HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Mahoney Variance Request - 15731 Highland Ave.
..)
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DA TE:
INTRODUCTION:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
8C
JENNITOVAR, PLANNER
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 97 -XX DENYING APPEAL
OF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR JOHN MAHONEY ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15731 HIGHLAND
AVENUE
MARCH 17, 1997
John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, submitted an
application for a 24 foot variance to permit a 51 foot
setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of
Prior Lake. The applicant proposes to remove the
existing deck and replace it with a four season addition
of the exact size in the same location. The proposal
also calls for a new deck to be constructed on the east
side of the house, connecting the two.
A public hearing was set for February 24, 1997, and
the variance request was heard by the Planning
Commission at that time. The staff recommendation
was that the requested variances be denied because
the request did not meet the Ordinance criteria. The
Planning Commission agreed with the staff
recommendation and denied the requested variances,
specifically determining that denial of the variance does
not deny reasonable use of the property
The planning report indicated that setback averaging
results in a 55 foot setback from the OHWL. An error
was made in reading the survey, and the actual
setback using averaging is 60 feet. This was brought
to staffs and commissioner's attention on the day of
the hearing. The staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission remained the same, as the corrected
building envelope allows for an addition (not of same
size or location as proposed).
By letter dated February 25, 1997, Mr. Mahoney
appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.
16200 E~~J~f~Wm~S~.~\~lJ6\25~cMinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ANAL YSIS:
In denying the request the Planning Commission relied
on the following facts
1. The subject property is 15,335 square feet in area,
which exceeds the area requirements for lots in the
R1 - Urban Residential and SD - Shoreland
districts.
2. The subject property is over 100 feet wide at the
front which exceeds the requirements of the R 1 SD
and approximately 76 feet wide at the Ordinary High
Water Mark which is wider than required by Section
9.3A.
3. The applicants have legal alternatives under the
City Code for the construction of the proposed
addition which would not require a variance.
4. Literal enforcement of the ordinance does not result
in undue hardship, because the applicants can use
and maintain the existing deck. Denial of the
variance does not result in the ability to not use the
property as it exists.
Because of these facts the Commission concluded that
compliance with the Ordinance would not result in a
hardship, and would still leave the applicant with
reasonable use. The staff recommendation was based
on the same or similar factors, which it concluded
caused the request to fail the Ordinance criteria for
granting variances.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council could support the
recommendation of the staff and Planning
Commission by adoption of Resolution 97 -XX.
2. The City Council could support Mr. Mahoney's
original request for variance, directing staff to
prepare a resolution with findings.
RECOMMENDATION Alternative Number 1.
REVIEWED BY:
ACTION REQUIRED: adopt Resolution 97-XX
I:\97files\97var\97 -012\970 12cc.doc
RESOLUTION 97-XX
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A 24 FOOT VARIANCE
REQUEST TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH
WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND DECK
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Board of Adjustments conducted a hearing on February
24, 1997, to consider an application from John Mahoney, on behalf of
David Fong, for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance
in order to remove an existing deck and permit the construction of a
four season porch and deck on property located in the R-l (Suburban
Residential) District and the SD (Shore land Overlay) District; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustments proceeded to hear all persons interested in
this issue and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to
present their views and objections related to the variance request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as
contained in Case #97-012 and denied the variance request and adopted
Resolution 97-06PC.
WHEREAS, The applicant has appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustments to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council was presented with the appeal and materials
contained in Case File #97-012 on March 17, 1997.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE:
That it deny the appeal of the variance request for John Mahoney. for property
located at:
15731 Highland Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 4,
Island View 1 st Addition, Scott County, MN
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FINDINGS
1. 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.
Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is
possible to use the subject property in such a way that meets the requirements of City
in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
2. There are no special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such
property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist.
3. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant can use and maintian the
existing deck A variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is
not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist.
4. The contents of Planning Case 97-012 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 concurs with the Board
of Adjustment and denies the following variance for the proposed four season porch and
new deck;
1. A 24 foot variance permitting a 51 foot setback from the OHWL of Prior Lake
(904 El.) instead of the required 75 foot setback.
Adopted by the City Council on March 17, 1997.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
1:\97var\97 -0 12va\970 12re2.doc
2
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\97var\97 -0 12va\970 12re2.doc
3
......._.~
l_--,"".'
February 25, 1997
The City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Denial for John Mahoney/David Fong
Case Number 97-012
Dear Sirs:
I am requesting an appeal before the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision
February 24, 1997, denying a 51 foot lakeshore setback for the property owned by David
F ong at 15731 Highland Avenue.
Sinc.erely" ,')
~,/ f 'ft :/~,' /
?;Y") ~~ "
I / H " ,ry;:'..J4'~7/
',-,,' John B. Mahoney
17276 Murphy Lake Blvd.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4B
CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR
JOHN MAHONEY, Case File #97-012
15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES l NO
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from John Mahoney,
on behalf of David Fong, who is proposing to replace a deck with a four season
porch and construct a new deck. No previous variances have been granted.
The lot is located in the Island View 1 st Addition on Prior Lake.
The existing deck (14 by 26 feet) is setback 51 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of 904 instead of the required 75 feet (Section 9.3 A of the
Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck
and replace it with a four season porch of the same size (14 by 26 feet) and to
construct a new deck on the east side of the dwelling setback 51 feet from the
OHWL.
Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the adjacent properties are
setback 56 feet and 54 feet. Setback averaging results in a setback of 55 feet.
The applicant is requesting a 24 foot variance to permit a setback of 51 feet from
the OHWL.
DISCUSSION:
Lot 3, Block 4, Island View 1 st Addition was platted in 1976. The house was
constructed in 1977, with a basement finish in 1990. The property is located
within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district.
This lot is 15,335 sq., feet and 103 feet wide at the street and approximately 100
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER
/
feet wide at the setback. Therefore, this lot is a conforming lot under the current
Zoning Ordinance.
The structure is situate9 toward the lake shore within the legal building envelope.
The front yard setback is slightly more than 50 feet. On the lakeside, the
building envelope accommodates most of the proposed building alterations. A
corner of the proposed four season porch and part of the new deck extended
into the required yard setback. The applicant wants to preserve the existing 32
inch oak and the 8 inch maple tree adjacent to the existing deck. As a result, the
location and size of the four season porch are the same as the existing deck and
the new deck is located on the east side of the structure.
The variance to setback from the OHWL could be eliminated if the applicant
adjusted the size of the proposed addition to meet the current setback
requirements of 55 feet. This would reduce the corner of the porch by 4 feet, to
be 10 feet in length. Or, the applicant could move the porch addition to the west
and the size could remain the same. This would result in the loss of a tree,
which may be lost anyway, upon construction of the four season porch.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship
with respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if
the Ordinance is literally enforced. In this case, there is a legal alternative for
the applicant, and that is to build the proposed additions smaller to meet the
setback or to moved the proposed addition as not to encroach upon the
required setback. The building envelope can accommodate either
alternative.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
to the property.
There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant could reduce
the size of the proposed addition and thus could construct a four season
porch and deck that meet the required setback, preserve the existing trees,
and is considered to be reasonable in size.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the
result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The lot is not considered to be substandard. It is over 15,000 sq. feet in area
and about 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces or relocates the proposed
97-012pc.doc ,
Page 2
addition, the setbacks can be met and a variance will not be necessary. The
applicant has control over the proposed structure of which their size and
location are not hardships.
-
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The size and location of the existing and proposed structures on the lot are
not greatly inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The
property to the east is setback 54 feet and the property to the west is setback
56 feet. The applicant can utilize setback averaging, resulting in a setback of
55 feet which could allow for the proposed addition if relocated/reduced in
size.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff has concluded that there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could
build the proposed addition. A reduction of the proposed addition to meet the
setback or relocation of the addition as is are viable alternatives to the granting
of a variance.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 97 -G6PC.
97-012pc.doc ,
Page 3
330
\
s-r\
BLOCK 3
ISLAND VI';~-'I~~ - ~~~'N /
/
L
83
17'Q ~
5 .
1.l
-=.13 3
3 ~' 14B-415
11
~B
5
C\J
6
7
W. FISHER
101-198
8
o
<t
o
a::
L. BOHNSACK 0'1
149824 It')
_ N
~
BLM :J
~
\.-~\<.t.
~~ =--~~
"
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONEY CaNST.
17276 MURPHY LAKE BLVD.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUIre: 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570
\
~"'~~AND
--
AVE.
N.W.
---
/
'-:~t.,...'.,;:::.:.- .,
...~,
liZ, 17, _
..~:;'.,
, . ..:;~/'
to.. 24
'..:'.-
.,,0
.'"
'..f.',
~~, ':
tfl. T'
IS"
*"
S'I_ .
," ,"""CI
.'
,"
"i:~~i'-';
.:~ ;~',
...e'"
~C>
..
O."'CNT"N
AI.
. .1
~i,. ",1.'
~..'f.~ i."'.
~~
."
"
.. .'
I
"(,~G
i,i-'" ~",-
,/,0
,,"'.
,0 ~1
4> '1,0.
~'/'
0"
f
o\~
f.'- 9 \ ~v..~
I \" 91 ....""
090 #I"
"i 1.'
~~\O~
~
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 4, ISLAND VIEW 1ST ADD'N, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the
location of all existing improvements and impervious surface this 4th day of
February, 1997.
NOT&q' Benchmark Elevation 914.92 top of the existing garage slab.
912.2
>r
Denotes existing grade elevation
The
The
The
Net
Net
garage slab is at elevation 914.92
top block is at elevation 915.25
lowest floor elevation is at 912.17
Lot Areas = 15,335 sq. ft.
impervious coverage =~ NEW PROPOSED' 23.5%
o
I
SCALE
30
60
I
REV. 2111/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK
a PORCH
I herrby certify tf'tat this ....,.y wa, pr.partd
by m. or tilde, my dir<<t SlCtlry;,iOll and thot
I am a duly licensed Land Swvoyar unci... Ihe
I tII. Sto Minnesota.
IN
FEET
,
10/83
,;
o aonat" 1/2 inch .'4 inch iran
monument 1.' and marhd II)"
Liee".e No. '0'83
. 0.."0'" iron monum.,.' found
n.tt...,'". P!!",. "'f"" .,.,
".4t:;
220
53
'.( ~'
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
JOHN MAHONEY CONST.
17276 MURPHY LAKE BLVD.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Volley Surveying Co., P. A.
SUITE /ZO-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE; MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (SIZ) 447-2570
\
~.. .
"""--- - - ----
:!:..~">.:.:. HIGHLAND AVE. N.W.
---
/
.Y?;;;~?'i'
.- ....~~,;.
;'i.
10" 2'
.,._,:;;,
:;.
"':',
:,,,0
,.~- \t)
J.i~
~
,
. "
.... i'
~,"t-~
......,. ~,'"
+0
~+
0"
f
S""OItO 10
DrClll'
.
.
O\:!>
~ ':f.~
\..~
~v
I \to ~1
09 0 It'
'< 1.'
,?'r- \0 'r-
~
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 4, ISLAND VIEW 1ST ADO'N. SCott County, Minnesota. Also showing the
locatioo of all existing improvements and impervious surface this 4th day of
February, 1997.
NOTE.~' Benchmark Elevation 9l4.92 top of the existing garage slab.
912.2
~
Denotes existing grade elevation
The garage slab is at elevation 9l4.92
The top block is at elevation 915.25
The lowest floor elevation is at 9l2.l7
Net Lot Areas ~ l5,335 sq. ft.
Net impervious coverage s~ NEW PROPOSED' 23.5%
o
I
SCALE
30
60
I
REV. 2/11/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK
a PORCH
I herrby certify thot thi, JUrY" WQS pnpored
by "" or under my dirte' lUPer.i.ion ond ,/tol
, om CI duly lic,nsed L.and SflYeYor under 'h.
, 'h. 510 ""Mno'o.
IN
FEET
.
Lle.n,. No. '0'83
~';
'~.. .
o Denoln' /2 Inch. 14 ;"eIl iron
_umtnl .., and _k.d ~1
L,e.n,. No. '0'8.3
. Oenof,. iron mOf'lumeft' found
I..~ . ti,~.. $ Oeno'o P. K. Noil I"
00'.
It..4..4..Il\
--~~
11;....
Ii !'.
Planning Case File No. q7-0/02-
Property Identification No. .;);, - 1~3 -001 -c')
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E./ Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) sheets/narrative if desired)
to (proposed zonin~)
o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
o Subdivision of Land
IJ~~
.~Q..
7(;) Y
,f)(~A _/t..r/.1L~ eIT .~
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
l( ~t4-dvr yJ ~,4
~. .~~
" Ie::. S-I /
.Ly~ ~ (
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
IiJ Variance
o Other:
"33 -e)
Work Phone:
YO/7-J3 0
AppIicant(s):
Address:
Home Phone:
('
Property Owner(s) [,If differen::~r Applicants]: t:J ~ ~
Address: 9. ~ '" .' ~ ~
Home Phone: ~ 4('9( q :2-1" Work Phone: g',. 2- l' C'
Type of Ownership: Fee V'Cohtract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement
Legal Desc 'ption of Property (Attach a copy if there is n t enough space one-this she~t):~ '-r
13, <4'
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications will not be proc ed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
J- -/J- 17
Date
.-:.2 - /3 -?'7
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DA TE OF HEARING
DA TE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
il U}-------
Minnesota Department of Natural Resourttes! FEB 2 5
Metro Waters - 12<10 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-4'ffl~i
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-79771U UL
:CC'"7
I_V!
l ~____
February 21, 1997
Ms. Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
,
.
RE: LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 15731 mGHLAND AVENUE, JOHN MAHONEY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Dear Ms. Kansier:
I have reviewed the materials which accompanied the notice of hearing for the referenced variance request, and offer
the following comments for consideration at the upcoming hearing before the Prior Lake Planning Commission,
scheduled for Monday, February 24, 1997.
At fIrst glance, the request seemed reasonable. lIowever, as I considered the alternatives available, and viewed the
proposal for consistency with the requirements of the shoreland management ordinance, I find there are options which
reduce the setback variance.
If the dimensions of the proposed porch addition are reduced and the shape slightly reconfigured, the setback can be
increased. Also, bysbifting the entire addition to the west, behind the garage, the setback can be further increased.
The DNR recommends denial of the variance as requested. We do not believe a hardship can be demonstrated, and that
alternatives resulting in a lesser setback variance have not been fully explored by the applicant.
Please provide me with the outcome of the decision concerning this mat".zr. If you have questions about our agency's
position, please call me at 772-7910.
it"~' ~
Patrick ~ ill
Area Hydrologist
DNR Information: 612-296-6157. 1_800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
'-~ \1inimum of IOC":l Post.Consumer Waste
02/19/1997 09:21
447394€l
LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD
PAGE 01
~J~
February 18, 1997
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
We received your letter concerning the variance at the
David Fang new residence next door to us and we want you
to know that we fUlly support this new porch and deck
that they want to add to the residence at 15731 Highland Av NW.
Thank you,
W nc
ighland Av NW
ake MN 55372
~~"Y1 ~a~_
udith E Pinc
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
. Ordinary-High-Water is 904 on Prior Lake.
. The amendment is for all riparian lots in the shore land area.
. What happens to the land between the O-H- Wand the lot area? Kansier explained it is just
for figuring lot area.
Kuykendall:
. The word "land" should be defined. Kansier said the standard dictionary definition would
app ly.
. Questioned property owners who have land down into the lake. Rye explained a meandered
lake.
. Support the intent.
Wuellner:
. Questioned property lines, abstract or torrens. Rye responded.
Stamson:
. All concerns have been addressed.
Criego:
. Agreed with staff's recommendation.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL
APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-1-7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
AND AMENDING SECTION 8.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The public hearing closed at 6:45 p.m.
-*
B. CASE #97-012 JOHN B. MAHONEY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST A VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF
PRIOR LAKE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION (FOUR SEASON PORCH) AND DECK ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1 DISTRICT AND THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 15731 HIGHLAND AVENUE.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a
variance application from John Mahoney, on behalf of David Fong, who is proposing to
replace a deck with a four season porch and construct a new deck. No previous variances
have been granted. The lot is located in the Island View 1 st Addition on Prior Lake.
MN022497 '
(PA(j~1
~_. ------^- -
.
· Approving the enclosed deck goes against our ordinance.
· There are no undue hardships.
· The City is trying to preserve the lakeshore and stop the encroachment to the lake.
· Suggest to redo the deck and keep as is.
· Agreed with Planning Department.
Open Discussion:
Wuellner:
· The lot is extremely flat and heavily wooded which helps reduce the runoff.
· The applicant would be willing to reduce the porch and cut off part of the slab
reducing the existing runoff. Applicants could build their screened-in porch and stay
away from the lake.
Stamson:
· The lot is unique and does not encroach on the lake but there are no undue hardships.
Kuykendall:
· Discussed driveway standards.
· The City picked a 75' lakeshore setback arbitrarily.
· The structure is a reasonable use.
Criego:
· This is not a substandard lot.
Wuellner:
· Discussed reasonable use and substandard lots.
Kuykendall:
· Applicant has many trees between the house and water. A visual barrier is a positive
thing to have and should be considered with setbacks and variances.
· Given the fact this is an existing lot, it is not unreasonable to build a three season
porch.
· The visual impact is reduced by the trees.
· The neighbors do not find any problem with the addition.
Wuellner:
· The neighbors' enclosed deck is 54 feet from the lake.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRlEGO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 97-
06PC DENYING THE 24 SETBACK REQUEST TO PERMIT A 51 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRlOR LAKE RATHER THAN
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 75 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND
DECK.
NB022497
(PAGE )4
.'
This is based on the findings it does not deny reasonable use of the property.
V ote taken signified ayes-by Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson. Nay by Wuellner.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Criego explained the appeal process.
5. Old Business:
A. REVISED 1996 VARIANCE SUMMARY
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
The Conunissioners discussed hardships and interpretations of reasonable use.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY ST AMSON TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL THE PROPOSED REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by alL MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
. Don Rye reported an applicant proposing to build a strip mall off Franklin Trail.
. Discussed supporting rationale statements with every motion.
. Discussed shore land areas.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN022497
(PAGES