&~ ,',., 'I P I.' ~)~,,'" .,. \ \ .9c.~ ,0, \~ ~J :" :to ,-,I tJ \ '\ ' '\a) J I I \ \ ~ q ....~t""'-: \ \ \ \ \ \ I I / ., \ ~~~~. 1\ \ ,'" ,f?\ I.......' \S,,"'..,\ ",'" I \ I ~ T feet I o 30 60 ~-- ,.. r... ..... (" NOTE: THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT o IRON MONUME~T -0- POWER POLE m TELEPHONE BOX 1m GAS METER 'rf HYDRANT l><3 WATER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF (I 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER LOT 16. ELEVATION - 928.00 ....- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE , I I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02 ~~.,/ ~ A.r Reg, NoL8-t Z-l Date: 12._-/4 -0 0 '\,...., Hansen Thorp J I Pellinen Olson Inc. ~ l) Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Archlte( EXHIBIT A 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 (612) B29-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806 loole 8-31-00 l~k-t'9 107/61 ,_. _,"_'.. "h-' -'_"._ ....,,_. .. _. ~ __.'_. /O/3/n ~r.t~ (;0 1 /LC7z ~ /J f'hA_//' 1/e.Q/l 7r~1A.&f. - ) m@mowcg.rti I. . , , OCT313m I \ I ' _~i ,j} p~ IN- L~1ILj tn<-1- ra/ r d dL..~ 0; tzt /1~~ .ARre~-//- ~ jjrocfe P ~/ f~! ~~ ~ OJ!orA ;7~ !Ut:- ~ & ~ fff~ · . // /'-1/ ./7 ~ - .-1.._ " /7 d - / ~ fr 0jfPa-r - ~ ~07\. It:) ~ !/'vt(/?f ~-e- tf{~~~ ~a~/~ 1Po>~q. ~ flOUr ". (" VJ /,,7' I / 1/~ 1/;) ", q ~ _ . / tJJ"", (/l", /~ ~cu ~ ' /.t;~J-Lf tJc/~(/ C-ft24~-e, Itr; ~ . - - _oca'jon v1aJ ::or Van ::>e t Variance x \ \ Prior ..a <e . ....~~c~r;;~-I \ G) r m z o \~ ~l m \ ~ - ~ RUSTIC RD -~-~--- \- I I \ \ \ \ J . \ \ ~ Subject Property - \ \ ~ ~ / 200 I o 200 400 Feet I + PLAT OF SURVEY FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA , I \ \- - - - - - - - - - - 11.00 \ \ I I \ I I I ; \ r--------;7.-~----_l I ; I tfO IP FD~P \ I I I L------__::____-.J \ I "N'd "... \ \ I i3 d I \ ~O \ \ 0 \, ) \ \ <( ~-- \ - - - - ;\.\ - - - - - - \ ~ 1 d- ~ ;'-" I .?).:: ~",-" 202' -\ V I c,1-: CI, '"~ \0-- r ,0, \ S), d. ~ ..(, i4 \ ;. '" "" I r .." ~~: I" ~::. ~,.."\ \ / I I~ l~8) I) \~~j /,:": \ ~+~~\$(~~ji1~R~7 t i$.t:!: / ), "_\.lIMBER 'wAU.I\ \ R I \ \"?7.f'''\' b e-I . _ ,". W BfTV OUS oJ ! ( I I I 1\ \ ~. ~'f'E 'I \ -i6 \';" !j~'F \ \ I J J,~_~, ,/ ,1 I $ \ \1' ~~~\=~~ \.1 \ \ , \ p: / :"-SAND "'l~ I I~ \ \"\ - .:~ II .\1 ~ . -'. ~. Iv. ~I\ ~d t---lO-GRA'IU_ !IIi J -'\I' ' I 1M19'58'I!li" E\ ~~ lQO.~ ~I .. 1'......,\ \ 1 ~ & v"'~ ,/ ~C71 '-I 27.27 -fro ,- I · WI \ "i -~\'il"\"'l1l: 17, If / "! -\-. ~~ \ \ \ \ '\ \ '- 51'! \\ \ . a; \ 1 I ' Is) / I~ tlWER~\_~' \-/ '2. ; ~ NY';' ";TY\\ '\\~\ 3- ---1\ - '~ / / / m \ \ \ ~I: '\ 1Il ~~ \ 1l\ \~ ~ ) ~ ~:~ \ I ~ I ~ , / ~ STOllE .Ie 'tOIle. BBO \ _ \ ~ ."5:lRl- / 52 \ ' ~ \.~: -I , , Ci f .' #' ~!}~ ..h.. '"" t~\... ~'1 _1 5-l'"!:::\ _ \'3;.:1._ II! ", \ l' , \ '::t \':.p \;) --<24.12-' {:I\-" \. l.,/" \"1-' \'" '~\_ d,v'" \ \ , 11: ..' F ,,' 8.'4944 E' 1\08 '" '- ,-..'" I \ \ \. ..~~...... if: "b \\ \ " \ \ '. \ \ \ \\ \_ to'~ , I ... \ \ \ ' \. \ \ \ \ \ \ .1 " \' \ \ \ '"" \, \, \ .,: ',,, \ '''. f. ". .~" (,"Ii; \ , \ \ .0'10 to. '~ ..::., ":, '. ': " i "\ ': \a) I I I \ \ " q-<,;<;~ \ \ , \ \ \ I I I , ~,\,"..."," ...\~"')\..) \j\"~\ ~ Scale in feet I o 30 60 NOTE: THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT o IRON MONUME~T -0- POWER POLE m TELEPHONE BOX Illl GAS METER 'd HYDRANT 1><1 WATER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF * 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00 .......- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Sectlon 326.02 ~17"/ ~ 4- Reg. NoJ8~,2:-..l.Datf"l.~ -I_L/:-:a 0 1;1~ Hansen Thorp J I Pellinen Olson Inc. ~J '="l Engineers" Surveyors. Landscape Architects 00-047 \; } 'Oote 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644 (612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806 I, , I I Drown Checked LEI DBO Job No. 8-31-00 ~:;;SURVEY Mark Pool ConstructionW Deck Plan Scale 3/16" = l' 6/14/03 .. ~ 1 , /4' Glass Railing 12'-0" , 4'-0" t- =-1 .: 14'-0" -I Existing House APPLICA'l'IO~S & APPLICA'l'lO~ ~A' 1 J:~~lUALS L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc lo/~r/n ~~r t~ Cd; 1 ;M~ u:r /JROA ~r_ p~ eN- ~ jL;' ~ ~a/' OJ ~ dLu~ ~ tlt ~~ ~~A /)Je ffiorle -6 -&~ I~! ~~ d'>-- {)J~ J7'7( IU~ ~ & /k. ~~ ~ ~ -fi: ~~ 7z; tJi ck; J"d Cf{~~~ ~~/~ 0$4. ~yOU( ( VJ .~ iL;W- ~~~- /!f~J-Lf tJJ/J t-fJdte, k~~ ~: :'...- -') I r~, :--....~ :... f'~~ @ljO\YJugi..f'\\.. d I 'I:, l~ ~3 ,. 'i. : \, I :l Ul ~! l "*'"-........: -, ......,. .. Received of the sum of for the purpose of $ 1'i,cN CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 (952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245 f ~f7/~ / - I} I - -;.. .~.. RECEIPT # 45714 DATE:{OO~. ~ I, a-ro~ C" dollars Invoice # r!;7 J rW tor . I Receipt Clerk for the 1 of Prior Lake JIlt <2 .. ~.;. -- ~ 0 "'!"'.~-\'l \.." ~ j:~r'! 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 December 29,2003 Tom & Dina Van Pelt 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Appeal Case No.: 03-134 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Van Pelt: This letter is to officially inform you that on December 15, 2003, the City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance for the construction of a deck addition on property located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Enclosed please find two copies of Resolution 03-208 reversing the Planning Commission's decision. One copy is to be recorded at Scott County and the other copy is for your records. In addition, the enclosed Assent Form must be signed and returned to my attention prior to the issuance of any required permits. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~~ Planner Enclosure . www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 I Fax 952.447.4245 .'.. .._.,........_.._._,...,..;._-,....,.........._..a;~.t....""'..'"";~:.."',...;.._................. '-'.. w..-... .._._.....,._.... ""...... ,,~.....-...,,~~-.._...-........_,..........._ .........._._...__..__ ....... .'" 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 October 31 , 2003 Tom & Dina Van Pelt 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Appeal Case No.: 03-134 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Van Pelt: On October 31,2003, the City of Prior Lake received your appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a setback Variance for your deck addition. This letter is to inform you that the application is complete. The public hearing for the appeal will be held by the City Council on December 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as possible at Prior Lake Fire Station No.1, 16776 Fish Point Road SE (southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road). A City Council agenda and report will be mailed to you on November 26,2003. If you have any questions regarding the appeal process, please feel free to contact me at 447-9813. Sincerely, - Cynthia R. Kircho , Planner ':'ff;.. .~ , ' ICP . www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 d PRl~ f::: ~~ 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. u Wt:1 Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 ~ November 26,2003 Tom and Dena Van Pelt 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the December 1, 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 CarCson Connie Carlson Planning Secretary Enclosure . I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 ...,..,:-~.;.;......~..J........ .. 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 December 11, 2003 Tom & Dina Van Pelt 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the December 15, 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 CarCson Connie Carlson Planning Secretary Enclosure . 1:\deptwork\blankfrm\meeUrcc.doc www.cityofpriorJake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 November 24, 2003 Prior Lake City Council 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 Re: Tom and Dina Van Pelt appeal Dear City Council Members: We are writing regarding the appeal of Tom and Dina Van Pelt at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN. Tom and Dina are friendly and respectful neighbors. Their relatively new home is incomplete without this deck. Sincerely, ~()~ t- 64/ /j:J~ jl, d Martha Frommelt and David Feldshuh ~~ owners of 14612 Oakland Beach Ave. SE. 308 Elmwood Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 12/01/2003 16:26 Fax 612-571-1252 ~-~ ~~l4 ~.c To: {2A.t 01- ;/;/{..I/' ~"..c.- L.J. MILLER LAWRENCE J. MILLER 1095 Polk Circle Minneapofis. MN 55421 Phone: 763-571-1087 Fax: 763-571-1252 From: ,I.. A/k.- Fax: qf'~- 0/'17- tfz'/r Fax: Date: /2.-/-oJ P.,es: / Ae: Vv/'l7t..4e ~ /' e-r ";~!1 .I- ~~. ~.M a-. .J7~ /h_ /~/r ,IlrY" /l , . /,/-e44/"'7 5 I7c"P T.- e" "/7) c. PAGE 01 12/01/2003 16:26 612-571-1252 L.J. MILLER PAGE 02 Lawrence J. Miller 1095 Polk Circle - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421 763-571 ~ 7087 December 1, 2003 Mayor Jack Haugen Councilmember Chad LeMair Councilmember Andrea Bloomberg Councilmember Jim Peterson Council member Joseph Zieska City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Dear Mayor Haugen and Councilmembers, J am writing to express my thoughts about an item on the agenda for the City Council Meeting on December 1, 2003. I would like to encourage the Council to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of a variance request by Tom and Dina VanPelt for their property at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. Please grant the necessary variances to allow a deck to be built onto their home. My family owns the property at 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue, immediately South of the VanPelt's property (shown on their survey as unplatted), We have owned the lots for 50 years, and this was the site of our summer home for 30 years, I am very familiar with this neighborhood and the unique land problems of this area. Granting the variance to allow a deck to be built will be a win-win situation for all involved, without any negative effects to anyone. The home was designed for a deck, and it needs a deck to complete the home, This lot is very small. but it includes a common waterfront area on the plat, that adds about another 100 feet to the waters edge, Granting this variance will not adversely affect the setback from the lake. The proposed deck will not took out of place in the area. When homes are built on our property, the structures and/or decks will most likely extend further to the west, toward the lake, than the proposed deck for the Van Pelts. A home two lots North of the subject property has been remodeled every direction, and has an existing deck and raised patio area extending at least as far as the VanPelts proposed deck, The council has recently granted variance requests far exceeding the nature of this request In May of 2002, the council granted several variances for the home just two lots away, at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue, which allowed an addition to be buill within inches of the property line. It would be rather inconsistent to not allow this deck to be built. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. ;/ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) (j;f1IA1~ ~ Jt!tZ ~f the City of Prior Lak,e, <;:oun~ of Scott, State of Minnesota, being duly (wok, says on the ~ day o~~. , 2003, she served the attached li5.t of persons to have an interest in the }I Ml ./ f!I~..fL a~ J ~lj / , by mailing to them a copy1hl;eof,~ .. 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 , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\MAlLAFFD.DOC ~o~ PRIO~ (' t: ~ U trl ~ESV 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK ADDITION 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, December 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPEAL: The Planning Commission's decision to deny a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance for a deck addition. APPELLANT: Tom & Dina Van Pelt SUBJECT SITE: 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as Lot 16, Oakland Beach, 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. Prepared this 20th day of November 2003. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner City of Prior Lake To be mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject site on November 20, 2003. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\Mailed F:'ubli,l:: I-!ea.ring Notice.doc www.cltyotpnorlaKe.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLAT OF SURVEY FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA , , I \- - - - - - - - - - - 11.00, I \ , 1 , 1 I I ,------;9."- -----I , I \ro N' FD~P \ L---____~---J \ , ';'''''1 .... \ \ 1 13.cd \ I 9'0\ \0\1/1 I \ <( ::~ r---'~~--!'::;~\-----20~1 f{ vII "'/~ () \ ....3\:..1 , ..." ~ ~ I~. lL .,1, 14 ." \ r (r~ .'\ ~~;~V \ /' ~ ~ ( ~~~j O~..S'~.. \ \ I I ) <~ I / L I \"~\\((7 /' ">L;"'-' ~-J l ~PM1o..~lOCKS-I 1/' ,j I I " ~.;. '\ .\~2 \, ,I \ .' /f~-SANDAll~ I,~ \ \: - "'~II ,II " , .. , h, ~. ~ \111\ ~~~ \.~-GR^,"l- J. -'\I' ' 'N811'58'~ E\ . ~ lllO.i1 ~I ., I..~,l\ \ I ~ v"'E' // g'-\ '1.27 -f::j 'l- I ..~\\ \-~~ ,',,\"'i'(r\: . I ,'_ I "'.. . --\- \!!}, I I \ \ !II II \ _.,; I \ " ~ I !l! ~n., HALF DECK "'..-:;..' / "Y;\;~~' )/-,,\//"""/'\ :;, aL...~ ':1. -1 - " I 1:1 ~ '""11' UPPER LEo,ur - - . _j-< :.:::::: ; I ~ l(~OO \ \ } \ . \ h) \ ~ I / / I ~ \ ,'I \ f ~\ ;:;;....:::::: ~~ \ ~ 1l\ \~. ~,I :1 \' d~~ J / ~ f . ~ ',/;0, STONE" 'CONC. BBO _ I t! ill . ,,::,::: , \.t. \,' _ . _', I I , Ci I' 'of' '\-,,~ . h. ..? ...\ .1 \'~7T".._lp...,'L1() 'Ij, I \ ~ \\ & ~: '~,;. \;;> ...... ,,--'~..72-' ~-BlI'41a'44 'f \l~.O~ \ ",""'-. ,,,,,"\J~Y""'~ \ i \ \ .;11<>' ".:,~ if: '~d' \ \\ \ \ \ '\ \ \ '\ \, \ \ \ \ - \ \ f110lO \ I \ \ \ \ \ \. \ :~ '..., ~ ' ,1 '\ \ " ' " \ " ", " .,: ,,, ~ co. 'f. '\ t,,,:,;,'.t \ '" \ \ .pq.1 ;.9, \~ ~~ ":~ ....." .~~ oj ,,'J' ~: l~ A} J I , \ \ '- '. q \..-'" \ \ , \ \ \ \ \\ I . I ' '" A"~ \ I '", ,,~ \'C..."" ,'" \~j\..)'^" NOlE: \J\", THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT THIS TIME. , , \ I ~ Scale in feet I o 30 60 1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ PROPOSED DECK LEGEND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOWEST FLOOR 909,9 FT GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT o IRON MONUME~T -0- POWER POLE W TELEPHONE BOX 1m GAS METER 't:f HYORANT l><3 WATER VALVE OE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATIONS --- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF * 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00 I II I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I om 0 duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02 ~J?"/ F 4- Reg. No18-f Z-l Dale:j~n~..L!1-.o 0 Drawn Checked 1;'''''' H a n sen Th orp . J Pellinen Olson Inc. ? ~l Engineers. Surveyors' Landscape Architects 00-047 , l.:J Dole LEI DBO Job No. 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644 (612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806 8-31-00 I:lk-Pg 107/61 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DECK ADDITION 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, December 1, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPEAL: The Planning Commission's decision to deny a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance for a deck addition. APPELLANT: Tom & Dina Van Pelt SUBJECT SITE: 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as Lot 16, Oakland Beach, 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. Prepared this 7th day of November 2003. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on November 15, 2003. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\Published Hearing Notice.doc RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 ~~ \)~ DAVID C & JOAN REMBOLD 1 0535 PARKER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 - -.- -., .. -4O - ,.,_ ~~.i {L-l {......-.....w, &:'-':>4 ~.:'''f"'I~._._ REMB535* ~S3~7aO~i i~03 ib ~ila~1 RETURN TO SENDER REMBOLD i~boa OAKLAND BEACH AVE SE PRXOR LAKE MN 5537a-i~i5 RETURN TO SENDER \ Ii lill\lilllii lilllill\,illllUlllli II illlllllillll\II' ,11l11 111"1' "I" U III"~ '11"1"""11'1"1"11"11' if ""'1"1'111 't.'\ ....'t.$o\oL...~s... RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED \~~b\{-C;,~Z#p. ~ .~'"'.~ It: US.I NOV20'03 I ~ ~ .1 - . J.. =-_ 0 ~~ M'N~ P.R....ElEft. ,;/ 605S715 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 -. \~ ~ of'J DAVID C & JOAN REMBOLD 10535 PARKER DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 S:;~12.-i1&? r.n REMB535* S53~7aO~i i~03 ~b iila~1 RETURN TO SENDER REMBOLD i~boa OAKLAND BEACH AVE SE PRXOR LAKE MN 5537a-i~i5 RETURN TO SENDER i I \ Ii II \ 11111 i\ 11111 \ 111, lit IIH III i\ II \ 1\ 1111 i\ III i\, III \ 11 Ii