The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-135 Hines Appeal APPLICA'l'IO~S & APPLICA'l'IO~ ~Arl'ERlALS L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC r~" . " . ---.:.....:....:.:.',;;--......-...................---~ '. ..:..~...:... . {f PR~ o/F\E CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 (952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245 Received of t l;\1LLL1 ~ 'i-- 5-c\,~ thesurno! ~~~~V01l-<-C for the purpose of .. A .~ <-t'V ~~ (!)~ - l:,S- $ 1~,~ , I \ \ RECEIPT # 45715 DATE: ~ ~, · O~ dollars ,f}/' i1' ~!uL C/:i1M,~ 'j()~- Invoice # e'n1,C~ Receipt Clerk for the CYOf Prior Lake HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Telephone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail:HGB\aJuriorlakelaw.com r~r @ {g 0 \:'ll~: 1\ 11, \ .-,8_ I ~ I / } '_ 1 .L/ JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GONTAREK BRYCE D. HUEMOET.T FR December 2, 2003 Cynthia R. Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.B. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 SENT VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Re: Hines Building permit 2719 Spring Lake Road SW Dear Ms. Kirchoff: Please be advised that I represent Mr. Hines in regard to the above matter. It was addressed at the City Council meeting last evening on Mr. Hines Variance Appeal that a building permit for Mr. Hines has been approved for the above address. My client's understanding of that permit, after meeting with the City Planner, City Engineering and a Building Inspector on November 24, 2003, is that the City is requiring Mr. Hines as a condition of his permit to put in a sewer line for the neighboring property. My understanding is that the current sewer line is on Mr. Hines property but services both homes. Mr. Hines also believes that he is required to make the connection to the existing sewer line which is located beyond his lot line in the road right-of-way. Mr. Hines understanding was that it is the City's policy to provide a line to the property line. If this is a condition of the permit, Mr. Hines does not understand why he is required to put a sewer line in for the neighboring home when his property has the sewer line already in place? Mr. Hines does not understand why he is required to put in the sewer line from the main to the property line when he was advised that this is not consistent with City policy? Please contact me in regard to 1) if Mr. Hines understanding of the sewer requirement is correct; and 2) If so, what authority, statute, ordinance, or policy is the City relying upon to impose this condition on Mr. Hines as a requirement of obtaining his building permit. December 2, 2003 Page 2 I would appreciate a prompt response since Mr. Hines was hopeful of starting his project before December 2003. If I should direct this inquiry to another party I would appreciate you advising me as such. Sj~ A), Dean G. Gavin cc: Phil Hines DEe. 2.2003 1:42PM NO. 1352-P. HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 T.J.pbODe: 952.44702131 Facsimile: 952A47.5628 E-maiJ:RCB(@DriorlakelawMlIII JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GONTAREK BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE: December 2, 2003 TO: Cynthia R. Kirchoff, City of Prior Lake FAX NO: 952-447-4245 FROM: DEAN G. GAVIN, Esq. RE: Building permit, sewer line letter to City PAGES: COMMENTS: 3 including this cover sheet Confidentiality Notice: This document accompanying this fax contains confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the telecopied information except its direct delivery to the intended recipient named above is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please notify me immediately by telephone to arrange for return of the original documents to us. DEC. 2. 2003 1: 42PM -NO. 1352-P. 2 HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA S537~ relepholle: '52.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.44'7.56211 E-mail:HGB(ii)prinrlaktJlIw.cGlll JAMES D. BATES ALUSONJ.GONTAREK BR YCE D. HUEMOELLER December 2, 2003 Cynthia R. Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 SENT VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Re: Hines Building permit 2719 Spling Lake Road SW Dear Ms. Kirchoff: Please be advised that I repl'esent Mr. Hines in regard to the above matter. It was addressed at the City Council meeting last evening on Mr. Hines Variance Appeal that a building permit for Mr. Hines has been approved for the above address. My client's understanding of that permit, after meeting with the City Planner, City Engineering and a Building Inspector on November 24, 2003, is that the City is requiring Mr. Hines as a condition of his permit to put in a sewer line for the neighboring property. My understanding is that the current sewer line is on Mr. Hines property but services both homes. Mr. Hines also believes that he is required to make the connection to the existing sewer line which is located beyond his lot line in the road right-of-way. Mr. Hines understanding was that it is the City's policy to provide a line to the property line. If this is a condition of the permit, Mr. Hines does not understand why he is required to put a sewer line in for the neighboring home when his property has the sewer line already in place? Mr. Hines does not understand why he is required to put in the sewer line from the main to the property line when he was advised that this is not consistent with City policy'? Please contact me in regard to 1) if Mr. Hines understanding of the sewer requirement is correct; and 2) If so, what authority, statute, ordinance, or policy is the City relying upon to impose this condition on Mr. Hines as a requirement of obtaining his building permit. DEC. 2.2003 1:42~M 'NO. 1352-P. 3-- December 2. 2003 Page 2 J would appreciate a prompt response since Mr. Hines was hopeful of starting his project before December 2003. If I should direct this inquiry to another party I would appreciate you advising me as such. S~~elY' J ~ .~ Dean G. Gavin cc: Phil Hines ~ ~ <03-1~~ Resolution and ~inutes , l!e~ 12-/\\03 ~\ 03 -dD, L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC City Council Meeting Minutes December 1, 2003 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. Hauaen: Asked the City Manager to clarify the rationale for removing the signs. Bovles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and the process involved in making the change, indicating that a request had been made to remove the No Parking signs since the high school moved. Residents were notified and no one opposed the proposal. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, APPROVING RESOLUTION 03.198 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FROM HURON STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Truth.ln-Taxation Hearing for Proposed 2004 City Budgets Bovles: Reviewed the proposed 2004 budgets and its impacts upon the taxpayer in 2004 in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. No persons were present to address the Council. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMalr: Pleased with the budget that is proposed in that the City has recovered from the cuts in state aid, that there are no reduction in City services, and that the City will continue to move toward its 2020 Vision. Blombera: Commented that in a time when money is tight for many people, it is important to hold the City property taxes in line when possible. This budget allows the addition of an economic development position which is very important in planning for the future of Prior Lake. Councilmembers agreed with the comments of LeMair and Blomberg. No further formal action was required. Consideration of the final budget will take place at the December 15, 2003 regular meeting. Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Construction of a Single- Family Dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road (Hines). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, advising of the Planning Commission's recommendation that a reasonable use is available for the property without relief from ordinances and the granting of the variance is a convenience. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes December 1, 2003 Blomberq: Asked if the required shoreland setback is 75 feet, and if averaging has been used to reach the conclusion that a 50 foot shoreland setback is acceptable, which already provides the applicant some relief. Kirchoff: Confinned. Petersen: Commented that with the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 12, he was hesitant about providing any lesser setback given the circumstances on the front yard. At this point, supported the Planning Commission recommendation, unless other information is presented during the public hearing. LeMair: Asked the front yard setback. Also asked if the rear porch is within the 50 foot shoreland setback. Kirchoff: Advised that the required front yard setback in an R-1 zoning district is 25 feet, unless the averaging provision of the ordinance is applied. In that case the front yard setback can be an average of those setbacks within 150 feet of the property, but not less than 20 feet. In this case, averaging is used and the minimum front yard setback would be 20 feet. Advised that the survey shows that the porch is proposed to be 50.1 feet from the OHW of Spring Lake. Zieska: Commented that averaging can also be used on the rear yard, but cannot be less than 50 feet. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Dean Gavin (attorney for Mr. Hines): Submitted a position paper in reference to the appeal dated November 26,2003. In reference to the reconstruction of CSAH 12 indicated that the County Engineer has advised in writing that granting the variance would not adversely impact the road reconstruction project. (Referenced Exhibits B, C & D of the position paper). Also noted that neighboring houses are approximately 9 feet and 6 feet from their respective lot lines. Clarified that the variance requested is to allow the house to be 13.6 feet from the lot line. Believed that the artificial shallowness of the ordinance creates an undue hardship upon Mr. Hines. Did not believe there is a factual basis in the record to support the findings in the proposed resolution paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8, referencing off-street parking, impacts upon the CSAH 12 reconstruction project, public safety, and unreasonable impact upon the character of the neighborhood. Commented that the building permit was approved, but has not been issued. The plan approved required the house to be moved 11 feet to the west in oreler to have a side loading garage. The issue of the garage has apparently no been fully resolved and thus the permit has not been issued. Based upon this set of circumstances, believed granting the variance was appropriate. Phil Hines (2719 Spring Lake Road): With respect to the off-street parking and the garage, advised that the Planning Department and Building Dept. have advised that his vehicles will not be able to make the tum into the garage area for the side loading garage. LeMair: Asked if the architect and builder were aware that they designed a building that won't fit within the setback requirements. Hines: Advised that many of the features were reduced in size in order to minimize the impacts the structure would have on the lot. Having a lakeside deck or porch is essential for lakes hare properties, and standard depth of a house is 28 feet which we meet. A 24 foot garage does not fit on the lot, which is the reason for the 19 foot garage. The rear porch is 12' x 12'. Advised that he lived in the property prior to demolition. The comparison being made with the other new construction in the neighborhood is that in measuring from the OHW mark to the center of the road are the same depth from the lake. The road right-of-way abutting his property is greater than that property. That property is also a non-conforming lot and did not have the same constraints. 3 City Council Meeting Minutes December 1, 2003 Zieska: Asked why the variance request isn't for a lesser lakeshore I rear yard setback. Hines: Advised that he was told that the City would not grant a variance from the lake setback so it seemed more likely that a front yard variance would be granted. In order to have the right proportion from building cost to land cost, it makes more financial sense to move the structure toward the road rather than closer to the lake. Also believed that a front yard setback is less invasive that a rear yard setback. Blomberq: Asked where the garage will be. Hines: Advised that the garage is in the same location and that the whole house has been shifted to the west. Instead of entering from the front, the garage loads from the side. Neither of the vehicles currently owned can pull into the driveway and make the turn into the garage: With the 6 foot variance, the garage could be re-designed to be front-loading. LeMair: Asked why a rambler style home was chosen, given that they take up a larger footprint. Hines: Commented that this style was the most cost-effective per square foot given the walk-out lot. A two story structure poses other issues. HauClen: Asked the interior living space of the structure. Hines: Believed it to be approximately 3600 square feet plus the garage. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Asked the square footage of the building. Kirchoff: Corrected testimony given by advising that including the garage, the square footage of the building is 4500 square feet. The transcript indicates that the footprint of the building is 1800 square feet. Also advised that this lot is just over 12,000 square feet. If created today, it would need to be 15,000 square feet to be conforming. Blomberq: Commented that in an attempt to accommodate the needs of the applicant, front yard and rear yard setback averaging has been applied. Believed there is not a hardship in requiring a slightly smaller structure. The house used as a comparison was on a non-conforming lot and thus under a different set of circumstances. Did not believe a variance is appropriate in this case. Petersen: Asked why the garage can't be entered from the front. Kirchoff: Clarified that the building permit submitted in September that has been approved but not picked up has a front loading garage, but no rear porch. The plans showing the end-loading garage and rear porch was a second submittal and has not been approved. Without the deck, the structure can be moved back 12 feet and then accommodate the front loading garage. 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. 4 .,~...-t.~~""""",,,,""""'~""~-'''~-';_.. . ....,-~ .~._, ".' .. ..' ..-.....,-_......-~......~.......~,..-~.~~~._..-_.._.""......_-..- . -' .~.,......;..~-.~. 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 6D-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 SE (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. . - Zieska: Asked if the difference_between a deck and balcony is that a deck has ground support and can therefore be a larger structure. 5 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 03-207 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 6.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: LEMAIR WHEREAS, Phillip Hines applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code to allow a 13.6 foot front yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts and located at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: plo of Lot 3, Lot 4, and plo of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File 03-114, 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, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, 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 does not meet the criteria for granting Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code. 3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested Variance should be upheld, and said Variance should be denied. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Phillip Hines appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 30,2003. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc .ty f . I k WWW.CIOpnOrae.com Page 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. c. 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. d. The buildable area is 80 feet in width by 56 feet in depth, so the physical conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties or an undue hardship. The planning department has approved a building permit to construct a dwelling, so it is evident that the conditions of the property do not preclude a reasonable use from being constructed on the property without a Variance. e. The conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to maintain front, side, and shoreland setbacks. f. The granting of the front yard setback Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The planning department has approved a building permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the property meeting all required setbacks. g. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population be 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 front yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. h. The Variance will serve as convenience to the property owner because there is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the property owner to locate the house 13.6 feet from the front property line. This is not the only location for the house as the planning department has approved a plan for the applicant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks. i. The alleged hardship results directly from the actions of the property owner. The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The applicant made the decision to design and locate a dwelling that encroached into the front yard setback. j. The average setback provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allowing a 20 foot front yard setback and 50 foot shoreland setback have already given relief to the applicant. k. The City Council finds there is a legal alternative for the placement of a new dwelling meeting all Zoning Ordinance requirements on this site without the need for any variances. I. The City Council disagrees with Mr. Hines' testimony that the variance is necessary in order to "have the right proportion of building cost to land cost." Section 1108.406 of the City Zoning Ordinance states "[i]ncreased construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a variance." 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 2 m. The City Council rejects the appellant's argument that a Variance must be granted if the proposed variance allows the property owner to define the reasonable use of the property. Reasonableness is a decision for the City Council to make based on evidence in the record relating to the specific property for which a variance is being sought. 5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-114 and Planning Case File 03-135 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003. I Haugen I Blomberg I LeMair I Petersen I Zieska YES X X X X X NO {Seal} Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zie~ka _ Ci~ M:J::!.J1 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 3 Overheads Presentation ~aterials L\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC ~fYI-~of --I-of-c, od- ~tj o-n 16/27/03 ~1~~ JE;/!; Spo;(} J'l,h R} - , , , ---- ........ - - - - - - - - , I , , , , -- ~-<'.} ,c,,~ 'Qt-~ - ~~+. /,~s ...... / '- I ' / / ( \ , -<..P.p ~ -.... , , ~CY' "- , ,/ ~ -~, ~..4-~ Qo-~~ -C - rc", ,,' --1>04.0 - --.. , , I I / I , , tI , , >-.. -- -, -- , ,rWo~J; r--.... , jIJ6rly Ilns /' '1-- , /"~8,O'L.Ot.s, / .g / ',_ ~oo JSE &- < <'kb -, \ ,-;'}r----, <I ~< 7C.Ck 4/ (\.1.1 (,' ,.. --,' (rlM1 . . (.>'1 " V, ~-r------J lJ / \ ' \ ,---... l' I \ / \ .. ......J.?.?, /~46, 'r, J.. \,: 'J~) I .....J.... 9 r HBt ;-~--..J... /_. _ "CO' / 1."1 ,:/' ...' j v.~ ---- V- ~.,-/ \'f' " I "...... .... ,'!i), , """;li I 'I ... / I,' .......... . . ... "':'-1' " / ...,... \ \' I..., /' ,.... .....\. ~ ' ~"'--'--. 9':1 ,/ / 9<<lfi.~r _J \j! .~ .~ rlA, ,__:-"~I~ _ I !,~...... ",'/ f) ~ (l'-~r '~s:~'1 ..9<'s.J / , ,~.... ,"II / !::) fX1'-1'''-iG ~ \' ~ ~,' I I : _'~.l....... '1 ", ~ S:J - .,::J II q,~_ . /~~." / \ ,~12...... J,Q8 I "~ t ,o,,'f..t I'> , r-~~:._~:o~ (ro~EiE.Y~1 ," A12 ~ .J-o, gt(,,\ k~ ;.----6--. .~' I ^'-, / ~ '" .9 j-"~____ \ 1/ :, . ....J / & '" r;\ q r,,'~-_'-.-:'- \ t~ '.i.._ ~ /// CI) , / ! /'" _ ._--~. I 11) /-- CI) -..., I- _.' " --~._~ I, $)..-b / .~ ,'I ". 'I ,~...//-- '\ I OJ ~/ / - - '89 C\ I I ' ,,,' -..- " -- -~ I I ~ ~. / - ~- - . - . -;;-,_ ',78 /r-_:__:'E X'/S:Tf"!.Q B~G~_ \ / l' '< ;0 of ~//i----':~~;-~~~~~:'~(Y,/t ' ~ 5" (~~;\j ".--............ '~~ ,,; _~--=-L;.," f> ~, f\ &l [XIS7INC (/) rJ /1'7 I / ---""""".978 9/9 /""'- -ii.~! /1 '!' /'~\' BUILDING ~ ~ r,v.Y I , wRt ~~ ,~;;f-'!98,' (~ '- " (-' I I \ l.." ~ r BW12 ( " :1 I I , ; ..... / \ ~ I , J "''''..j ....... \ I I I I " ,\ "/( '\ " (I '.7 ' I I I " 1, <.7/ \/\ " I I / " / "I ). ) " I I,-~)r-::-,r-l-)I Ir-,' I I. "!. "" /r'f-t.,y ) I / - '\ - -, I / Q1' ..".:,...(/:-' / " I I I \ L_ '-" L_ I \ V L_, / I -".:< / '. I I _ I I /. /c, -J \ / I /- -97<:- / I I 86)(. A;~"" / ,"'" J I / ."....... " / / --"J~V /-j-\':J /,' -~------ PROPOSED BUILDING -t:;:~2/ ~fj'b,'/I (<0 /;/ / AND FUTURE PORCH ,-_\;71 / t:'f'hV?b :t,' / 9/7 Y ,/ (SEE DETAIL) / \..,,,-_, II I,' ......... / I :;1 ,/ / - I / ," ,',' I /\ ~\ / ,~ry \. r:~ t\...~ 9/6 /~ /" \\,.' /lJfJ 0 r---.J "V ,,/ -} ,~. I " / 1115 ' ; I , I )I".., " .9,., I I '<<9, ,I' " ~/ --- -- -- --- I , I I , / , ,<<> '~ ,'CQ , / 922 921 -- 00 -- , f ~ -- p~< --- --- .....:.!/ 9<'1 --- I tJS'T)J FENci · T~'$ , TIIV: I11~ , i " , I , , , , I , , , ,'..... Ie:> ,ct) , , , , , I , ~orG': ?~roSE @ ~.9' 5u~~ '1:c ~e \~ Z;:.,,:-: , , 978 916 917 . C'lty of Prior lal<e does not guaranteet ~~l 01 this documen. ~7.~,~~~~~os mus\ be verilied in the lie\\l TREE 8'2 ':~ . liE. . ,.. -"';.1 DtNO TE'S ! 8W14 DENOTES 86 DENOTES 8f3O DtNO TES (~B14 DENO TES ~J (-:M14 DENOTES .J .J... "'.~. I...... ~,.--. ?R/HC LAKE' of Ice '4Jevation 910.3' 2/21/2003 - SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PH IL ..HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., F? A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ) m@m uwrn JM , '1991 \\ ~ SPRING 9z5.uLAI(E 11 ROAD · 92..9~O. 11 ~~ ..1 -~ ;os ~ ."".....::-- ~ F'O.,.,." . GARAGE ILAB EL.921.40 , ' ~ 1..41(r- L.. 9 c.;;; 1 09 1 /1 .8 ., /9 DESCRIPrION AS PROVIDED: 6 ~ The westerly One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land between said f.ots and lying' southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring lake, i.n Spring r,ake Townsi te, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pa.rt 01: portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the prof~sed NOTES' Benc~~rk Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 928.1 ,(, Denotes existing grade elevation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations t Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 ~ I The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 Net Lot Area = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. R VISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED D'CK I iereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am 0 duly licensed Land Surveyor under the I?~.~ the Stat~.:~pfJ4.inn~sota >',7 ;{' " .,' ^,;:' , I/a" J .A, ~" ,., ,,,'" I' .< ...; .- _ _ L"l.~ .., "'",(' I. ~" . , .~. , ",# ...."j>..... .... ," '-~;"J..;::4'/:..>,+/ ' "">"l..,.c",,,.,. Date II., te:>" "'1 k:fi License No. 10183 o ~ SCALE 30 I IN 60 I FEET o Denotel 1/2 inch x 14 inch iron monument lit and marked by License No. 10/83 . Denotes iron monument found ~ Denotes P. K. Nail set FILE No. 8425 BOOK 211 PAGE 39 ~ , g'~4 -~ . --... ~ .~ . -.......::: --... .----.... .~ .~ .~ .. -.-....-... EXTSTTNC CONTOUR EXTSTTNC SPOT ElEVA T10N - FENCE I" ~." 'J CONCRETE SURFACE --<m>-- PROPOSED CONTrJUR 1JtJII.lHNC PERMIT SlAi'.cy PREPARED FOR: 1/ .. 1/ caiSTRVCTTai -I07rJ EAU CI.A1RE TRAIL PRIOR lAKE. MN 55.:172 -- B ~. ': -- "": !\,', ..: " ''',' l' v ""'" 1\ , L. " .~ :/ "'. ~,' ~ 20 01020 ~~ Scale III Feet . DCNOTES RON IIONf.IfENT rouND- o DCNOTES RON IIONf.IfENT SET AND MARKEl) BY MINNCSOTA LICCNSC NO. 1018J -- / / r-- -- / / / / / / / / / LECEH.fJ (3 ASH TREE (DIA) ~: <3 <<'--= SPRlICE TREE (HGr.) BIRCH TREE (DIA) BOXEWE!? TREE (DIA.) MAPLE TRfI (DIA) -=-o";o":w::"'C........-..-~ ROCK WAU - ':If' --- - - 9~~.~ - _ "'"" - - - - C"Ob~ -;26~_ 4'04.b Ha - - - - - _ _ _ . '../1 rsP~...v~ ~"?'- - _ _ _ - - _ _ 926.5 ~ ~ - - _ -- 't:J4.b../ """1 I I I '26....----.--' / / / / G\l" ,"0 ~ / ~"1- / ,".. \ .. ~\l""'~ / f--- / \~..' / __/ 'II / /' --/ / / /--... / ...: -- / "': \ / \../ I I B " .~ ~ v ,7--' " :,' , , --.. !f/ .. I L. 9;0 Sp 9'09 "': ~,' ~ /...v c 4'~4' p .., ?' /O/J' ~ 4~ 06'/ 00/ O~ .9~0 ~ .4' ",' ~: LEGAL lk~........ TION AS PRO"'OED: -",. _tllrly 01. Hoff of Lol ~ and Lol 4; and tM Et#tllrly 01. Half of Lot ~ ell in Block 46. and a $~ af land b.I,",1IfI said Lol$ and l)ing $OUlhllrly Ih.,..,f and Ih. walllf'$ ~ of Spring Lalrll, In Spring Lair. Torm$illl, L..~ ':",g 10 th. plol Ih.,..,f 011 "'" and of ,1WCOI"d in Ih. Omc. of Ih. R.I,.",. of DfHI<b in and for 6tZId Scott County. Mlnn_la. Indldlng any pari or Port"'" of any ,1,...1 or "'''y otJutting ,old pnrn/$n VfJCat<<f Dr 10 ". VfJCat<<l, Scott Counly. IJinnn<>to. A/sa $/lowing Ih. /tx:t1lian of Ih. propO$<<f houlltl thl, 81h day of S."ltlmb.,-, 200.1 NOTES: -",. ..Ilng ItJwal fk10r of th. houlltl 10 b. ,..",.,KHf /$ al "'.KIlian 920..17 S.I Ih. propDHd lop of block ot -'-KII/on 9.11.>> S.I tM prDpDHd ~ Mob ot "'.KIlian 9.11.00 --",. p. ',' ., .' ItJrrat "oar "*1 ". ot -'-"'tlon 922. 4J NO S1CN1F1CANT TREFS ro BE REMOveD lJt,f1IlIC CONS7RI.IC71ON CONTRACroR ro 'l€RIFY HOUse OIAENS/ONS PRIOR ro CONSTRUC71ON @1> PROPOSED SPOT EUVA T10N PROPOSED DIREC710N OF FTNISHE:D SURFACE DRAINAGE - VALLEY SUR'CYfNG co., P.A. 16670 FRANKliN TRAIl. SE SUITE 2JO PRIOR LAKE; UN 55J72 (952) 447-2570 -- -- OCT I 4 2003 .j u'--'-' ---.....;-./ I REVISED 10/08/03 per City of Prior Lake co~ments. jog in garage. stoop I hereby certify that this topographic building permit sur-.ey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Sur-.e)Or u(lder the laws of the State of Minnesota. ..-- '? . '~l0"V /J I /'--- ~d A. swa;;s"67,7 Scott AI. Swanson Minnesota License No. 10183 Minnesota r:;;ense No. 42309 Doted this _~~___ day of _ fJ~ /vk.___ ;003 Dote of original signature 09/13/03 nLE NO. 97J.J BOOK 2010 PAGE 78 _ocation Via) ':or Hines Variance ,SHORELI E BLVD I Spring __a_<e 200 , o 200 400 Feet I N + 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DECEMBER 1, 2003 7B 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 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (Case File #03-135) INTRODUCTION: Historv: On October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission denied Phillip Hines' request for a front yard setback Variance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW (legally described as pia of Lot 3, Lot 4, and pia of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite). The Commission found that there was no hardship, because Mr. Hines could redesign the dwelling to comply with the setback requirement. The Commission further remarked that they did not support the encroachment on CSAH 12. Sackaround: 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 30,2003, Dean Gavin, attorney for Mr. Hines, appealed the Planning Commission's decision. DISCUSSION: Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R- UMD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property was platted as part of Spring Lake Townsite in the 1850s, and is a 12,811 square foot riparian lot on Spring Lake. Access is gained via Spring Lake Road or CSAH 12. A 220 square foot house maintains a nonconforming shoreland setback, which is not to be altered with this application. If removed, it must meet setbacks. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc rupulN...,of}:tiorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 The survey indicates the roadway surface is 56 feet from the property line. However, portions of CSAH 12 were not constructed in the dedicated right-of-way. CSAH 12 is scheduled for reconstruction in the upcoming years. Scott County is currently in the design phase of the project. Further comment concerning CSAH 12 right-af-way is presented under the Issues section of this report. On October 3, 2003, the City issued a demolition permit to remove the house from the property. On September 15, 2003, the appellant's contractor applied for a building permit to construct the same single family dwelling that is proposed with this request on the property, without the porch. The proposed dwelling complies with all required setbacks, so the planning department approved the building permit application, and it is ready to be issued. Issues: In order to construct the 4,532 square foot single family dwelling on the property, the appellant is requesting 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance. The proposed dwelling is a walkout rambler style with a 3-stall garage. Table 1 details the required and proposed setbacks noted on the survey far the dwelling. I Setback I Front I Side - West I Side - East I Shareland TABLE 1 REQUIRED AND PROPOSED SETBACKS FOR 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW Required Proposed 20' 13.6' 10' 21' 10' 11' 50' 50.1+/-' Section 1102.405 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback for properties in the R-1 use district. However, Section 1102.405 (4) provides that a front yard setback may be the average setback of those buildings within 150 feet of the subject site on the same block front. The setback cannot be less than 20 feet. The average setback in this instance is 18.23 feet, so 20 feet would be required. The appellant is proposing a 13.6 foot front yard setback from the front property line abutting CSAH 12/Spring Lake Road. The proposed side yard setbacks comply with minimum ordinance requirements. The survey submitted with the Variance application indicates the shoreland setback is 50.1 +/- feet, however, it scales at 49 feet. And as Table 1 notes, the required setback is 50 feet. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback, however, those buildings within 150 feet of the property determine the average setback. But the average setback cannot be less than 50 feet. Impervious surface is proposed to be 27.5 percent. For residential L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc 2 uses, the Shoreland Ordinance permits impervious surface to be a maximum ot 30 percent. The dwelling measures 17 teet in height on the tront elevation, and the ordinance permits structures to be up to 35 teet in height. The buildable area tor this property measures 80 teet in width by 56 teet in depth. The proposed dwelling is 68 teet in width and 64.33 teet in depth, at its deepest point, including the porch, so the proposed house is deeper than the buildable area. As noted in the previous section, the property abuts CSAH 12, which is scheduled tor an upgrade in 2006. Prior to the Variance application, the appellant and his contractor expressed concern about the width ot the right-ot-way. They believe that it is unreasonable to require a 20 toot tront yard setback when, based upon the survey, the right-ot-way appears to be wider than a typical 60 toot right-ot-way. (Note: The Spring Lake Townsite plat dedicated a 60 toot right-ot- way.) However, the existing roadway is not in the dedicated right-ot- way, so there is not "excess" right-ot-way. Since the tront yard setback is measured trom the property line, not the road surface, the location ot the existing roadway surface is irrelevant. Scott County was noticed on this Appeal and commented that the preliminary design tor the upgrade ot CSAH 12 shifts the road to the south, but no additional right-ot-way will likely be acquired at the subject property. The County does not have plans to vacate any existing right-ot-way adjacent to this property. Variance HardshiD Findinas: 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. The buildable area is 80 teet in width by 56 teet in depth, so the physical conditions ot the property in conjunction with the strict application ot the Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties or an undue hardship. The planning department has approved a building permit to construct a dwelling, so it is evident that the L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc 3 conditions of the property do not preclude a reasonable use from being constructed on the property without a Variance. 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 conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to maintain front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 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 front yard setback Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The planning department has approved a building permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the property meeting all required setbacks. 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 appears as though the Variance will negatively impact public safety. There is a public safety concern about accommodating a setback less than that required by the Zoning Ordinance with the future reconstruction of CSAH 12. Off-street parking may be an issue. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the Variance may unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood. It is presumed the adjacent structures with the nonconforming setbacks will be demolished and new dwellings will be constructed in the future, since both are riparian lots with houses constructed in the mid-1960s. New dwellings must comply with required front, side and shoreland setbacks. From this perspective, the granting of the Variance would impact the development of the neighborhood. It would create a "new" average front yard setback for the adjacent properties when they are rebuilt. This may not be an ideal situation, since the properties are adjacent to CSAH 12, which is L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc 4 designated an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan and is scheduled to be upgraded to an urban section in 2006. The ideal situation would be a 25 foot front yard setback so adequate off-street parking area is available. 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 front 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 will serve as a convenience to the property owner because there is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the property owner to locate the house 13.6 feet from the front property line. This is not the only location for the house. The planning department has approved a plan for the appellant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks. 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 results directly from the actions of the property owner. The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The appellant made the decision to design and locate a dwelling that encroached into the front yard setback. 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. CONCLUSION: The appellant would like to construct a single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SO. In order to do such, the appellant believes a front yard setback Variance is required. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc 5 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: The strict application of required front yard setback does not preclude the property owner from enjoying a substantial property right. The planning department has approved plans for a single family dwelling to be constructed on the property. Moreover, the property abuts CSAH 12, which is scheduled for reconstruction in 2006. Since the roadway has not been designed, exact right-of-way needs have yet to be determined, so it would not be wise to grant a front yard setback Variance for a dwelling that can be constructed within the required setbacks. There is absolutely no undue hardship if the property owner can build a single family dwelling that complies with all required setbacks. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends denial. The Planning Commission supported staffs recommendation 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. If this is the 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 alternative requires a motion and second adopting a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested Variance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Resolution 03-XX Appeal letter Location map Survey f October 27, 03, Planning Commission meeting minutes L tter m cott County dated November 19, 2003 .............. L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report. doc 6 i~fRI~ t'~~ 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. u~~ Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 ~NESV RESOLUTION 03-XX A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 6.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Dean Gavin, on behalf of Phillip Hines, has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny a front yard setback Variance for the construction of single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, plo of Lot 3, Lot 4, and plo of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The City Council has reviewed the application for the Variances as contained in Case #03-135PC, 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. The buildable area is 80 feet in width by 56 feet in depth, so the physical conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties or an undue hardship. The applicant has recently been issued a building permit to construct a dwelling, so it is evident that the conditions of the property do not preclude a reasonable use from being constructed on the property without a Variance. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc www.cityofpriorlake.com 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 5. The conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to maintain front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 6. The granting of the front yard setback Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A building permit has recently been issued for the construction of a single family dwelling on the property. 7. It appears as though the Variance will negatively impact public safety. There is a public safety concern about accommodating a setback less than that required by the Zoning Ordinance with the future reconstruction of CSAH 12. Off-street parking may be an issue. 8. The granting of the Variance may unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood. It is presumed the adjacent structures with the nonconforming setbacks will be demolished and new dwellings will be constructed in the future, since both are riparian lots with houses constructed in the mid-1960s. New dwellings must comply with required front, side and shoreland setbacks. From this perspective, the granting of the Variance would impact the development of the neighborhood. It would create a "new" average front yard setback for the adjacent properties when they are rebuilt. This may not be an ideal situation, since the properties abut CSAH 12, which is designated an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan and is scheduled to be upgraded to an urban section in 2006. The ideal situation would be a 25 foot front yard setback so adequate off-street parking area is available. 9. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population be 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 front yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The Variance will serve as convenience to the property owner because there is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the property owner to locate the house 13.6 feet from the front property line. This is not the only location for the house as a the planning department has approved a plan for the applicant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks. 11. The alleged hardship results directly from the actions of the property owner. The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The applicant made the decision to design and locate a dwelling that encroached into the front yard setback. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc 2 12. The contents of Planning Case #03-135PC 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 6.4 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback required in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) use district. (Section 1102.405 (4).) Passed and adopted this 151 day of December, 2003. YES NO Haugen Blomber~ LeMair Petersen Zieska Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc 3 I1lIIUJIN(; f10fIIIT 5lR1n' PffO'ARCD FOR: M ~ 1/ .~ ~ ..,m.JC7IDN <<110 EM! a.AIIE 71WL _ Lo4Kl; /IN 56.172 -........ , .,~" ~ --- -.......~ ~ --...... -----.. ----- --- -.",- ~ m >< :I: 6i - -I )> ..-...; .. - / / r- - / / / / / / / / / - B -;f- ~ o :":./ ,~" , " .. ~/ 1~ 2l' !:S' IIC/N IItJMMDfT 1'OUND_ ;s IfON IIfJN/JIICNT SET ~ MARKED lltESOrA I.ICCNSC NQ.1DtllJ LfCfH/J G (3 8: (3 if ASH TRCC (DIA) /IIRCH TRCC (DIA) IOXClJXIf TRCC (DIA) MA1'tC TRCC (DIA) 51'R/JCC TRCC (HeT.) - ;i'~;- ~p~ ---;:u -___ A>~.b #0. " - - - - _ __ . ;,p ~SPM " -- _ _ _ _ ".. We ~ - - _ _ - -- - _ "" A>04.b..J - -"- B ~oo~,.............-:- IfOC1( WALt rXlST1NG CONTOUII EXISTING $POT lIl'VA71ON FrNCC I' ...', 'J -~ -'",- $/JRrACC --<11II>- j, I" '....". CfJN7DtJIt "'. ..., I I I J I / / / +(0\1 t, I <<".0...( I 1- ~r,~~\.. / I \"..' I ___ I .~ " /-// / /- /" ~:' \ / '-,/ ... , .. --- ;7-' l - - .s- PA>/ .p , (). .p ~ 4 J' 4- 009/04"/ oJ r l.CGAt DCSC/IIP'11ON AS I'ROIAO{D: 111. _t.ny j'),. ,." of Lot .1' t1Itd Lot 4; ~ tIN Cnt.ny ON- HGIf 01 Lot ~ (III in SIod 4- ~ fI ...". of /ItI1fd ".,_ -'d Loll fIIHI!j/ftf ...,,,,..,, tlWwf fIIHI tH .oWS .. of .$lritg LClIt& It ~ L.. To"".,.. ~ to ",.,., tIMtYof CIft .. .wi of f'KOf'd.ft tit" {)f'fIft o( tit. ""trr of DNd:I ., ond _ -'d St:ott ClJunty. ""'"-Ill. ltdM1/Itg 11ftI' {Hrt iN' portion of 11ft, strM, or .." otHIttln9 -<<I jKwrI/sH IIOCfIt<<1 tT to H ...,,. Scott County. 1tGNJnofa. Also :llftiftt9 ,u Ioct1fjo,r 01 t/I. ~ hou.. th4 8th dfly of s.pt."",.., 200J //OTCS' TIt. _.'''9 10_' "-' 01 ",. /Iou.. to ". ~ ,. ., "'K1tlon 920.J7 s., IN pnIpHIId top ,,( bIod ., ~tlon Ut.>> s.t ",. ~ ~.. ., _1JItI1Iott 1.1t.DfJ _J1Nt ~ 10-., ""' .. IN flf ....,.", 1n4J NO $ICNIF1CANT 7RCCS 7D 8C ROIOVCD D/AINC CONS7IIfJCTION CCNTltACTrJIf "' KA'lf"Y HOUSe .... , .' ..." .. ",.", TO CON$'nftJC71ON VALLEY SURV01NG en. P.A. 16610 nrANKUN TRAL $E StATE: 2JO PfWOI/ LAKE. UN 55S72 (952) 447-2510 OCT I 4 2003 .J L~_. - '--'~ ~10? /11 . --- ~.A. Sff'Qf1SOfJ./ Sco,t u. Swanson @!> '" '.~". SI'OTEUVA11OII I. . ..~..' DlRCCT1fJN Dr F1NISHCD $llllF'ACC DltAMAGt Jrlinmt$oto L"n$~ 'Vo. 10183 Minn~soto IticfMS~ No. 42.J09 Doled thi$ ~__ day of -'Jt..h0 200.J Dot. of original sigl70furtl 09/1:J/tJJ FlU NO. 97.JJ BOOK 24C PAGE 78 HUE MOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC.. , ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,~ '~ I.S tJ '.::J ~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL " I P.O. BOX 67 ,;(\ (I;l 3 ,_ PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 : i>~1 (952) 447-2131 ; , Fax: (952) 447-5628 ; ~ I Writer's emai1 address: idbUVnriorlakelaw:99m. I JAMES D. BATES AIUSON 1. GONT AREK BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER October 30, 2003 Mr. Donald R. Rye Pri<)r Lake Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372 Re: Phillip Hines - Application For Variance Case Pile 03-114 Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the October 27, 2003, action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Hines' variance application for construction of a single family dwelling on their property. Please fOIWard me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and any further staff reports prepared for the City Council meeting as they become available. Thank you for your assistance. veury: truly yours, ~. :a I/'.. -/11 ,;V -- Dean G. Gavin DGG:dm cc: Phillip Hines I' .1 .:/' " I II i 200 I -_oca'jon VIa) '~or _-jnes Variance I SHORELI \JE BL VO _I '--~ S )ring __a_<e o 200 400 Feet I + B/IIU1fN(; POIIIIT S1RlO' PREPAR!D FrJR: M it M CaIS71IIJC!'DN <<110 EAV ~AIL PRIOR 1.AKE. /IN !S5J72 VAllEY StIR'tOfNG en. P."" 1667r1 FRANKLIN 111M. SE SlATE 2SO PRIOR !AXE, 1IN!S5J72 (952) 447-257r1 - 9-;~;- - ... - '";1f,~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~Q~ --,-::--_-- -i'O..t'L1 ...yo. J'..p 13'.P~...y6' /:~~ _ _ _ _ ~. -i'O..(b..l ,n.!; _ - - - - - - -- - .~& --....- I ~ ;-- ~/ c :.::,/ it' - :;:' - / I r--- I I I I I I / / / B -..;;...,. - B , <, -. I I / J I / / / / ",/.:v~ /'\ \~~..\t. to" ___ I' .\~. ... / I' /' ---... ... / /-- \ 1/ ~~... '-,/ ... ---- ;;:-. - ,l - 1 S1, t'J. 3 , OCT I 4 1003 , ;I _ .-.-J:;/' I J ;;ECEH/J 8 ~, e c. ASH 7IfC1: (DtA) /JIRCH 7IfC1: (DIA.) 6OIfCl1JDf 7IfC1: (DIA.) IW'lE 7IfC1: (DIA.) SPIftICC 7IfC1: (HCT.) ; i '~ J lie-. I L "'I' Df1S7IN(; ctJN7fJtJft CJI1$11NG SPOT lZCv.4 T10N LCt:AL 1JCSICItIP7KIH AS MOIC7lZt 71w ..,.", OW "." tlf LilI .1- tIIId Lot <(" fIItd".. C-,* ON' '*'" tlf Lo' ~ ", lit lIIod .. ... II .... 0' -.d H""" ftIId toll MIl IJtM9 MIl"'" "..,.., ... 1M ..,.,.. .. of .5jIriJp L_.. " ~ ,tift ro-".. ~ III ",."", ",..,., .. Md.1 ~ Itt IN ~ of IN ".",."... of DMd6 Itt find .... MIld St:<<t Qurt~ .......... l1dIdttf.,y IHJI'1 Dr ,."... of My."'" Dr "'1' lIINI'tMf -'d"""'" f/WfI'-I ., 10 .. ...,. St>>tt CofI/Itt)l ~I& NIo ......, ". IoctItIon tlI IN ",....., ".,.. III'- 8M tItIJ' of $tip'."..,. 200J. NOn "......"",,,,..., ....,,,,.,.... to..,.""..." '- fit ....,." uo.>> s.t .. "..... lop of IWd ., ........ VI.>> s.t .. ",.... ..... ... ., ....... Ut.1JD a. ".... ...., ... .. .. ., .,...".. .a.c lID $Ifi!NFICNIT Jm'S 70 6C ofPOKI) IJCAM; ctJIIS7IIUC7IDN ctJN7ttAC7rJlt '" WJWl'HfJtAF. ... ~.. sMI/JII JD~ REVISED 10/08/03 p~ City of Prior laW comment$. P9 in ~"""',.-oQ1ItJCK~ 1 '~'i' -~ - ~- --~~ 1rNCC I' 'J CtINCIfC/C _At:C _.'..wctJN7fJtJft <s> - _r llCMI_ " - ....... . ['"'_'" Dr FIIGG Sl./llF'ACE DltAlNAt:C __ 7 ''>iMtl h / .~--- ~A'S...._,../ Scott M. 5...,.., I -< . l/IDID7ES IItJN IItJIItKNT TfJUND o 1JDID7CS""" IJtJNlJItI1DfT $CT AND IIA/I1tED .r ..... ,. _ lJIZNSC M1 rtnllJ Uinnnota Lbn~ No_ to,n Minne$oto Lictlftn No. .f2.xJ9 Dated Ih;. -L:_ (joy of ~ 200J ()at. o( origintll signoture 09/1~/fJ.J FfL NO. '7.>> BOOK 2<<J PAGe" ,r.~;..+'i~ F ~".Ji~""'''''- l~' i ~{:~~1r~',~~~~~,!..'ij.;!:Mt:';i~; ~ ~X:"t~3' ;::':,~:W'1:S;l ..,,":,:/!.):t~\' ,I: ';, !_.r ::$i}b1~*':,: . <-..... r..""""-""r I . : a~~, ":;>'~!..; .", .~r:--._tf....::J,~ ~ , or;" -;:I.: ~ '. . ?:~:t~.t~~:. : :. :. , ;:'.< ..'r' , " II I, ,- .... .. I It '0(: OF !l'1';" ,~ JL " l!.. .~ 51"l . ~f:' ~:t:! r t '-I ., ...' .:iIl '~ !. "__ . . j,,~~~~. I :~r ;...t...~4l fi.r" ,h '> ';\.{i, I~. i ,.iI ...:.t,_, l ' ..r..",.., ~., I ,..;.~J;(:,',~r:..~ i II I " " ;".;;.", jf I J ! '.!',;It -;"jo-, ' " . i1'<l;"* I' - d -. . :J.I" r .,...y, . I ,""-;~" ! t L I I ::~~.:'-'. .', ~ It~~' .:fr. ....-,J.h,~ "" ," ,':',',u'. ,~' '~;"'" j ...... 'C' or. ..... ~ ", " ."\' ~: ~~~t~::.~~:, -";Z:~'. .,:(:i.;~..~' .,' 'I. !~Jit!~:'\ . i:" _1 1~'II. ~~~ l' '''':_'''. .:,. . , . ,~ 'fY"$1::,;:;-<:', ' ;.~~~ ,('I- l> (~~~. ',', ';-;I~'!{":t.. -". ' '.1 ; .~~.J '.: .,... .. ;'~:." ~.~ .t:':. ,i, " '''.'F /~~;~..~ , . HOUSE PLANS !,-" ;';";.:; '~ .. ~ i-.1~ -- SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION HIGHW A Y DEPARTMENT, 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST, JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (952) 496-8346' Fax: (952) 496-8365' www.co.scott.mn.us LEZLlE A. VERMILLION PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BRADLEY J. LARSON COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER November 19,2003 Cynthia Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Request 2719 Spring Lake Road SW Dear Cynthia: We have reviewed the variance request and offer the following comments: . As you are aware, CSAH 12 is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2006. At this time the County does not have any plans to vacate any existing right-of-way in this area of the variance request. Our consultant for the project has informed us that the preliminary design shifts the road to the south. However, it also indicates no need for additional right-of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. ~~ Craig Jenson Transportation Planner , C:\ WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK61Fl \PL271 9splkroad.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: DISCUSSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: DECEMBER 15, 2003 5G1 CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR . CONSIDER A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (Case file #03-135PC-HINES) 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 6.4 foot Variance from the required 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of new single family dwelling as requested by Phillip Hines, 2719 Spring lake Road SW. The City Council supported the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance request because the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. A single family dwelling can be constructed within the required setbacks. Moreover, because of the averaging provisions in the Zoning Ordinance - the 20 foot front yard setback and the 50 foot lakeshore setback - Mr. Hines has already been given relief from the ordinances. The City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution articulating their additional findings. Specifically, the City Council directed that findings #7 and #8 be struck from the resolution , prepared by staff. Conclusion: The attached resolution is consistent with the City Council's direction for denial of the 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance for the construction of a new single family dwelling. The City Council has two alternatives: 1. Adopt attached the attached resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission with modifications the Council directed. 2. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motion is required: L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc consent rej!Mr't'.'db&ityofpriorlake. com 1 . Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 REVIEWED BY: A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution 03-XX upholding the ecision of the Planning Commission. 1J . Frank BO~il}: anager L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\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 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 6.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Phillip Hines applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code to allow a 13.6 foot front yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland) Districts and located at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: plo of Lot 3, Lot 4, and plo of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File 03-114, 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, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, 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 does not meet the criteria for granting Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code. 3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested Variance should be upheld, and said Variance should be denied. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Phillip Hines appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 30, 2003. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc . f . I k WWW.CltyOpnOrae.com Page I Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, and held a hearing thereon on December 1 , 2003. c. 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. d. The buildable area is 80 feet in width by 56 feet in depth, so the physical conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties or an undue hardship. The planning department has approved a building permit to construct a dwelling, so it is evident that the conditions of the property do not preclude a reasonable use from being constructed on the property without a Variance. e. The conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to maintain front, side, and shoreland setbacks. f. The granting of the front yard setback Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The planning department has approved a building permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on the property meeting all required setbacks. g. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and population be 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 front yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. h. The Variance will serve as convenience to the property owner because there is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the property owner to locate the house 13.6 feet from the front property line. This is not the only location for the house as the planning department has approved a plan for the applicant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks. i. The alleged hardship results directly from the actions of the property owner. The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The applicant made the decision to design and locate a dwelling that encroached into the front yard setback. j. The average setback provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allowing a 20 foot front yard setback and 50 foot shore land setback have already given relief to the applicant. k. The City Council finds there is a legal alternative for the placement of a new dwelling meeting all Zoning Ordinance requirements on this site without the need for any variances. I. The City Council disagrees with Mr. Hines' testimony that the variance is necessary in order to "have the right proportion of building cost to land cost." Section 1108.406 of the City Zoning Ordinance states "[i]ncreased construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a variance." 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 2 m. The City Council rejects the appellant's argument that a Variance must be granted if the proposed variance allows the property owner to define the reasonable use of the property. Reasonableness is a decision for the City Council to make based on evidence in the record relating to the specific property for which a variance is being sought. 5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-114 and Planning Case File 03-135 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003. YES NO Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska Haugen Blomberg LeMair Petersen Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 3 ~ II: ai 5R !~~l~ ~~a!i ~~ I~ ~ ~ I ill~ I !~ ! ~ ~~ ~ R~ ~ ~a: I ' i &~ s l!! .; t:~ I a ,~UOi .. ~ ~ ~;- S I E &~ = e - - ~ i ~ ~ ' :& : iii ~. '" :tP l! ~ ! .a ts ~ i ~ :~,H \ ~ ~ ~ ~ . c" ~ '" ~ '~f ; ~ ~ (3 :t~ ~ ~. S! ~ ~ ~ ::t~ 1\ ~ g 0 ~ l ~ ~ ~l! = I.~ lll' {-~ ~ ti ~ .,1 ~ ~! i~& ~ ",:,:! :~ ~. ~)~~ \ ~ 'l( ~ ~ ~ l:J~ h{-~ 'or! = 1 : s... ~ 2-15... t:::.... .... In. :::s..:i ~ & & /1 ! .......... ( I ! I ! / ~ ~ .... ! .... ~ ..... ~~~!t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;il~~ ~ GOO\!)'" ~. , , I '.\ 1 ~ I ~ t5 o r" I I I I I I U, / / /:::--...... I ."'..... :::1 ........ >I'<?."... ' '... ""0...... frio .... ......... .... t "....~~7...... , ".........:..:0> I' I ....:...... , ., .. ~ " .. ~ ~ " .. " ll; ... " q, ~ ~ ~ - - - It) - - 1- - I I r:"'i;;..;.; / - - "ii~ .... - () It) ~~ J ~ ~ -- .. ~ a I j " ., .. \ l -1 ' I,HI ~t,. _I ';Hl."i ii!r~~ 'l'fll }l: ;l ~ ~ al, jl 1 ~ ~ ~ tJIJ:! 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ItJ.!~ ::l:l j I! i I\~~t ~ tit II lil~H ! l! i ~ I ~l.!f~tl ~ lid ~i 1 . ~ ~ I !i}F ~~! H I! ~ t ~n!rl Ii II I L. .. .il!.1 ti I ~ ~ i }l!!tJ ~ t~ I I ~ I! ~ hl;_~ ~ ~= a a ~ I ~ ~i'th-, I~~ ~ i::II~ ~ g ~l!H~ t! i i t! i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tl ~ ~~ l~t5 ~ ~ .. 1 ' ~ II~i: ;~ It :t@! i " !! ~ ill!! )] !Ii · ~. !l !l~ EXHIBIT A City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1 , 2003 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. Hauaen: Asked the City Manager to clarify the rationale for removing the signs. Bovles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and the process involved in making the change, indicating that a request had been made to remove the No Parking signs since the high school moved. Residents were notified and no one opposed the proposal. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND ~Y BLOMBERG, APPROVING RESOLUTION 03-198 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FROM HURON STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Truth-in- Taxation Hearing for Proposed 2004 City Budgets Bovles: Reviewed the proposed 2004 budgets and its impacts upon the taxpayer in 2004 in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. No persons were present to address the Council. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMair: Pleased with the budget that is proposed in that the City has recovered from the cuts in state aid, that there are no reduction in City services, and that the City will continue to move toward its 2020 Vision. Blomberq: Commented that in a time when money is tight for many people, it is important to hold the City property taxes in line when possible. This budget allows the addition of an economic development position which is very important in planning for the future of Prior Lake. Councilmembers agreed with the comments of LeMair and Blomberg. No further formal action was required. Consideration of the final budget will take place at the December 15,2003 regular meeting., ,-- '! \ Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Construction of a Single- Family Dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road (Hines). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, advising of the Planning Commission's recommendation that a reasonable use is available for the property without relief from ordinances and the granting of the variance is a convenience. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 I Blomberq: Asked if the required shoreland setback is 75 feet, and if averaging has been used to reach the conclusion that a 50 foot shoreland setback is acceptable, which already provides the applicant some relief. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Petersen: Commented that with the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 12, he was hesitant about providing any lesser setback given the circumstances. on the front yard. At this point, supported the Planning Commission recommendation, unless other information is presented during the public hearing. LeMair: Asked the front yard setback. Also asked if the rear porch is within the 50 foot shoreland setback. Kirchoff: Advised that the required front yard setback in an R-1 zoning district is 25 feet, unless the averaging provision of the ordinance is applied. In that case the front yard setback can be an average of those setbacks within 150 feet of the property, but not less than 20 feet. In this case, averaging is used and the minimum front yard setback would be 20 feet. Advised that the survey shows that the porch is proposed to be 50.1 feet from the OHW of Spring Lake. Zieska: Commented that averaging can also be used on the rear yard, but cannot be less than 50 feet. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. J Dean Gavin (attorney for Mr. Hines): Submitted a position paper in reference to the appeal dated November 26, 2003. In reference to the reconstruction of CSAH 12 indicated that the County Engineer has advised in writing that granting the variance would not adversely impact the road reconstruction project. (Referenced Exhibits B, C & 0 of the position papei). Also noted that neighboring houses are approximately 9 feet and 6 feet from their respective lot lines. Clarified that the variance requested is to allow the house to be 13.6 feet from the lot line. Believed that the artificial shallowness of the ordinance creates an undue hardship upon Mr. Hines. Did not believe there is a factual basis in the record to support the findings in the proposed resolution paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8, referencing off-street parking, impacts upon the CSAH 12 reconstruction project, public safety, and unreasonable impact upon the character of the neighborhood. Commented that the building permit was approved, but has not been issued. The plan approved required the house to be moved 11 feet to the west in order to have a side loading garage. The issue of the garage has apparently no been fully resolved and thus the permit has not been issued. Based upon this set of circumstances, believed granting the variance was appropriate. Phil Hines (2719 Spring Lake Road): With respect to the off-street parking and the garage, advised that the Planning Department and Building Dept. have advised that his vehicles will not be able to make the turn into the garage area for the side loading garage. LeMair: Asked if the architect and builder were aware that they designed a building that won't fit within the setback requirements. Hines: Advised that many of the features were reduced in size in order to minimize the impacts the structure would have on the lot. Having a lakeside deck or porch is essential for lakeshore properties, and standard depth of a house is 28 feet which we meet. A 24 foot garage does not fit on the lot, which is the reason for the 19 foot garage. The rear porch is 12' x 12'. Advised that he lived in the property prior to demolition. The comparison being made with the other new construction in the neighborhood is that in measuring from the OHW mark to the center of the road are the same depth from the lake. The 3 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 road right-of-way abutting his property is greater than that property. That property is also a non-conforming lot and did not have the same constraints. Zieska: Asked why the variance request isn't for a lesser lakeshore / rear yard setback. Hines: Advised that he was told that the City would not grant a variance from the lake setback so it seemed more likely that a front yard variance would be granted. In order to have the right proportion from building cost to land cost, it makes more financial sense to move the structure toward the road rather than closer to the lake. Also believed that a front yard setback is less invasive that a rear yard setback. Blombera: Asked where the garage will be. Hines: Advised that the garage is in the same location and that the whole house has been shifted to the west. Instead of entering from the front, the garage loads from the side. Neither of the vehicles currently owned can pull into the driveway and make the tum into the garage. With the 6 foot variance, the garage could be re-designed to be front-loading. LeMair: Asked why a rambler style home was chosen, given that they take up a larger footprint. Hines: Commented that this style was the most cost-effective per square foot given the walk-out lot. A two story structure poses other issues. . Hauaen: Asked the interior living space of the structure. Hines: Believed it to be approximately 3600 square feet plus the garage. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Asked the square footage of the building. Kirchoff: Corrected testimony given by advising that including the garage, the square footage of the building is 4500 square feet. The transcript indicates that the footprint of the building is 1800 square feet. Also advised that this lot is just over 12,000 square feet. If created today, it would need to be 15,000 square feet to be conforming. Blomberq: Commented that in an attempt to accommodate the needs of the applicant, front yard and rear yard setback averaging has been applied. Believed there is not a hardship in requiring a slightly smaller structure. The house used as a comparison was on a non-conforming lot and thus under a different set of circumstances. Did not believe a variance is appropriate in this case. Petersen: Asked why the garage 9an't be entered from the front. Kirchoff: Clarified that the building permit submitted in September that has been approved but not picked up has a front loading garage, but no rear porch. The plans showing the end-loading garage and rear porch was a second submittal and has not been approved. Without the deck, the structure can be moved back 12 feet and then accommodate the front loading garage. 4 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 60-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 Avenue SE (Case File #03-134) Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. 5 IIEARl~\G ~O'l'ICES L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc ,..---_............_~._...._-"...., ---,' .' ~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss ST ATE OF MINNESOTA) (~-e (lfl1tf!~l-<tflhe City of Prior Lalfe..s;ounw of Scott, State of Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the tA. on day of-/ L,,0lJ. , 2003, she served th1f~.d list of pecs"!,,, to have ao...interest in the jJfia,~~ ~W /,.tP ,)4--1) fJJUtJd rw ~ by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope: pbstage 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,DQC 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 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 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 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance for the construction of a single family dwelling. APPELLANT: Dean Gavin on behalf of Phillip Hines SUBJECT SITE: 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as part of Lot 3, all of Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, 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\03-135 Hines\Mailed Public HearinQ Notice.doc www.cltyofpnorrake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 MAJJINC PEJfJI1T .$tIf1CY PRO'ARCD FrJR: 1/ ~ 1/ ctJNSTRIJC71(}N <<170 FAIl a.AIIC - PRIOR lAKE. MN Mo172 ------ '.. -,~# ~ --... ---.......--...;: ---......:::: -...... --... ---..... '........... ----,"'-- ~ ~ - -U-;i .:: -.. - B ----:,i_ ~: C ~':! /{ , " . 1J01D1C$ lION IIDNUMICNT ft1UND o fJENt17a lION IIONUIENT SET AN9-MAItItED .., ~TA LICCNSC M1 l011l.1 , -- / / r- -- / / / / / / / / / /,F.CEH/J. 8 ~,. 8 If' ASH TR(( (DIA) 8II/CH TR(( (DIA) IIOJfCl1)C1f TR(( (DIA) MAPLE TR(( (DIA) SPRrA:C TR(( (HeT.) ,,""-="""............-.:,/IOfC1( WALL EJIISTN: CON7OtIIf .,. CJlJS71NG $POT lIEVA 7ION FCNCC ,., '.'-' '~CONaIC1C $LWACC ~ J ..' ...... ctJtN7QAI <@> .....:.. SPOT nEVA 7ION j .......... ,--' ,<..~,'. OFFPI15HEDSIJIIIF'ACCDltAJNACC F1l.E NO. 91.J.J /JOOI( 2<W PAce 76 VALLEY SlIR'CtING ca. P.A. '"70 FRANKlJN _ $E sum: 2:JD _ lAKE. _ Mo172 (9$2) #7-2570 --- 9~"" -_ --- C'QQ~ '";1fi~ - _ A'a,.bHO...: ------_ _ _ . 4' ,.s-P~HC ~J':'-- - - - __ -__921.!> ~~- -- - _".. l74.b..l - -"- .., I I I -' I / II .G,,) ft I ~ <\,.0.. 0( 11o~"'~t" ,- 1\.....' / ___I.~ I "/ ---., I / / / / \ / '-,/ ... B --- /--' J -- -- , ,. .s- PA'/ 4'~4' P." ?/ON ~~/ ~4~ -4' 08/04'/ OJ .9'0. oJ' OCT I 4 2003 r Juc_ ----:/ I.CGAl. DCSCIffP1'ICN AS fIROWDCD: ",. . HtIIfolLot.l" tItttILot.(" .wttMEa..".ONHt1IftlfLot~ ~"'/IIot:t46. =.. ;~ -=. "'=t..~.L.~ ,~":Z ;;;''':.:,'r':'.. fJnd(Jttt/~' ~ ~ U:'/f::90( ",. ".,.".", flf 0.- ft ~ .,. -*I Scott Cowrfl' oWoIwNIo,. hdIdIIf9 Gff}f"'" ",. poI'tlon 0/ "1' ,,,.., Of' "'1' 0/11I11"'9 ntId ~ 1IOCfIf_ tJr 10 .. .....,t. $cott ~'y. ~1tL AI60 .... 1M IoctIlion of 1M ~ htIu_ ".,. 6th day of s.pt.mHr. 200J NOlFS: J7t. ...,... ...., "., .f ,,,. ,.... to .. ~ ,. M ...,., '20..17 Stlt ",. ~ t. of MId ., ....t." 0..>> Stlt .. ",."... ",.,. .,. fit ...".. nt.Of) .. ",..,. ",.., .... .. IN (It ......, In...., NfJ #/iNrICANT 71ICCS 10 6C RDOKP IJ(IfItNr; CCNS1IIIJCTION CCN1IfACTOIt m ~ HOUSC. .''''~' ~ m CON$7WfJC71C1N .--- 7 ~')(011 h J , ' -- RondJd A. S.onsdn./ Scott 1,/. Srronson - lrI;"nt!soto Lk:~s~ No. f018J /Jinnt/solo LiliMJs~ No. Da/ft1 Ihi$ ~__ day of ~ 200.J Dol. of original SN;naturtt 09/1.J/tJ.J 42.109 Page 1 of 1 Cynthia Kirchoff From: Cynthia Kirchoff Sent: Friday, November 07,20038:41 AM To: Prior Lake American (E-mail) Subject: Appeals - Hines, McCoy, and Van Pelt Good Morning Deb- Please publish the three attached notices in the November 15th edition of the Prior Lake American. Thank you. 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 11/7/03 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 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 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance for the construction of a single family dwelling. APPELLANT: Dean Gavin/Phillip Hines SUBJECT SITE: 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as part of Lot 3, all of Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, 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\03-135 Hines\Published Hearing Notice.doc NEW ABSTRACTS CONTINUATIONS CLOSING SERVICE REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS TITLE INSURANCE RECORDING SERVICE SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC. 223 HOLMES STREET. P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 55379 DAVID E. MOONEN Phone: (952) 445-6246 Fax: (952) 445-0229 September 15, 2003 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Rd. Prior Lake, MN 55372 To Whom it May Concern: According to the 2003 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the foJlowing persons listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners of the property which lies within 350 feet of the foJlowing described property: The Westerly One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, aJl in Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake, in Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota. o.~o~/~- President -- Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc. r fJ' .:.1:. ~c&rr ~66~~ lSSTRAb\U ~ , i' AND Tine. INC. , : \ ,..)< Uc:enaed Abstractor I ,..;.~., State of Minnesota ~iijiifiJrl I Till III 11 II. SEP 2 4 2003 ; ,', U' \ " Ul__.______ __J:"""-- j I J MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY KEVIN J CRONHOLM 2666 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 .' ROBERT A & JOANNE WISEMAN 2686 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 TERRANCE W & LAUREL L CARLSON 2629 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 SCOTT A & JOYCE I BREUER 2654 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKO PEE MN 55379 STANLEY B & PENNY K SCHWARZ 2674 SPRING LAKE RD SHAKOPEE MN 55379 SCOTT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 200 4 AVE W SHAKOPEE MN 55379-1220 JOSEPH PAUL BUSH 5281 SHORE TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 {I AVERY@ Address labels SCOTT A ~OytE I BREUER 2654 SPRINd\AKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 CARL M & SHIRLEY A WISEMAN 2651 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 CINDY ~\UHUIR. 2640 SP~t.AKE RD SHAKOPEE"Irn 55379 KEVIN J CIo~LM 2666 SPRING lAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 ROBERT A &IOANNE WISEMAN 2686 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 DENNIS J & CHERYL L BRADACH 5267 SHORE TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 EXHIBIT'}. · PAGE ?- OF if PAGES Laser 5162<R> BARBARA A & MICHAEL T BALDWIN 2743 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 BLANCHE CASEY 213 1 ST E JORDAN MN 55352 DEBORAH K PROKOTT 2760 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MARK C NELSON 2804 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 RANDY R NELSON 2738 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 GAIL N NELSON 2697 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CINDY K KAHLER 2640 SPRING LAKE RD SHAKOPEE MN 55379 .AVERY@ Address labels TODD H HOLM 2733 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CLAYTON B & BARBARA LUNDEEN 2771 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 ELFREDA MONNENS 2786 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 STEVEN D BOEGEMAN 2750 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 STEVEND BOEG~AN 2750 SPRING LAKB'RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 HELEN S THOMPSON 2675 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 STANLEY B & PENNY K SCHWARZ 2674 SPRING LAKE RD SHAKOPEE MN 55379 EXHIBIT ..1l. p~ OF d-pAGES Laser 5162@ - 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED ~\f\9IY BLANCHE CASEY 2131 STE JORDAN MN 55352 :: ::.?:!.j - i "'i ",_, r.-: J__.~ ..W~~~~^'~~~ . ._.._.._-..:L," ... .:'.'. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED JL vrlff ~ CARL M & SHIRLEY A WISEMAN 2651 SPRING LAKE RD SW SHAKOPEE MN 55379 ...- 'I"l!.e"':lt ~ - . - :',):) .s.:(o'.::f.A .,...~ 1. (:!::-'=, 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED \b\~ TODD H HOLM 2733 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 $~=3(2-~~~l:J'1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED II . ~/1V~ r ',i=~"'L.c:'''''.:;.= ,.:. - :,\OT' '--"'7'~ ~- '" ',t '~ ;- I!;, U S.POS1AGf I: NOV 20'03 r- ~ ~~ · . . .f,. ::::_ 0 .3 7 - · '~ :::: M'N~ OOSM57tS' ' .:, CASEa~3 5535aa007 ~A03 aq ~~/aq/03 RETURN TO SENDER CASEY'SL.ANC~E q~b5 LE SUEUR AVE NEW PRAGUE MN 5b07~-eq~~ RETURN TO SENDER i Ii Ii II i liull \ 1\ Illi II} I \mIHIIIll 1111\1111\\111 illlll i 1\ II ----..'.... -~.- t;~g~~~.t.. #.iJ:' " ,_ ,.' : ' ;f fj,;-' I~ US.POS1AGf I: NOV20'03 'r-?' j~ ~ - ~2037:::: ~IN~Y P,IUHHA . - : ", 6055715 : WISE65~* T55379aoaa ~A03 RETURN TO SENDER TEMPORARILY AWAY RETURN TO SENDER ~7 ~~/aaI03 WISEMAN 'I r .,.., 1'11I"1"'1". J .1,1,' n ff1' .1I..1.1..I.l..M..)...1I ':~/;:;:-;---;.....~ \wo: ~=x-;.;;.I ,1 : ~ ,O~ /..."'7 ~~ ......... -~~-_.-- ': ;f ~;-. -Ii U S.POS1AGf I: II0V20'03 "''r-.;:> li: - ~- 4_ f~ - 0 3 7 - << ~:::: -: MIN~. '/8 MEaR . - : 6055715 << HULM,~~~ ~~~72=oOI ~~o~ ~= ~~/=~/O~ RETURN TO SENDER ~OLM ~ba7b ~A~ESIDE AVE SE PRIOR LAKE MN 5S37a-aqQ3 RETURN TO SENDER ',I,I.,I,lu.II,III,11I1. 1 mllll!.1I II 1.1111111'1111 1It11.I.l DENNIS J & CHERYL L BRADACH 5267 SHORE TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 BRAD267* 55372aOQ6 ~e03 ~e ~~/aaI03 RETURN TO SENDER BRADAC~IC~ERYL. K 305 S VAL. VISTA DR LOT ~b7 MESA AZ e5aOQ-~Q3Q RETURN TO SENDER !S!:!a!t~~"3 1,1,1..1,111,11,111I1111. It 111.1 If .,.I..I.ln.UtIIlI.II. .1.1,,1 .1111. I" n...' "-...-' ------- .0.....-__ ....._...---.. ........__...".~,'~ "" ..-",,_~:'....~,....,...;......................,.... ..'~,,,,-,,,, "'................-.......',.....- -.... : lr ~1~p~'J .~ ilUi 'i December 29,2003 Dean Gavin Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC 16670 Franklin Trail SE P. O. Box 67 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Appeal of Hines Variance Case No.: 03-135 Dear Mr. Gavin: This letter is to officially inform you that on December 15, 2003, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. Enclosed please find a copy of Resolution 03-207 upholding the Planning Commission's decision and denying your appeal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, '_.~. ~ /- . -h ' , 2 ' ,', ~ c_.~.<- '. Cynthia R. Kirch Jff, P Planner Enclosure c: Phillip Hines .. . www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 December 11, 2003 HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, SUITE 210 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 " - I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc VJWW . cityofpriorlake. com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Sent By: POSTNET-A2110j 623 572 8510j Nov-26-03 11 :08; Page 1/2 To: Cynthia Kirchoff Fax: 952-447-4245 From; Phil Hines De,,: 11/2612003 Re: Appeal ofVarianoe PagM: 2 CC: XUrgllftt o For Review o PIeeM CammCIIII. o PIeIM R8pIy o PIe8e Rqde . . . . . . . . .Kirchoff. as yoo know I traveled in for our meeting yesterday. I met with Dean Oavin meeting and 1 faxed you a letter he drafted in that mc::eting OQ my behalf shortly received an e-mail notice from my office computer, upoo arrival ill my destination , that there was an error in the transition if the mx to yoo. Plea.'1e find attached another y of the letter rcque9ling lO have my appeal heard on December 1,2003. ................... OWNER: SlTt': ADDRESS: APPEAL OF: CASE FILE: DATE: Phillip Hines 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW RESOLUTION 03-011PC 03-114 November 26,2003 PROCEDURE/HISTORY Phillip Hines (owner) requested a variance from the front yard set back on the above referenced case. The variance request was heard at the Planning Commission Meeting on October 27, 2003. After hearing, the request was denied per Resolution 03- OllPC. Mr. Hines now appeals that decision. FACTS In the Planning Report (hereinafter "Report") Section II. BACKGROUND, paragraph two (2) states "The building permit will be issued prior to the Board of Adjustment taking action on the request." Also, at the hearing Ms. Kirchoff advised the Planning Commission (hereinafter Commission) that "-- the applicant has already applied for a building permit and it will be issued shortly." See attached as Exhibit A a true and correct transcript of the October 27, 2003 meeting, page 6 Lines 9-10. To date the City has not issued a building permit. In the Report section III. DISCUSSION paragraph D. indicates that the "[ s )taff encouraged the applicant to request Scott County vacate a portion of the right-of-way." There was discussion of this at the hearing where Ms. Atwood asked "... that you ask the county to vacate part of the right-or-way. Did you meet with them at all or did you consider that option?" See Exhibit A page 12, Line 25 and page 13, Lines 1-2. Mr. Hines answered "Yes, I did. And of course their answer was well, until we formalize our plans we're not going to do anything with the land." See Exhibit A page 13, Lines 3-5. What was not made part of the Report or the hearing was the fact that Gregory IIkka, Assistance Scott County Highway Engineer, E-mailed Ms. Kirchoff on October 21, 2003 and stated that "What would seem to make sense is that the variance is considered from the property line, as platted, and not from the existing County Highway. In the context of doing that, look at the other properties in the vicinity, and as long as the variance doesn't put the structure closer to the property line than any existing structures in the area, then it probably won't create a hardship for the County Highway reconstruction." See Attached as Exhibit B a true and correct copy of the E-mail transmission received from Greg IIkka. Mr. Hines believes that this information should have been given to the Commission in light of the testimony at the hearing by Mr. Monnens who stated, "You know, the neighbor next door on the left side of this house is like 6.6 from the garage door to the property line. And the neighbor on the right is 9 foot 3. I mean, we're sitting back now at 20 feet, we'd like to go to 13.4. I mean, we're back less than what they are on the two sides right now." See Exhibit A page 16, Lines 20-25 and Page 17, Line 1. The County has clarified its position as to this variances impact on the CSAH 12 project in subsequent communications to the City. Ms. Kirchoff received an E-mail from Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner on the CSAH 12 project. See attached a true and correct copy as Exhibit C. This letter states that there is "... no need for additional right- of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address." Mr. Hines also received an E-mail message of November 19, 2003 from Greg Ilkka stating "... Another point, we have evaluated the situation enough to feel comfortable in saying the CSAH 12 reconstruction project would not be impacted by the granting of your variance. I don't fully understand the City's reasons for not granting the variance, but I want to be sure they don't claim it's due to the impending reconstruction of CSAH 12." See attached a true and correct copy as Exhibit D. This indicates that the Commission was not fully informed of the contact with the County and the Counties position on granting a variance to Mr. Hines. Section IV. ANALYSIS. Section A. 1. In a conclusive manner, finds that no undue hardship exists because "The applicant has recently been issued a building permit ..." However, as indicated before, no building permit has been issued to date. Section A. 2. The conditions are peculiar here in that this area is scheduled for a highway improvement project. The road right-of-way is larger than necessary thereby encroaching further onto Mr. Hines property than necessary. If the right-of-way was established, Mr. Hines is confident that he would gain property on his front yard and most likely would not need a variance. However, at this time the County is unwilling to vacate said property. Thereby creating a peculiar condition to Mr. Hines property establishing a hardship. Section A. 3. Once again states that a building permit has been issued. This is not correct. Section A. 4. The report states that granting the variance "will negatively impact public safety." And that "off-street parking may be an issue." However, neither one of these issues is supported by any fact. There is no evidence on the record, in the Report, or anywhere else to support these findings. Section A. 5. Of the Report states that "The granting of the Variance may unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood." This is contrary to the testimony of the neighbor Randy Nelson. See Exhibit A page 16, Lines 6-15. The testimony of Mr. Monnens, as indicated previously herein and the testimony of Mr. Hines. Once again there is no evidence presented by the City to substantiate this claim. Also, the city speculates that the houses on either side "with non-conforming setbacks will be demolished and new buildings will be constructed in the future, ..." This is completely speculative. There is no evidence that this will happen. A blanket statement not supported by any fact(s) cannot be used to support the Commission's action. Once again, off-street parking is eluded to without stating what the current status of off-street parking is? How it would be effected if the variance was granted? Or how granting the variance negatively impacts off-street parking. The report determines, without factual support, that "the ideal situation would be a 25 foot front yard setback so adequate off-street parking area is available." Once again the contentions in the Report are not supported by any facts. Section A. 7. This paragraph states that a building permit has been issued thereby summarily finding that "no undue hardship" exits. RESOLUTION 03-011PC FINDINGS: 1. Mr. Hines does not contest the findings in paragraph 1. 2. Mr. Hines does not contest the findings in paragraph 2. 3. Mr. Hines believes that if these criteria were considered by the Commission, that there were NO facts presented in either the Report or at the hearing to support such a finding. 4. This finding is not accurate in that per the transcript of the hearing Exhibit A page 4, Lines 12-13 Ms. Kirchoff admits that the Building Permit has not been issued. Mr. Hines has not been issued a building permit to date. Also, Mr. Hines believes that the fact that his property adjoins CSAH 12 and thereby creating a unique and artificial shallowness to his property, does create a particular and practical difficulty and an undue hardship at this time. 5. This finding does not set forth the correct facts in this situation. Mr. Hines variance request denial seems to be predicated upon the fact that the City does not want to grant a variance since there is a project scheduled for improvements to CSAH 12 in 2006. His inability to use his property is peculiar due to the uncertainty of the highway project. However, communications from the County to the City were left out of the Report and record, as well as, subsequent communications to the City that the granting of the variance will not effect the CSAH 12 project. See attached Exhibits B, C, and D. 6. Once again this finding is incorrect in that no building permit has been issued. Since Mr. Hines is unable to build a home that was in the design stage for two (2) years a substantial right for enjoyment is effected by the denial of the variance. 7. This paragraph is not supported by ANY EVIDENCE either in the Report or record. The statements made in the Report are completely unfounded nor supported by any evidence. The future reconstruction of CSAH 12 has been addressed previously herein. See Exhibits B, C, and D. 8. This finding is not supported by any evidence. It is pure speculation by the City about the neighboring houses being tom down in the future. This is unsupported by any facts. This is the City's attempt to down play the fact that Mr. Hines house would be set back further than the houses on either side of his even if the variance were granted. See Exhibit A page 11, Lines 23-25, Page 16, Lines 20-25, and Page 17, Line 1. The City was informed by the County on October 21, 2003 that if Mr. Hines house was situated behind the neighboring properties, the granting of Mr. Hines variance would not effect the CSAH 12 project. See attached Exhibit B. This information was never given to the Commission. There were no facts in either the Report or the hearing describing the off-street parking currently at this location. The finding is only that granting the variance will possibly effect off-street parking due to the CSAH 12 project. However, as pointed out above, the information in Exhibit B refuting this proposition was never presented to the Commission. Therefore, the findings under this paragraph are completely speculative and not supported by any facts. 9. This finding is inconsistent with the fact that the Ordinance relied upon allows the City the power to grant a variance. The testimony by Mr. Hines, Mr. Monnens, and the neighbor Mr. Nelson was unrefuted. All of these parties testified that granting the variance will not negatively effect the character of the neighborhood or be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Once again the finding is incorrect in that a building permit has not been issued. With the circumstances of the impending CSAH 12 project Mr. Hines has lost the ability to utilize his property in the way that he chooses which is a reasonable use i.e. building a single family dwelling. 11. The City seems to rely upon the CSAH 12 project for denial of the variance. The request is not for a convenience to Mr. Hines. The complexity of the CSAH 12 project and its limitation and artificial shallowing of Mr. Hines property is not a creation of Mr. Hines. In light of the substantial property values in this area it is incumbent upon the land owner to build a home that will enhance the property and be in harmony with the neighborhood and community as a whole. This has been Mr. Hines goal from the outset. 12. Mr. Hines does not dispute this paragraph, however, MI:. Hines believes that not all of the pertinent information, especially that contained in Exhibit B was presented. LEGAL ARGUMENT Mr. Hines variance request was submitted under and denied based upon Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Section 1108.400 which is quoted in the Staff Report as such: "Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located." The Commission made its' findings that there was no undue hardship to Mr. Hines and denied his variance request by adopting Resolution 03-011PC. The Minnesota Court of Appeals set forth the standard for reviewing such a decision stating that "[w]e examine the action to determine whether it was arbitrary or capricious, or whether the reasons articulated by the municipality do not have the slightest validity or bearing on the general welfare, or whether the reasons were legally sufficient and had a factual basis." Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie. et aI, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn.App. 2000). The Court Of Appeals has also interpreted the undue hardship standard stating "Rowell makes it clear that the three statutory requirements for granting a variance under the undue hardship standard are (1) reasonableness, (2) unique circumstances and (3) essential character of the locality." Id. "The first requirement is that the property cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance." Rowell v. Board of Ad~ustment. 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn.App. 1989). "Thus, we read the first part of the definition of undue hardship as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id. "An exemption from a setback requirement is an area variance." Id. Here Mr. Hines is requesting a reasonable use of his area. This use is to construct a single family dwelling. Strict enforcement of the Ordinance would not allow Mr. Hines said use. "The second requirement is that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner." Id. Here the CSAH 12 project and road right-of-way have caused Mr. Hines to be unable to utilize his entire property in a manner consistent with the Ordinance. The Ordinance states by "reason of shallowness" undue hardship can be found. Based upon the evidence and testimony in this matter, it is clear that the lot is artificially shallow because of the arbitrary nature of the road right-of-way. This condition was not created or caused by Mr. Hines. Also, the houses on either side of Mr. Hines are closer to CSAH 12 than Mr. Hines house will be even if he is granted the variance. This circumstance was once again not created by Mr. Hines. If Mr. Hines is required to build per the setback of 20 feet his view and use of light and air will be effected negatively by the neighboring houses. "The third requirement for undue hardship is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Id. If the variance were granted herein, Mr. Hines home would be set back further than either of the homes next to his. Mr. Hines home will be built per the specifications and requirements of any building permit that may be issued and with the intent of having a nice family home that is consistent within the neighborhood and community. Also, per the testimony at the hearing, there is a new home that was build five doors down from the Hines property that is closer to CSAH 12 even without a variance. This suggests that CSAH 12 imparts a unique character to Mr. Hines property precluding him the reasonable use of his property. CONCLUSION Mr. Hines contends that he has meet the legal standard, as set forth above, by the Minnesota Court of Appeals for the City to grant his variance request. Mr. Hines is requesting a reasonable use of his property not allowed by the Ordinance. The condition of Mr. Hines property is effected by its proximity to CSAH 12 which uniquely and artificially renders this lot shallow. This does cause Mr. Hines an undue hardship which was not created by Mr. Hines. The Hines home, when built, will conform to the essential character of the location. As well, the findings and the record supporting the Resolution which denied Mr. Hines variance, are replete with either factual inaccuracies or are not supported by any facts at all. This would lead to a determination, upon review, that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Commission was not given all of the information that the City had received from the County. See Exhibit B. As well, there are new communications from the County clarifying that granting Mr. Hines variance will not affect the CSAH 12 project, which seemed to be the greatest concern of the Commission members. Mr. Hines would respectfully request that in light of the circumstance outlined above that the Council reconsider his variance request and grant the same. Dated: / I j-z,e, I ,2003 HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ~~"~ Dean G. Gavin, #0246803 Attorneys for Mr. Hines 16670 Franklin Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 (952) 447-2131 J,;F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i~ '~ l ,13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 "25 "/ Page 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 27; 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The following is the transcript of a tape of the Planning Commission Meeting transcribed by Sara Jane Wyckoff, Notary Public, Court Reporter, ,on November 21, 2003. The meeting was held on October 27, 2003. (C[OJL9>fj EXH~BIT .A Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 2 1 APPEARANCES AS LISTED ON MINUTES: 2 Commissioners: 3 Atwood Criego 4 Lemke Ringstad 5 Starnson 6 Also Present: 7 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner 8 Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer . Connie Carlson, Recording Secretary 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , 25 -, Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ". 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --'I Page 3 *** MS. KIRCHOFF: single family dwelling on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road Southwest. Specifically the applicant 1S requesting a 6.4 foot variance from the required 20 foot front yard setback in the R-l district. As the survey indicates the property was platted as part of the Spring Lake town site in the 1850s. Access to the site is gained via ~pring Lake Road or County, Road 12. The survey indicates that the road surface is 56 feet from their property line as you can note from the overhead. However, portions of this county road were not actually constructed in the dedicated right-of-way. Just to , note, this roadway is scheduled for reconstruction in 2006, and Scott County is currently in the design phase of that construction. The site is currently void of st~uctu~es.of the existing -~ or the prev10us home was demolished from the site. There 1S a 220 square foot boat house on the property. It 1S nonconforming. However, the applicant is not proposing to alter it or remove it as part of this application. As long as it remains there it's a legal nonconforming structure. ~I Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 , 13 t \ 14 15 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -, As noted the applicant was issued a demolition permit and did demolish the house on the site. And on September 15 of this year the applicant. did apply for a building permit to construct a dwelling on this property. The Planning Department. did approve the building permit application because the house did meet all the setbacks. The applicant subsequently applied for this variance to allow front yard setback to be 13.6 feet. The staff report noted the building permit would be issued prior to the Planning Commission , taking action on this request. It's not been issued at this time. There is -- the staff's understanding that there is an issue with the u'tili ty connection, but the building permit will be issued' shortly. In order to construct the 4,500 square foot single family dwelling on the property the applicant is requesting a 6.4 foot front yard setback variance. The zoning ordinance does require a 25 foot front yard setback. However, there is a provision in the ordinance that does allow the front yard setback to be averaged, and that average is those -- taken from thosebulldings that are within 150 feet of the subject site. The setback cannot be anything less -than 20 feet. However, the average ~ Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 41 j ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 f / " -'I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -/ Page 5 setback in this instance 1S ,just over 18 feet so the proposed dwelling is 68 feet in width and just over 64 feet in depth at its deepest point including the porch that's noted right there. Prior to the var1ance application the applicant had spoken with staff along with i builder and expressed concern about the width of the rig~t-of-way. It has noted the actual roadway surface is not constructed within the platted right-of-way of County Road 12 so there 'is not an excess of right-of-way. The front yard setback's measured from the property line not from the roadway so that existing roadway location is really irrelevant. As noted Scott County is in a design , , phase of County Road 12, and the right-of-way needs have yet to be determined, but it's the City's understanding that the design calls for an urban section which would include curb and gutter as well as a trail. The terms of the variance hardship' findings as noted the buildable area is substantial ~ Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , \ ''-. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -, Page 6 so the physical conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict application of the front yard setback do not create a hardship for the applicant and the applicant will be issued a building permit to construct this home on this site. The granting of the front yard setback variance lS not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the owner being that their -- the applicant has already applied for a building permit and it will be issued shortly. The applicant's request merely serves as a convenience. There is no undue hardship. It's merely a preference ,to locate the house 13.6 feet from the property line, not -- it's not necessary to allow a home to be constructed on the site. The alleged hardship does result from the actions of the property owner. There is a substantial buildable area and the applicant made a decision to design and locate the dwelling that encroaches into the front yard setback. In conclusion, the applicant would like to construct a single family home on the property that's zoned to R-l and 3D. In order to do such the applicant believes a front yard setback variance is required. The strict application of the required Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , \ ". 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -, Page 7 setback does not preclude the property owner from, making a reasonable use of the property. Therefore, staff does recommend denial of the application. The Planning Commission does have three alternatives with this request. The first is to approve the variance, the second is to table, the third is to deny the application. And as noted, staff does recommend alternative three In the action that's required this evening is a motion and a second to adopt the resolution denying the variance request. Thank YOUi and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MR. STAMSON: I'm still slightly confused about the building permit versus needing the variance. The house can be located on the property. Isn't it SO feet from the water line? How does he get the 13 feet back? MS. KIRCHOFF: This porch lS not -- there is a deck on the house rather than a porch. So the house has just been shifted to the 20 foot setback, and I believe the deck was not actually included with the building permit, but it sho~s a future deck on the survey and that is I believe 6 feet in depth. But the house that's- proposed on ; Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 t 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i \ , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '. Page 8 this survey can be accommodated on the lot without any varlances. MR. STAMSON: So it's the deck that's causing the MS. KIRCHOFF: Well, it's the porch that's shown right here. MR. STAMSON: Porch In this case. MS. KIRCHOFf: Yep. MR. STAMSON: Really they cou~dn't build a deck there either because it would be closer to the 50 foot walk. They'd be closer than 50 feet; correct? MS. KIRCHOFF: Well, it's shown on the survey that was submitted with the building permit. I don't know if there was a change of design but I believe it's the same plan. MS. KANSIER: They could do an excuse me. They could do a platform deck. They couldn't do a -- MR. STAMSON: Oh, because it's not a walkout. MS. KIRCHOFF: And I don't know if it's a second story deck or just UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have an ,(inaudible) ~oundation. J Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '-, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -, Page 9 MS. KIRCHOFF: Mr. Chair UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I misse.d the depth of the property. Could you share that with me again? (Inaudible) . UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure. MR. RINGSTAD: The bank that I work at has a mortgage on this property, so for that reason I'm"not going to be participating in any discussion or voting. So please take note of that. MR. STAMSON: Okay. MR. RINGSTAD: Thanks. MR. STAMSON: Thanks, Tom. With that I'll invite the applicant up to -- .~. ~_.:....;. Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t ' \ "- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " - -/ MR. HINES: Good evening. My name is Phil Hines. I live at 2719 Spring Lake Road. I'm the owner of the property in question. I'd like to add a little clarity to some of the points here. In fact, we -- we applied for the variance at the same time, that we applied for the building permit. As we're getting late into the season and with the discussion with the builder, to expedite the process we took off the deck essentially, modified the deck so that it would conform so we could get through that part of the process as we went along. Essentially I'm here to avoid the situation that the previous couple got into in doing this. Again, we applied for the building permit so that we could get that part of it going so should you decide in our favor on this we wouldn't have to wait another 60 days and then miss the building season. ADd we do -- would like to intend to do this yet this year. As Cindy had mentioned, we're looking for the additional 6 feet that's required to put a deck up agalnst the lakeside setback and still build the house as designed. I think it's pretty cornmon knowledge and if you look on the survey you'll see the houses In all directions have decks on the lakeside. And in fact, if you built a house that Page 10 I '- J Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA(722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 , r \ , 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - ._, Page 11 wouldn't -- on the lake that wouldn't allow a deck you would see some diminished value and some issue to that. The question about the road setback was not that they had more right-of-way than they were entitled to, it just happens to be offset and so what happens lS it pushes our lot line closer to us. And I'd like to have you take a look at another house here. This is a new home that lS constructed five doors down from where I'm proposing to build. The distance from the ordinary hot water line to the road is approximately the same, it's a couple of feet. If you'll note, their road setback or their property line lS considerably closer to the road than ours lS, and therefore this point didn't requlre a variance. ~ But in fact, their front structure, their building is going to be 17 feet closer to the road than ours, than our proposed is going to be. So regardless of what the county does with the road, whether they move it this way or that way or off center they're always going to be 17 feet, closer. In addition to that, the neighbors on either side of us will sit closer to the road than what is proposed here. And I mentioned that in Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___I Page 12 addressing some of the concerns of the Planning Commission. Let's see if there is anything else I needed to -- there was a note in the letter that we, were looking for in addition to the setback from the road, there was a .3 foot variance additional side setback, and I don't think that's required. I think we've already relocated the house to address that. Can you put back up the survey? As Cindy had mentioned, it's 56 feet from the road to the front of the property line there. And as you' can see, all the neighbors and anyone else too, if oqr fence is built out into the right-of-way the water -- the water shutoffs are out into the right-of-way. Again, we're not asking to go beyond the property line itself but just to encroach on the ~~ setback 6 feet when we have an additional 56 feet to the road. With that I guess if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. MS. ATWOOD: I do. MR. STAMSON: Yes, Margaret. MS. ATWOOD: Somewhere ln my reading"it was suggested by-staff that you ask the county to I .,:j Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722) Page 13 vacate part of the right-of-way. Did you meet with them at all or did you consider that an option? MR. HINES: Yes, I did. And of course their answer was well, until we formalize- our plans we're not going to do anything with the land. What they did tell me 1S that they would expand the road to create the least impact on the existing ,structures. And given that, they couldn't corne very far toward my property without cutting off both my neighbors. And as you go farther to the west, if they carne a full 10 feet toward us we would have people who would0'~ have a full car's parking spot in their driveway. So it's unlikely that they'll do that. And the property lines runs of course. straight across and the road arches out around. For them to get anywhere close to us they'd have to arch around and then go straight across our property line and then continue arching around the lake which I also think is not a likely scenarlO. I did discuss the possibility of vacating that and he said no way to tell you whether we'll do that at this point, but the fact that it's there and we're unable to use that space creates this lssue. If in fact they didn't use it and would I I ~. give us 6 feet we wouldn't even be having this Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -/ Page 14 conversation because we're far enorigh away from the road structure and everything on that side of the property. I guess as far as I know there is no objections of any of my neighbors to it. In fact, one of my neighbors is here tonight to I believe to indicate that he's in support of it and he is directly across the road from us. So he would be the most impacted by this. MR. CRIEGO: Mr. Chair? MR. STAMSON: Sure. MR. CRIEGO: One question. Why didn't you build a house smaller? Take 6 feet off of it? MR. HINES: Well, there are several reasons. MR. CRIEGO: Pretty big home. MR. HINES:' It's a fairly large home. But at the same time, it is essentially the same footprint as the one I showed you in the depth direction. It's fairly common now to build a 28 foot deep house. That's pretty much the standard. And if you put a 12 foot deck on it and then add a garage to it this is how wide you get to. If YQu try to skinny down it, you know, you're impacting I ' I value. One of the issues that we ran up against Pat Car~ & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 15 here was that the lot values are such that you have to build a pretty good house on it to keep the home value to the lot value within the ratios that are normally implied to mortgages. MR. CRIEGO: Seems to me you could build your garage a little differently In relationship to your main home. MR. HINES: I respectfully disagree with you. We've got through this process. We've been in the design process for going on two years trying to get a house that meets the Slze requirements and still fits together with the layout of the additional -- the neighbors and .'. . MR. CRIEGO: What's the square footage of the home itself without the garages? MR. HINES: I don't know exactly. Mark, do you know what .that is? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:, 1,800. MR. HINES: 1,800 square feet, something like that. MR. CRIEGO: The first level lS 1,800. It's got a second story? MR. HINES: It's a walkout rambler. MR. CRIEGO: Walkout. So it's 18 and 18, huh. Thank you. 1" Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 16 MR. HINES: Dh-huh. MR. STAMSON: Any further comments or questions? I'll open the floor to public comment then. Thanks. Anybody here to speak please step forward and state your name and address~ MR. NELSON: Good evening. My name lS Randy Nelson. I live at 2738 Spring Lake Road directly across the street that the Hines residence. 'And I don't think there would be any neighbor more impacted by whatever he does on that property than I. When I look out my front window what I see is Phil's house, the house that used to be there and now the new house. And I'd just like to make it perfectly clear that I have absolutely no objection to his request for a varlance. Thanks. MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. MONNENS: My name is Mark Monnens. I live at 4070 Eau Claire Circle in Prior Lake. I'm the builder on this thing here. Just a couple questions on -- that I have on here. You know, the neighbor next door on the left side of this house is like 6.6 from its garage door to the property line. And the neighbor on the right lS 9 foot 3. I mean, we're sitting back now at 20 feet, we'd like to go to 13.4. I mean, -we're back less than what they are '--I Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 \ .. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25- ---I on the two sides right now. And what we'd like to do is put a porch on here. If we can't put a porch on here now and a year and a half from now we get a Page 17 variance not a variance but we get, you know, the property In front, the 40 feet In front taken back to the homeowner it's not going to help us much to put a porch on at that time. We can only put on a 6 foot deck. There is a lot of room on this property it's just it's gotta get vacated back to the homeowner. It's been sitting'like this for probably 15 years or so. So we're trying to get it now so we can have a porch on it at this time now, otherwise we're limited to what we can do. Thank you. MR. STAMSON: Anybody else care to speak? Being the case I'll close the public hearing and move to commissioner comments. Commissioner Atwood, care to start? MS. ATWOOD: Thank you. I have to support staff on this. I agree, I saw the property and I agree that there lS, you know, the feeling and visual ~pace that would should allow this and because of the road and the right-of-way. However, the two neighbors on either side as staff suggested in their report, it is presumed that they -- there will probably be new dwellings on those properties -=--0~'^ :~~~. Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722) 1 " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i " 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -, at some point. And I guess I'm just saying that just to address Mr. Monnens' comment. I just can't find a proven hardship and think that back at the drawing board you could shave 6 feet off. So I support staff. MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lemke. MR. LEMKE:- Thank you. You know, I think the gentleman should be able to build this house given the room, but I don't think this lS the forum for it. I too can't find the hardship or practical difficulty considering the size. It's not an unreasonable size, but what's unreasonable here to me is the amount of land that is being -- that is being taken in an essence by this right-of-way when I don't think the road in any practical sense lS ever gonna impact his lot. But like I say, I' don't think this body is going to be able to correct that. I wish I could somehow, but I'm going to have to support staff. MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Criego. MR. CRIEGO: I agree with the other commissioners. The lot I believe is large enough to put a nice home on. 'My take is if they redo some of Page 18 I I ] "I ~ Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --I Page 19 the garage where the garage is versus where it is now they could probably shave off 6 feet and still have their porch, their deck. I don't see any hardship here. MR. STAMSON: Thank you. I have to agree. I think this is another -- the hardship here is created by the design. There is plenty of building pad there to put a house in. And I just don't see, you know, as the ordinance applies a hardship. I think the applicant's right that the county road being placed where it is is somewhat unusual. And as Vaughan mentioned I think probably the forum for'that addressing that is with the county. They've got the right-of-way. If they want to vacate some to allow this and depending on their design that's probably not unreasonable, but I don't think that's for us to do and I really don't think -- we have looked at some smaller front yard setbacks, but generally they're on fairly small streets along the lake, small residential streets and here we're talking about a county road. And I guess without, you know, some input from the county ,or, you know, the design process being complete I'm just not comfortable imposing on the county right-of-way that way. I think the app~opriate n'~~___~ Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 20 forum for this is that if you want to use that space up front is to get a vacation from the county. And as Commissioner Atwood me'ntioned, you know, the houses next door are closer but w~re built quite awhile ago and they'll be facing the same situation at some point if it's going to be if they're going to be redeveloped. I think that's probably something that, you know, especially since the county is in design review right now of that project it's probably a good time to approach them, you know, as, you know, pretty much all the property owners down that whole stretch. Maybe you can solve the whole thing right in one fail swoop. But I don't think this a variance is appropriate or the correct forum for (inaudible). So I will not support this as well. With that open it to any further comments. Anybody have any other comments? No. That being the case I'll support a motion. Does somebody care to make a motion? MR. CRIEGO: I'll make that motion adopting resolution 03011PC deny{ng the 6.5 front 23 yard setback variance for the construction of a 24 single family dwelling. 25 MR. S~~SON: Okay. I have a motion by -, ~_Jl Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) .. Page 21 1 Commissioner Criego. Do I have a second? 2 3 MR. ATWOOD: I'll second. MR. STAMSON: A second by Commissioner 4 Atwood. Any further discussion? All those in favor 5 vote aye. 6 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Aye. MR. STAMSON: All those opposed. And 7 8 the resolution passes 4 to 0 with Commissioner 9 Ringstad abstaining. 10 And again, this can be appealed to the 11 City Council and by any effective party within five 12 calendar days. 13 MS. KIRCHOFF: Mr. Chair, just as an 14 FYI, Mr. Hines, I know he may probably already be 15 aware there is an open house on the County Road 12 16 project tomorrow night at Bipox (phonetic) 17 18 19 20 21 Elementary School from just a minute. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible. ) MS. KIRCHOFF: Be a good opportunity for you to talk to them. *** 22 MR. STAMSON: Then we'll move to 23 agenda item 5C. 24 MS. KIRCHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chair, 25 - Planning Commission. Tim and Jane McCoy are --I Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722) Page 1 of2 ~ Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "lIkka, Gregory" <Gllkka@co.scott.mn.us> <ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com> "Jenson, Craig" <CJenson@co.scott.mn.us>; "McDermott, Sue" <smcdermott@cityofpriorlake.com>; "Osmundson, Bud" <bosmundson@cityofpriorlake.com> Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11 :04 AM RE: CSAH 12 Cynthia - I reviewed the fax you sent Craig and the right-of-way information that our consultant has put together for the CSAH 12 project. This address is in an area where the existing road is not within the platted right-of-way, and unfortunately, at this point in time we have no idea where the reconstructed roadway might be. I am not sure what the front yard variance is pertaining to, whether they are taking down the existing structure and building a new house, or if it pertains to something different. What would seem to make sense is that the variance is considered from the property line, as platted, and not from the existing County Highway. In the context of doing that, look at other properties in the vicinity, and as long as the variance doesn't put the structure closer to the property line than any existing structures in the area, then it probably won't create a hardship for the County Highway reconstruction. I did leave Sue McDermott a message late last week to touch base with you on this as she has all the information about the 12 reconstruction as the city project manager, and as the City Engineer would probably want to weigh in on this variance request. Hope this gives you what you need. THANKS for giving us the opportunity to review this. Greg Ilkka, P .E. Assistant Scott County Engineer (952)496-8356 -----Original Message----- From: Jenson, Craig Sent: Friday, October 17,20039:19 AM To: 'ckirchoff({i)citvofuriorlake.com' - - - Cc: Ilkka, Gregory Subject: CSAH 12 I will be on vacation next week and I am swamped today, so I forwarded your voice mail message to Greg Ilkka, Assistant County Engineer. Greg is B EVH,tiP;T 1\ H.J, , 11/19/2003 . . November 19,2003 Cynthia Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Request 2719 Spring Lake Road SW Dear Cynthia: We have reviewed the variance request and offer the following comments: . As you are aware, CSAH 12 is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2006. At this time the County does not have any plans to vacate any existing right-of-way in this area of the variance request. Our consultant for the proj ect has informed us that the preliminary design shifts the road to the south. However, it also indicates no need for additional right-of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ Craig Jenson Transportation Planner EXHIBiT C Page 1 of3 Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Phil Hines" <PhiI.Hines@genmills.com> <hbg@priorlakelaw.com> Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1 :52 PM ATT00005.eml FW: Status of vacation/easment Dean, here is the follow up letter from the county. Phil Hines -----Original Message----- From: Ilkka, Gregory [mailto:GIlkka@co.scott.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 19,2003 1:14 PM To: Phil Hines Subject: RE: Status ofvacation/easment Hi Phil - I got your voicemail, attached is the letter that is being sent to the City. The essence is, timing is everything. Unfortunately, we cannot determine if we will vacate right-of-way in the future. The timing for the question would be after we complete reconstruction of CSAH 12. Another point, we have evaluated the situation enough to feel comfortable in saying the CSAH 12 reconstruction project would not be impacted by the granting of your variance. I don't claim to fully understand the City's reasons for not granting the variance, but I want to be sure they don't claim it's due to the impending reconstruction of CSAH 12. Unfortunately, while I commend your creative thinking, your request to basically exchange fee interest right-of-way for highway easement in order to expedite building is a precedent the Highway Department staff is not willing to set, I hope you can understand this. If! can provide any further information don't hesitate to contact me. Greg Ilkka, P .E. Assistant Scott County Engineer (952)496-8356 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Hines [mailto:Phil.Hines@genmills.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:08 PM To: Ilkka, Gregory Cc: Phil Hines Subject: RE: Status ofvacation/easment EXH\BiT - ]) 11/19/2003 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 November 26,2003 Phillip Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road SW 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 Carfson Connie Carlson Planning Secretary Enclosure .. I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Sent By: POSTNET-AZ110; 623 572 8510; Nov-26-03 11 :08; Page 2/2 HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TeJepIwae: ~2.A47.1131 ~.ac8imi1e4 952.447.508 E-_i1:IIGB@)>>ti/)rlablAw~m JAMES D. DATES ALUSONJ.GONTAREK ARyel:: D. HUEMOELLER November 25, 200J Cynthia R. Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Appeal of Hines Variance Case No. 03-135 Dear Ms. Kirchoff: Please be advised that Mr. Hines is requesting that his appeal of the denial of his variance, per the above referenced case, be reinstated and that you disregard my letter to you of November 24, 2003 withdrawing said appeal. We would ask that this matter be heard at the City Council meeting on December 1, 2003 as originally scheduled. If you have any questions please contact me at the address or phone number above. SiD~rely, /J (.J~A, !j~ Dean G. Gavin cc: Phil Hines HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Telephone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail:HGB\aJoriorlakelaw.com ~ ....)' r::::: ~, [2 U~ \\,? r:] T,':~ , ~\'I~ ~ LS \.J L:; )'\'; I-253m Iy - j) JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GoNT AREK BRYCE D. HUEMoELLER November 24,2003 Cynthia R. Kirchoff SENT VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.B. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 Re: Appeal of Hines Variance Case No. 03-135 Dear Ms. Kirchoff: Per your message of today, Mr. Hines is requesting to withdraw his appeal of the denial of his variance, per the above referenced case. The Notice I received from your office indicated that this matter would be heard at the City Council meeting on December 1, 2003. If you have any questions please contact me at the address or phone number above. Sij:' ~ Jt. I~ Dean G. Gavin cc: Phil Hines ... SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION lA.~ HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST. JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (952) 496-8346. Fax: (952) 496-8365' www.co.scott.mn.us LEZLlE A. VERMILLION PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BRADLEY J. LARSON COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER November 19,2003 Cynthia Kirchoff City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Variance Request 2719 Spring Lake Road SW Dear Cynthia: We have reviewed the variance request and offer the following comments: . As you are aware, CSAH 12 is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2006. At this time the County does not have any plans to vacate any existing right-of-way in this area of the variance request. Our consultant for the project has informed us that the preliminary design shifts the road to the south. However, it also indicates no need for additional right-of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ Craig Jenson Transportation Planner C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6IFI\PL2719splkroad.doc _' <..._ ..~ ......,. "".~ _......&o..-.~..- ". -... ~"". 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner CV Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner November 3, 2003 Front yard setback variance, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW The above referenced property is accessed via CSAH 12. On October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied a 6.4 foot variance from the required 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family dwelling. Pursuant to the zoning ordinance, the property owner has appealed the decision to the City Council. The public hearing for this appeal is scheduled tor December 1,2003. Please review the enclosed survey, and provide comments on the future use of the platted right-of-way for CSAH 12. I understand that the road has not been designed. The property owner seems to be under the impression that a substantial portion ot the right-of-way may be vacated, so the proposed 13.4 foot setback will not impact the reconstruction of CSAH 12. According to City records, the right-of-way is only 60 feet in width. I would appreciate if you would provide comments on the future of the CSAH right-ot-way by Wednesday, November 19th so that I may incorporate them into my staff report. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. . www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 October 31 , 2003 Dean Gavin Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC 16670 Franklin Trail SE P. O. Box 67 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Appeal of Hines Variance Case No.: 03-135 Dear Mr. Gavin: On October 31,2003, the City of Prior Lake received your appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a setback Variance for the construction of a single family dwelling on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW. 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, L~,lLli1!fj Cynthie R. Kircho~/cP Planner c: Phillip Hines " www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC. , ATTORNEYS AT LAW ..:..3 ~ lS; tJ '\;j ~~ 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL I. I P.O. BOX 67 ,( I a 3 '. I PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 ';. U! 1\\,1 ! Ii (952) 447-2131 , U j ~ Fax: (952) 447-5628 I Writer's email address:idbclVoriorlakelaw.com JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GONTAREK BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER October 30, 2003 Mr. Donald R. Rye Pri<)r Lake Planning Din::cror 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372 Re: Phillip Hines - Application For Variance Case File 03-114 Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the October 27, 2003, action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Hines' variance application for construction of a single family dwelling on their property. Please forward me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and any further staff reports prepared for the City Council meeting as they become available. Thank you for your assistance. vet=-~ r- ~ Dean G. Gavin DGG:dm cc: Phillip Hines