The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7A - Setback Variance - 2719 Spring Lake Road STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 7A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-)L'( APPROVING AN APPEAL BY PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD, Case File #97-050 SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Phillip and Bryan Hines of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a variance for the removal of an existing deck and construction of an expanded deck and three season porch on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. The appeal was to be considered August 18, 1997. Upon request of the applicant, it was continued to September 15, 1997. This request was verified via conversation with Mr. Hines on August 20, 1997 and he will be sent a copy of this report. BACKGROUND: Phillip and Bryan Hines submitted an application for setback variances from the OHW to remove an existing deck and allow the construction of a larger, expanded deck with a three season porch and a separate greenhouse. The original request was for the proposed deck to be setback 30 feet from the OHW, the greenhouse to be setback 37 feet from the OHW and the three season porch to be "lined-up" with the existing principle structure at 47 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the request was for a 20 foot variance from the OHW to allow a setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. On June 23, 1997, the Planning Commission heard the case. Upon the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the case to allow the applicant the L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E\01PLOYER opportunity to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance requests. The applicant modified the proposed expanded deck so as not to encroach any closer to the OHW than the existing deck, but to extend 8 feet longer to allow for access to a proposed deck that would meet the 50' OHW setback. The proposed three season porch would remain "lined-up" with the existing structure at 47 feet from the OHW. The proposed greenhouse was eliminated. On July 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified proposal and concurred with the staff recommendation. Citing that a legal alternative exists and that undue hardship is not created by literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission denied the variance request. The Planning Commission felt that the design of the proposed deck and porch is within the total control of the applicant and the variances can be eliminated upon redesign of the addition. The applicant can rebuild the existing deck as is and construct all proposed additions setback 50 feet from the OHW. Utilizing a more appropriate design is a viable alternative to the variance requests. The attached minutes of the June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997 Planning Commission meeting summarize the discussion of this variance request. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission based the denial of this variance request on the following factors: L 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 2 The unique circumstances in this case could be the setback of the existing house and deck. The applicant is not proposing to encroach any more than already exists. However, there is no topographical or vegetative hardship relating to the property that warrant the granting of a variance. 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 considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback 39 feet. Considering that the applicant can replace the existing deck, it is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow for an expanded non-conforming use. AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by Phillip and Bryan Hines and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Phillip and Bryan Hines' appeal by overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the requested variance. In this case, the Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the variance. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050CC.DOC Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #1. Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commissi L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) OF SPRING LAKE (912.8) RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED EXP ANn ED DECK AND THREE SEASON PORCH AS DRAWN IN EXHIBIT A, CASE NO. 97-050, FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the 23rd day of June and the 28th day of July, 1997, to act on setback variance requests by Phillip and Bryan Hines for property known as 2719 Spring Lake Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has denied the setback variance request based on lack of hardship as determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in City Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council: and the City Council heard the appeal on September 15, 1997; and the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. The Planning Commission held hearings on June 23, 1997 and July 28,1997 to review a 20 foot variance request to permit a 30 foot setback, and then a modified request of an 11 foot variance to permit a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark of Spring Lake (912.8 el.) rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as drawn in Exhibit A, for Phillip and Bryan Hines, on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shore land Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as: 16200 Ek~Y-~r~eR'J!.\JJ~~.~~rpni<fLake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612t!?447-4245 AN EQU':\L OPPORTUNITY E\OlPLOYER 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 Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring Lake, in Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests as contained in Case File #97-050, and denied the setback variance requests based on the lack of hardship determined upon review of the hardship criteria set forth in the City Code. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on September 15, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Commission 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. 5. The City Council has reviewed the hardship criteria in relation to the setback vanance requests for the proposed additions as shown in Exhibit A. 6. The City Council has determined that there are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property that are not the fault or cause of the applicants. 7. The City Council has determined that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not result in undue hardship, as the applicant's can build the proposed additions on the property within the legal building envelope and can rebuild the existing deck as it exists. 8. The contents of Planning Case File #97-050 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the setback variance request and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny an 11 foot variance request to permit a 39 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Spring Lake (912.8) rather than the minimum requirement of 50 feet for a proposed expanded deck and three season porch as drawn in Exhibit A, Case No. 97-050, for Phillip and Bryan Hines on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. Passed and adopted this 15th day of Sep~ember, 1997. YES NO Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins 1: \97files\97var\97 -05 O\ccres.doc Page 2 {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake I :\97files\ 97var\97 -0 50\ccres. doc Page 3 ,:,Ut'1vt;.I PHIL 2719 PRIOR o I SCALE rt1c:..t~t.\t1t..lJ rUN, Valley Surveying CO., P. A. 'SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 REVISED PLAN .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE t MN. 55372 EXHIBIT A ( SPRING 9Z..ulAKc , ,,,""01 nAB IL, el.. 40 SPRING DESCRIPTION AS ~t . 909 " /1., .8 PROVIDED: /96 l.4k~ ~ The westet'ly One llalf of Lot 3; etlld [,ot 4; and the '",stedy One Jlalf of Lot 5, all in Block. 46, and a strip of Innd between aaid Lot" and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring lake, i.n Sprin<j r,ake Townsite, accordin<J to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, inc.ludinq any p!lrt ot:' portion of any street or alley abutting said premi.ses vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTJ~' Benchmark Elevation 928,38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4, 920.1 .. Denotes existing grade p..!'!wation Denotes proposed finished grade elevations ~ Denotes proposed di.rection of fi.nished surface drainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 920.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 \ The lowest floor elevation is at 920,37 30 Net Lot Area = 12,000 sq. ft. REVIS ED 7/10/ 97 TO SHOW PAOPOS EO DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~by c.rlify that 1/1/1 surv.y was pr.pand by m. or undO( my dirocl .""....i.ian and that I om 0 duly Iic.nlld Land 5....,.or und... th. 10,... f)f thf Sta,., ,of A(lnnetota'l' / ,.: /' I -,,", ;' .. " " ,. //7/ .' '-. 'J.' (/, 'U,'r-~,~,,-"" --... :. 60 I IN FEET o O.nol.. 112 Inch. 14 inch iron "",numt!nl III and mark.d by Llc.n.. No. 10183 r ~ ~z :'::;Gl .~, J> ~i* J> . i I -'V I .., , c b~.. I~ ~ , ,..., e,...- If I _ -' -i -. - .-- I c -u C> 'I 8' 24' i I ~.2-----~~-, ii! . U n ~~ ". II' f' \) r J r:;. <: t.I' z ~ Gl - o ; , j I, il \j II !1 II Ii Ii JI Ii t! ~ '" , , I -~-~_-+ I II I Ii i \1 ! II :1 il :! !i ii ii II ;1 II il ii II ii il il !I ii II II II !I II II II Ii iI II I , I , i II !I II II II II : ,\ i II. I II. ! =.J~._,- i ~ .~_._--------~~~-~ '" , t i}",t'OS~ 1~e..c.1~ '~nll ! ""l i I I : 1 I I I ~ i I I ~ i i :1 i"l I ' i at i ~~ ,.. l"- i- J" 7- IJ !c i'\ '(' C7 ~(\> ',c. !~ !.:.... 8' Ii !! i 11 ---;--~~ I II il ii 'I I, I, II I, " II II jI Ii II Ii II " II I II II I' Ii II I' d Ii I, II II II I I , i !I ""-+ ----r , ~ i ~ I ~~ 16' I . , !~ ----~~=r'. '. . -.- , ! ~ '" ~ :4'" CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The rvIaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1- '1 \ q S f\"~ ~ 'l~ ~c .~)) Lot Area \'2-1 ~OO Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. --;C6I..\O \ . *************************************************.~********************* HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ . LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET Yo.4.,x~=~' 1.LD.~ x 1.'2-.<; = S'1LP x = TOT AL PRlNCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \1l.eO DETACHED BLDGS BCA-+ (Garage/Shed) ~\"..c,e. '1..e:> ' S x \ 0 X -z.oc;. -toe; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... LO . S f- '2:2." C; DRIVE\VA Y/PA VED AREAS \ .~ X '-\<i (Dri\:.:way-paveci or not) 1-Lo X 3.S @~ark:r:g A~eas) -2-- "v _~ X .-z.. <..,. = u.. 1.... \ ~ '::' I t-.~L \ \0,-\ = J~~<;~ PATIOS ORCHE ECKS (Open Decks ';." min. opening between boards, with a pervious surface beiowj are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... \'-\G~ \ lc X \ S. to 1 = 1-~'1 X = x = .TOT AL DECKS........................................................ .'1- ~o .1 OTHER X = ~ = TOTAL. OTHERtl..~......,..,.....,.........."tl,.......".._....... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~::R~.~~.~ Company \! p, \ \€t.\ S",;:,,,,,,,, \~ Cp. r. A . \ \ L~ 361./7'1 L__ f 9 I I Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ ( Phone # L\ ~1 - -z~ c;'l 0 SURVEY PR EPAR ED FOR: PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE I MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ( SPRING '25~ll4kE GAA4(J[ S\.Ae [L, 921.40 SPRING DESCRIPTION AS t( II /1,/ PROVIDED: 9098 /96 l...4k~ ~ The westeely One lialf of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the EElSterly One flalE of Lot 5;" all in Block 46, and a .'3tdtJ of l.lnd between said LotlJ anu lying sOlltherly thereof and the waters edge of StJl:'in'l lake, i.n Spl:'inq ',ake Townsite, accol:'dinlJ to the plat thereof on file and of recol:'d in thf> Offi.ce of the Registrat' of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc paction of any street or alley abutti.ng said premises vacated or to be vacated. Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTES' Benc~,rk Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage "lab on Lot 4. 928.1 ~ Denotes existing gri'lde P. :,~vation Denotes proposed finished Cjrade elevations ~ Denotes proposed dil:'ection of fj ni shed slll:'face dri'linage The existing garage slab i.s at elevation 928.3fJ The existing top blo<:k is at elevation 928.7 'The 10wer,t floor e'",vation is ilt 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Area = 12, eOJ sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;'~bY certIfy that ''''5 !urv~y WO! preportKJ by me or under my dir~t !uperv;5ion and thot 10m 0 duly I,cented land $wvl!'YOr undf!f' th~ law. ef 'h. Slat. O~_~i""..ota , .. '.~.1''''' IN FEET ,... "'.........., /' i....h .. ',1 ;...,... j....... iltJlley ::;Pur \I e'y IUIj l.,U.. I-: 14. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTLI 55372 TELEPHONE (612)447-2570 JUN ~'"9{IS W Li :. ~. PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE. MN. 55372 / -- ----1 ~ o I SCALE EXHIBIT C -------- ( sPRiNG --- L A v c--. ,z~?' "c ROAD)-- SHOWS EXISTING DECK "-.---- I /r / I , I ------ ------ w~::__--._-.__ r-ENt.E___:r-- NIf:'ly lif!p N 74- 0' lots J __ /()(/8'3S"W ,46S 00. [""ISTING H OUrE ,--::' g''?8, SPFTIIVG DESeR t P'l' ION IV. ft II /14 PRC)V IUF.!); '-4kE' 9098 /96 The wster 1 y Ulle Hal t of Lot -'; and '.\". L\; and the I",,,ter I y \Jlle lia 1 E of Lot 5';- <111 in R.lcck ,Jh, .~nrl " r;tt:'l" 01 1,1n',~ betw!'!'n "<liel l.ot" and lying s01ltherly thet'eof and th-= '.'II_err' "dqe of ;ipr'lnq I.d'.p., i" S~Ci(1r1 1,,,1;1" Townsite, accordinl] to the plat thereot on [i le ,nn oj: c!'cord in th!' uftL"" ()f: the I~egistcat' of Deeds in and for said :;,'ott \\,\mty, ~lir.nl~~;nl-..:), inr-1'lrliflll r'\ny' l_-';-'1,~t. (Jr:" ~"Or:"~_il,'~' of ony ~trp.et or: alley ahIJtt_'_fYl ~rlid pl"erni~"';(.H; V;h:nl:~""\i 'II:" t.o t~ Vi1(~~.,Io,pd, ~)cott County, Minnesota. Al"o "hnwtng the .Iocilti()n of th.~ P('opof'ed NOTES' Benchmc,rk f-;Ievation 92n.3<\ top of the !'xistinq 'lat'aqe "lab on Lot 4, 92f301 .. l)f?notpg p.xistin<J qCi\OP" "ation Denote~ propoRed fini~hP<1 qr:-'1(l0. f'tevationR --+ Denotes proposed dicection of finished sut'face dcainage rhe existinq gaca<J!' slab in i1t elevation 'J?IJ.J~ Thp existin<l top block i" ,1t "lpwltion 'PEL 7 The l.o'WP.~t f 1 (Xlt" p! ~v;'': i OP 1.~ ;1t 9704::'.7 Net r.....,t Ar:ei'l l?,n(X) "'J, tt REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW ~ED ?~;~bY c",'tfy 'hat"... _, .... prepand by m. or undlr my _ ......enriti... _ ItIo, 10m 0 eMy "..._ larYlts.n.,wllMlr 1M lo,,'<>f tho Stato.of-1'......ata Ii " . ./...~~ 1.~~.~..4::: ,t:::R: . .. . Do', ". t.-:J.7.... LiClnll No. /01113 30 60 I Net pC'ol:.:-osec'l irn~r-vi.011:~ C(~V0raq~ )H.OO IN FEET o OInof. //2 /fIe/t. "''''ell Iron mort_' Nt - ........., by Lie.",. No 10183 ) 'j I \ ., l_ I I 1\ LI />,1\ ,-U vl\ Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT D PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRI~IG LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN 55372 ( SPRING 925.:.LAKE: R~ , ROAD---- .. -~U926.~~O. I~ ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSION--- EXISTING I \\T ------------ ~ -------, ~ I t.,.,.. 'cO< : ~ 'L ".'0 __ ~ 4 ,- ~"I/ ___ ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE l) SPRING DESCrUPl?lON ^S t( 11//'1 Pl,OV WIOD: 90ge /96 L..4/f~ ~ 'l'h<e westerly Qlle II" if of Cot 3; i'md Lot 4; ilnd the I':<,sterly DIe Iii! l f of Cot (111 in Block 46, ctnd rt f3tr.:-ip of lt1nd hetwE.~n 3i\ic] f.ot~; aCHJ lyiny sOllthecly thereof and the waters edqe of S"rinq lake, in S"cinq f",',e Townsite, accordin'J to thl'! plat thereof on r:i le ,HId of rl'!cord in the Office o[ tl"J fiec]istt'al' o[ Deeds in and foe said Scott County, Minnesotn I inr:ludinq any p::lct oc P~)r.t ion of any .stCf?et or i1lley i1buttinq ",aid premises vacated or to Of> vi1cilted, c3cott County, Minnesota. ^lso showing tile 10ci1tion of th" proposed NOl'I;;S' Benchm.....rk Elevation 928,38 to" of the existinq (Jaragf~ :Jlilb on Lot 4. 920.1 ~ Denotes existing <jcode ~ !J:-vation Denote", propclf1ed fini.shed CJri!de elevations ----+ Denotes pt'olJOf1f>d di.rection of fini.shed surface drilin,"\ge The existing garage slab is at elevation 92!3.3/l The existi.ng top block is i1t elevation 928.7 The 10we:Jt floor el"vation in at 920.37 o 1 SCALE 30 60 Net Cot ,\rei1 ~ ] 2, Bon n'1' ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PR:JPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PRa'OSED ?~;~bY cfrHfy 'hot ""5 surv~y wo, pr~pand by mf! or vndf!r my dirpct 5upeor-v;,:,on ard that I am a duly licf!n5~d land 5urvpYor undPf" 'hp kJW.~' f"! Stat. o~~;n":.'oto_ ' ! . .~ ",:....1'... i , /,_, ! . ,'.. l' ,-...f '._~ ~ " IN FEET o O.nol.., 12 inch x /4 inch Iron monum@nt ,.f nnd mark!d by. Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, .MN July 31, 1997 Dear Jenni, Please receive this letter as written notice that I intend to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the variance request for my home (Case File #97-050). Please forward to me any procedural information necessary for the appeal as well as a schedule of dates for the City Council meetings. Sincerely, .. . / ~) ~../ / .._~-y; ~_..~ /, --'I ~.. , Phillip - . Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, MN (612) 447-8033 ", :-: --' - - '--, MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-16PC DENYING A 5 FOOT V ARlANCE REQUEST TO PERJ\.1IT A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINHvIUM REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET FOR A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16697 CREEKSIDE CIRCLE FOR ALVIN MONNENS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. CASE #97-066 CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR C. H. CARPENTER, 16450 ANNA TRAIL SE. Commissioner Stamson opened the public hearing. The City received an application for a conditional use permit from c.H. Carpenter Lumber on July 3, 1997. The applicant proposes to construct two pole type buildings in a phasing plan. The applicant is proceeding with a tree inventory/landscape plan, but is in need of more time. Considering notices of public hearing were sent and published, the Planning Commission must continue the hearing to August 11, 1997, MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRlEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5. Old Business: ~ A. CASE #97-050 (CONTINUED) BRYAN AND PHILIP HINES REQUEST SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ORDINARY HIGH \V A TER LEVEL, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. On June 23,1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the Ordinary High Water and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the Ordinary High Water. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the appli~ant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck. However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same Ordinary High Water setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. r--, , . ....... r;::' r-J I \ I '" I 1'-, , ! L .. \ : 1..J ; L._) i....J '- .,J tJ Li Staff concluded there are legal alternatives for which the applicant could build the proposed additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance, Comments from the public: Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, explained his change of request to extend the roof of his house as well as reducing the deck setback. By placing the deck on the west side of the house, it would line up with the existing boathouse. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . Does not support the additional 8 feet. Replace the existing deck. . Sees other alternatives. There are no hardships. Criego: . Commented on entries. . Ordinance states applicant can repair existing deck. . Applicant is not encroaching the lake. . Accepted proposal. . Questioned the building envelope. . The Commissioners are concerned when someone goes out of the building envelope. Cramer: . Stated he was not present for the previous meeting. . The applicants tried to make a significant changes but there are other alternatives which would satisfy the setback requirements. V onhof: . Question for staff on the roof line of the house as proposed by the applicant. . The house was built in Spring Lake Township. . The ordinance had just recently been changed to 50 feet. . Applicant should replace the deck, but there are no extraordinary hardships. . Recognizes there have been significant changes in the proposal but still go a little bit further and modify. There are other alternatives. . Does not oppose to replacing existing deck. Stamson: . Strongly agreed with V oOOof. . Recognizes the substantial changes. It would be different ifthe distance to the lake was 50 feet L_,' '-1'-0 L u U u . Hardship has not been made. Mr. Hines said he asked for a continuance under the impression the Commissioners would accept staying within the extension of the house line. Commissioner Stamson explained the State's hardship criteria. The Commission does not find any hardship. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-14PC DENYING AN 1l FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES. Discussion: Criego felt applicant would not be encroaching closer to the lake. V onhof explained the applicant has made a choice. There are substantial alternatives with the large building envelope. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson eXplained the appeal process. B. CASE #97-066 (CONTINUED) VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR BRIAN MATTSON FOR THE PROPERTY AT 16575 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. The hearing was open to the public. On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Brian Mattson who is proposing to construct a detached garage with driveway. The applicant had originally requested a variance to allow impervious surface coverage on the lot to be 54% and the driveway to be setback 1 foot from the property line. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The Planning Department has received a written request from the applicant requesting an extension until August 11, 1997. The applicant has significantly reduced the impervious surface on the site and is awaiting completion of final survey. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT S'A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97 -050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD ./ JENNITOVAR, PLANNER ~Vl~ ~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TO _ YES -X- NO JULY 28, 1997 On June 23, 1997 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Bryan and Philip Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The applicants had originally requested a variance to allow an expanded deck with porch to be setback 30 feet from the OHW and a proposed greenhouse to be setback approximately 37.5 feet from the OHW. Based on the hardship criteria used for evaluating variances, the Planning Commission was prepared to deny the variances as requested. Upon request of the applicant, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to July 28, 1997. This was to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance request. The revised proposed deck does not extend any closer to the OHW than the existing deck, However, it extends 8 feet farther to the west. This is to allow access around the proposed porch. The proposed larger deck and porch have been located at the same OHW setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E" Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER larger deck and porch (Exhibit A). The applicants are requesting an 11 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 39 feet rather than the required 50 feet. DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The applicant has significantly reduced the variance requests and is proposing to build no closer to the lake than already exists. However, the variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed deck addition and porch 3 feet away from the lake to be setback 50 feet from the OHW and replaced the existing deck as it exists. VARIANCE HARDSHIP 5T ANDARD5 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. The unique circumstances in this case could be the setback of the existing house and deck. The applicant is not proposing to encroach any more than already exists. However, there is no topographical or vegetative hardship relating to the property that warrant the granting of a variance. 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. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -50PC2, DOC Page 2 The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. Considering that the applicant can replace the existing deck, it is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow for an expanded non- conforming use. 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 additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. If the Planning Commission grants a variance, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -50PC2, DOC Page 3 ...:>UH V t.l PHIL 2719 PRIOR r-Hc.n""t.u rUM, Valley Surveying Co., P.A. 'SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 REVISED PLAN HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 EXHIBIT A ~ o I SCALE ( SPRING ...:.LAk€ (;l(ISTlN(J HO?' IJA,U,Or ,\..411 fl... u....O tt I 90S ~ 1 /1'1 <J DESCIUPTICN AS PROVIDED: /9,0; 1...4kc The westet'ly ene !lal f of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and tile ICil:Jtecly ene lIa l f of Lot 5,",," '"" all in Block. 46, and a ,'3trip of Innc1 het"",,,,n .:laid Lot:, iJnd lying s01lthet'ly thet'eof and the '-1atee; edye of Spdnq lake, in Spdny r,a',e TO'N'llsite, accot'dinrJ to the plat thet'eof on file alld of t'ecot'd in the Office of the Registrat' of Deeds in and fat' said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pat't oc pet'tion of any street ot' alley abuttil1<J ."laid pt'emise" vacated at' to he vacnted, Scott County, Minnesota. 1'.130 showing the location of the pt'oposed NOTI':S' Benchmat'k Elevation 928,38 top of the existing gat'aC)e ."ll"b on Lot 4. 97.8.1 ~ Denotes existinC] grade p'!..:,vation Denotes pt'opened finished CJt'''de elevations --+- Denotes pt'opo."led dit'ect ion of finishoo s\lt'face dri'linage The existing gariJge slab is at elevation 97.8.38 The ,.,xisti.ng top blor:k is at elevation 97.8.7 \ The lowe."lt floot' e,l,evation i."l i'lt 97.0.37 30 Net Lot At'e" : 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE, REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PRa>OSED 9~;~by C!rl"y '''at tN, JtJrVfy wa, prrporf'd by me' or under my dirtet sup~vujon and ,t'lot 10m a duly licennd land SLrVtyor undtf' fh. 1o~.4! 'h~ Staf~.."~1..(lnnno'a"7 , ,',o' ../J,A'''' ;" ,/ ~'.I' --, J ,.. t- . "......(....-: 60 o Ol!noht' /2. Fneh x 14 inch iron monurTIl!nf Jet IJnd mad(e'd by IN FEET r- ~~ ::;Gl ,,> "';:0 ;'m > I -\) I~ i..-,. ~~ 1', c.- f" , I -, - - 1- - _.-- i I I i I t:>~ ~ ~ /.'-. '! - V' 1'7 'J !e b ,<, C5 rot\> i:c' 1(' I~ I- I ~8' I c " I> ,; R-o~~~ 1~!.C.k.. ; i 2<' t, I ," "'-+ I, I :; ~ 8' 18' 1"'---'----------; ~ it " LJ , I ~~ j, (' '1l r- J Co <: V' '" '" Gi Q..... 0 I' i j : I I, ii il II !l Ii ij I, ii ii It Ii II 'I I' I' II " II il II II II II 'I I: II Ii II " il " I' ,! II " il !I II " II 'I II I' iI II II II I' 'I II I, ,I II II Ii II :.(" ~ IT! i~-+ II, II 'I !I I :1' I , I II I 'I I :, ! 11 Ii ii !I i\ I, II I' ,I II II II II II II II II II fl II 'I II II !I " !I , I I I I II ,. II II II II I! II II :::lJ I I I- I ;~ 111 I" I I 1 ! I ' I ... I ~ , I !" I I 1 ~ ,; ,1 I 'I I 'I 'I I ! I f :l; I i , , C-L CITY OF PRlOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) F or All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The wfaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1- '1 \ q -<3 f'\".~. ~ l~ ~c .~'D Lot Area \'2., <'(:)00 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~bL\O ****~***********.*~*****~*************************.********************* LENGTH \VIDTH SQ. FEET '" i \ lo~ ,---~......_- HOUSE YD-'? ,x 1-Y = ATTACHED GARA.GE ~ "ll.o . <S x 2"2..<; = S~\..p x = TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \llPO DETACHED BLDGS Dc,:;,,+ (Garage/Shd) \+J\.,."':'e. '1..D 0 S x x \0 --z.oC; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... 'lor:; DRIVE\VA Y/PA VED AREAS LOoS -I- 2-'2....<:; ~~ i \~ x ~<1 = lo ~-; (Driveway-paved or not) t-l2 X 8.S -z.. -L I ~~ark:r.g A~ea3) ~ If X -t.. c... = \0'-\ ~, PATIOSiP~DECKS (Open Dccks ';." min. opening be:ween boards. with a pCrlious surface beiow, are not considered to be impervious) TOT.U P A YED AREAS......................................... \ ''-\ c 'j \ lc X \ S. ~ 1 x = 1-00,1 = x = TOTAL DE CKS.. ...................................................... 1- So ,1 OTHER x = x = TOTAL OTHER."..............................".,.................. TOTALIIYIPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VER [\ Prepared By D ~~ ~ AJ Company \) 1\ \ \~''\ S'-' P- "\ \ 'J Co r A L: 3(') L/~il L____ ! 9 / I Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ I Phone # Y ~'l - '1- S1 0 SURVEY PR EPAR EO PHIL 2719 PRIOR o I SCALE FOR: Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAil FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 EXHIBIT B ~rn:~~:~~ I' ( SPRING .zs,..lA kE , <1",,,"01 tL.A8 [1,.. '.1..40 SPITING DESCRIPTION AS "t 11/1'1 PHOV IDEO: L.4k€ 909,8 /96 The westecly One Half of Lot 3; ~ NOTES' Benc~~~k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing ga~age glab on Lot 4. 9/.8,1 ... Denotes existing gt'i'lde e >vation DenoteR pt'oposed finished gt'ade elevations -->- Denotes pt'opoRp.d di.~ect ion of fin; shed sll~face d~ainacJe The existing ga~age slab j.s at elevation 978.38 The existinCJ top blor.k is at elevation 928.7 The lowegt floot' elevation is i'lt 920.37 30 60 Net Lot A~ea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 ro SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12 I 4 196 ro SHOW PROPOSED ?~;r~bY ctrtlfy that this JUt'vt'y was prftpor~ by mt' or und~r my dirN:t !:up~v,S'O" and that 10m a duly fjcen!~d land Sl.FV~or und~ th~ 'ow"!}' 'ht' $t",~ o~_~.\4jn"~~ota ..,- IN FEET o Dtnot" I /2 Inch x /4 inch iron ,I PHIL 2719 PRIOR o I SCALE HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE. MN 55372 IItJlJey ~U1 "e/lii'J l,U., r J.4. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 JUN ;19~~ !' :[ '~~' EXHIBIT C ------- (sPRiNG l -- ~l~ Ol 4kE SHOWS EXISTING DECK ------- --- ROAD) I / I '\ I I / I I ! "J.~ c ';:~~::~ ----- ....00.., F!N~( - __..-r----- -1.; j f ;; i / ,I I i ! NO'I Y Ii,.,.. Of N 74- 'o,~ J . " 10038'35""" .485 00. ...".... n.... I\. '....0 '. ~ -..-:--'---.; -----~::----- )~Q;;-::~- .. ,1/ .,.?If SPRING Cl L.4.kt D8.SClHPT IO~J '\. 909 e , I /'4- /96 [)!-J('V! UFf): ~ ~ W"estet"ly _11e ildtC at Lot ,. and 'i~...t_ ,:; --1nd the- !':':1:;t.~["1"i i_ne HalE of all in Rlor.K dh 'lnrl.1 .'it:)':"i.~, fJt l'~,_l ...,ot:....JP~:1 S.-:1j~t ,ct;c: i1nri lying southerly thee-eot (l.nd .:h~ '';l'.'''r""' o.-:j(j'~ 'Jt ;;pt"lnq "1....0:0:-, ;~ ~==prlrh '.;'~:0 ['.::J\ffiStte, ac:::orrhntJ to the plat thet:enl nn L:; 'P. 'll~ ct: c?coco In thp '-)ftlf~P ~L ':he eC"-jistt"ar of D~s in c'lnd for .3i1id .,)t~ "dInt'! ~lir.nt"'l~;,...,t"_;), ;,~rl'!dinu .:\nl ~""""l,_I' -,,,: tnr:-~ "1 ('If -lIlY .~tr:p.et or C\11ey ahlJ!":.'_ .,,; :.rlld tJl'eflil~~p'"'; Vd,:F1I:<"'ti ,[' 1:0 r,..-... V'l,:,,",r"(j, ~)cct::. CO\Jnt",'l Minnesota. AJ;,o ;-;hc;W' '...111...1 the I OCC'lt l::;n .)f th.""> pt()r~~e-d NOTES' Benc~,~k Slevation 92R.JH top of the 2xistinq ga~aap. sl~b on Lot 4. ');1fJ.1 .. i)J:>not.:-:.s p.xistinfl l]CnrlP '.-ltion Denct~~ pr8po~ed E i n i~h~ '1r-;"!(~0 (""' 1 ~vation.;<:; __ LAnote" pC'oposP.d di.C'p.ction of finished surface dC'ainage t'he :?:-:ist:nq q"c.3qr 8\,10 i'~ -1t ~l'?vC\!':icn (1,."''l.~'J t",..,(, &"'!:':12t n<.. tnD r")~('i(~V: 1:. ,~ :::'ItQv-~tir;n ,:"q,-; .'hp ('"".,lP'it [i':JC''C ,... ,'3U_'''':I'-''' ,... -... ::')0.:- N~t I,,-.r. Acp" 1 :I ,HeX) ~,I J" gEV ISED 12/4 /96 ro SHOW PRa'oSID 8ECI( : h~r...by cerlffy that ttw. wrvey..,a prf9Gl"f'd by rn~ 0" lJf"td.,. my dj~ .......,ieion 0tIIl1tHI, 1 am , duly I,""~ Lar><i s.,..,..,r _ no. ",,_.<Of ih. S'at..",~/o''';;_ /._..,., y.. .?:; L.Y. ./I:..,t~ "",, t -:"1t,. ,~. t.~). 7' W t .,.",n.. Nrt !(H".Jl' 30 60 I ~J~': :)C")~..:l(J~ed im~c" i_l'll:~ r ~",V""'"C ,UP )H.OO IN FEET o O.nof" 1/2 inch. I4IttC1l Ir"" rnO'tI~"' ,.t and mcrt.d by / 11"1"'''''''''_ No I()/S 3 dUll" L.I I 1\ LI J\l\ LV I viI Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKliN TRAil FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TElEPHONE (612) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT D PHIL 2719 PRIOR , HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 9Z5,:zLAkl: ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE EXISTING ( , -----r---- _______ '/ j>- ~ ~) aA..AlJ( ,\.~U!l H. _ 'ut.-40 DESCRIP'I'lON ^S ft /1 909 e //.; P!(OV WED: /96 L.A,If~ ~ 'l'h~ w~ster:l y Olle Hillf of I_at 3; and Lot 4; and tile 1':.c,3tec! y ()r1~ Ila l ( of Lot S,-c <Ill in Bleck 46, and <I Gtr.-it.' of 1.,nd betw~"!n s<lid r,ot" and lyi,~~ sOJlth",r.ly theceof and the wat",r.G edqe of St.'cinq lake, in 3t.'r.in'J r,,':~e Townsi.te, accocdin'J to th... plat ther.eof on fi Ie <lnd of. cecor.d in thf! Of.f (r.", of tll'? Registcilt' of lJ",~ds j,n and for. said Scott County. Mi.nnesota, inr.ludinq any p,xt 'x PJction of any stt:'",et at:' alley abutting said pr.erni sea vacatro at:' to Of! V<lC<lted, Scott County, Minnesota. J\l<30 showing the lOCution of. the pr.opo.scd NarES' Benchrnilt:'k I,levation 928.38 top of the existing (Jar.ay(~ stub on Lot 4. 9;<1).1 ~ Denotes existing grr\de ~~, "'Hlation Denotes pr.Opoflro finiGhed cJr.<lde elevations -- Denotes pr.olX's",d elimotion of finished sllr.face dr.ain"CJ'~ The existing gar.age slab is at elevation 9;<B.313 The p.xisting top blor.k i.'3 'It ",levation ':1;<[].7 The Lowent floor. eJ"!vatioll in at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net I_at I\r.ea = 12, BOn nq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE, REVISED 12/4/96 fD SHOW PROPOSED ?~;'~bY c~rti'y t"o' 'his ~v'Y was preparM by m. or und,r my d;rtf:f supf!f'vision and that I am (J duly liCt"s,d land Surv~or undtr fh. Iaw..lIJ( fh, Stat, of...M.jnn~,o'o. ' 1.'-- ..'" ~ ,~~ /'--1 I ~/' ,i,."; " IN FEET o D.oo'" 1/2 ioch x 14 ioch "00 monum@nt let <1nr1 mn,I(I~d b~. RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A.t~ 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota: FINDINGS L Phil and Bryan Hines have applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remove an existing deck and permit the construction of a porch and deck on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location. to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as 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 ofland between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of 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 Scon County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, 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 the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, SE.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax '612) 447-4245 AN ECl,-\LJPDORTLNITr' E\olPT...::l'rE::\ 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope. 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-050 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variance for the proposed porch and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. An 11 foot variance permitting a 39 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. /1' H /1 v~"-(: .. ~- , \ ~ Anthony Stamson, Chair 1:\97var\97 -050va\97-0 14re.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23,1997 v \'?' (\ \? \~ \\) \. \.) , ,'..) r, r\ \\..~, '. \ '\ .\;, .I ..-' ~ ' 1. Call to Order: The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Starnson and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Stamson Kuykendall Criego Wuellner Absent Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: =? A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants MN062397,DOC j------, i: \ ~ 0 if, ) I I :'i LJ\ \ I L_J UiJ \...\ U are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed if he built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The existing deck can be replaced. . Concurs with staff s recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake . Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: . Supports staff recommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. . The existing deck is well laid out. . Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. MN062397.DOC 2 - c-, n I,J I;.: 1 lu\ v ! ! : I If I L..:-J UL... Lu U Stamson: . Questioned previous variances. . Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. . Reasonable use of the property. Criego: . Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. . Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. . There are no hardships. . As presented, agreed with staff s recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF I FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397,DOC 3 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97-050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES l NO JUNE 23, 1997 The Planning Department received a variance application from Phillip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. No previous variances have been granted. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Spring Lake of 912.8 and the existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet (Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ordinance). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house (Exhibit A). A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The proposed porch and additional deck area will be located on the west side of the dwelling and setback the same distance of the house (approximately 47 feet from the OHWL). DISCUSSION: The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house was constructed in 1967. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SO (Shoreland Overlay) district. This lot is 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 12,800 sq. feet and 100 feet wide at the street and approximately 100 feet wide at the setback and at the OHW. Therefore, this lot is a substandard lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. feet for general development lake riparian lots under the current Shoreland Ordinance. No previous variances have been granted on this property. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line (Exhibit B). The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope (Exhibit C) shows that the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter date June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area that can accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. 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 to meet the OHW setback and to replace the existing deck to be of the same size and location. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC. DOC Page 2 There are no unique circumstances in this case. The applicant is proposing to build a porch and part of the expanded deck within the legal building envelope. Considering that the existing deck can remain and be replaced to the same size (outside of the legal building envelope), the proposed porch and most of the greenhouse would fit into the area where the applicant proposes to place the porch and expanded deck. 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 considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. If the applicant reduces and/or relocates the proposed additions and/or replaces the existing deck to same location and size, 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 somewhat inconsistent with the location of other structures in this area. The property to the east is setback 46 feet from the OHW and the property to the west is setback 51 feet. The applicant can legally be setback 50 feet and existing house is setback 47 feet and the existing deck is setback about 39 feet. To encroach any further into the required OHW setback would place the proposed structures significantly closer to the lake than the adjacent properties. 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 additions. A relocation of the additions to within the legal L:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC, DOC Page 3 building envelope and/or replacing the existing deck to be of the same size and location are viable alternatives to the granting of a variance. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion adopting Resolution 97-14PC. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -050PC, DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AND EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Phil and Bryan Hines have applied for a variance from Section 9.3A of the Zoning Ordinance in order to remove an existing deck and permit the construction of a porch and deck on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as 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 ofland between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of 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, including any part or portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 1. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #97-050 and held hearings thereon on June 23, 1997 and July 28, 1997. 2. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 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 the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S,E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 3. There are no unique conditions applying to the subject property. Adjacent properties are setback further, and legal alternatives exist. The existing encroaching deck can be replaced in the same location of the same size, and the proposed porch and greenhouse can be placed within the legal building envelope. 4. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship as legal alternatives exist. 5. The contents of Planning Case 97-050 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following variance for the proposed porch and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. An 11 foot variance permitting a 39 foot setback from the OHWL of Spring Lake (912.8 El.) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 28, 1997. It 1M ., I f /,. ~ 1,"- t> i.c-~_ , \ .1 \""... Anthony Stamson, Chair 1:\97var\97-050va\97-0 14re,doc 2 PHIL 2719 PRIOR ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 v U IIt!Y ::,urveymg <';0., I-! A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A \D)rn ~ rn O~ [g ~ u~8~ PROPOSED ADDITIONS SPRING u5,gzL41(E , (JAAAOf SLAe 1l..92.'.040 SPRING DESCRIP'l'lON AS t( I 909,13 I/Iq PROVIDED: /96 L.41(~ ~ 'l'he wester: 1 y One Hal f of Lot 3; and root 4; and the l':astet'.l y Ol'1e fla if of Lot all in 81=)<; 46, and a stdp of limo between said Lot:; and lying sonthedy ther:eof and the water:s edcJe of Spdnq lake, ;,1'1 Spdn<j r,ake Townsite, accor:dinrJ to the plat ther:eof on file and of r:ecor:d in thp. Office oE the Registr:ar: of Deeds in and for: said Scott County, Minnesota, including any par:t oc por:tion of any str:eet or: alley abutting said pr:emises vacated or: to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pr:oposecJ ' NOTES' Benchmar:k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gar:age slab on Lot 4, 928.1 ... Denotes existing (jr:ade e ',,~vation Denotes pr:oposed finished (jr:aoe elevations ---.".. Denotes pr:oposed dir:ect ion of finished sur:face dr:ainage The existing gar:age slab i.s at elevation 9;18.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest floor: eJevaticrl is at 920,37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Ar:ea = 12,800 sg, ft, REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HS E, REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify thot this survey woo prepared by m~ or und~r my dirtct superviSion and tho' J am a duly /icf!nsed Land Surveyor under th. kJw.~f thl Sta'~__:!....~;:~tota. /' ,',' /7,' J IN FEET o Oenot.. 1/2 inch. /4 inch iron _........_...... ..... -.....1 __........., ..... CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1.:1 \ q S f~\~ ~ ~~ ~~ A-'D Lot Area \'2-\ (QoO Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~cc.,Y.O ************************************************************************ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET 111b.~" x ~ = ~ "2.~ .~ x 7... '?. . S = S'1LP HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ x = TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... DETACHED BLDGS BOA-+ (Garage/Shed) ~\"...:.e. /!.J!) . c; x \ 0 x -z.oC; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... LP . <? i- 2""2..' c:; '-\ ~ \ DIUVEW A YIp A VED AREAS \~ X ~ <1 = lo ~'1 (D~i~.:.way-paved or not) 'Z-LP X 8.S = '- "L I ~arking Areas) ~ X '7,.. 0> = \ b'-\ P~Ac~~P, PATIOS~/DECKS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards, with a pervious surface below, are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS.................................,....... ~X \S"~1 = '1-~'L x = x = OTHER (J~o f:/'~(.() G~~~rJ ~~'~e. = TOTAL DECKS........................................................ >- ".S X \q = .-J t:;o ,S x TOTAL OTHER....................................................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE @VER 1\ . Prepared By D />,-~ ~ Company \J p, \ \eIA S"B."'\ t~ C,p . \ Date I I La - \ 0 - '\ , 9A. Phone # L\ ~1- ~~'l 0 ... \lleO "toe; \~'"L~ 1,., tSo .1 \ ex, ,<; -~~<~ ~). 13100 "L\o SilRVEY PREPARED FOR Va/ley Surveying Co., P A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 Ul ~i ((~ tilll::]~. [fir 1~2~ , EXHIBIT B PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 "---.--- ( SPRI-NG l------ 9Z5~l AkE R04DY-- SHOWS EXISTING DECK --~7 . r / / / I ---- -------- :~:;----- -- -- - -- F€ N{t --J:t --._ ,.~ IV"'ly,' N74:"fi'OfIO/s J . ../OoJ8'J5"W .485 .00.. E Jl.1S r I NO M OU7E \.') . --<-... ~OlTc,l-1 -- .;; SPRI^,G~~~ E( 1..4/(f' / 9098 1 /14 DESCRIPl'ION 1\;', PROV1l1<=:D: /96 ~ 'J:'h>:! westerly l~le lIalt of loot :'; and 1,I't 'I; cmd the /;;',steely une Half. nIL in fllock ,lh. ~nrl " "tt't,' 01 """.' betl'een "ukl Lot", and lying sOlltherly thereof and the 1,y.:Ji.:.pr:: edqt~ or: :;~t'inq ldke, i:l Spr.-jnq I,il~:e Townsite, according to the plat theeeot Oil l i Ie "no ot e"coed in the uft l<:P ac the I<egistrar of DeP.ds in and for said :;;O()tt \ilnty, ~lir.nf?~(}I'J', inr'l1rlinq i\n-y ~""":'Ji:t.. f)'=' ty)r:-r;n", of (]ny strp.et or alley abl1t ~_ i_ nCJ :~rt id pt~erli i ~~p~ ~F1c,;)I:J.......i "lC to tl'~ V"1(~,1~_f,,(; I ~;cott County, Minnesota. AJ"" ,;h""'tll'J the Jocution of the, propo~ed NOTES' Benchmark ~~Jevat.ion 9211.38 top of the existinq qaraqe slab on Lot 4, 9~B,1 ... l)pnotes exist inq t.jt:"nrlp , "ation Denote.R propo~ed finiRhPCi qr.-1d~ plevations __ Denotes propClsP.d dit'p.ction of fini.shP.d sut'face dea,inage The existing gaeaCj" slab i" ilt elevation '!71J. :ii' Thp (!)dstin~l top bJor.k i,. ,It elevcltion 9)fL 7 'i'hf:' Low~~t (Ioor- p I .~v;" ~ i '_)0 i<":. <It 970. J7 Net [,,,t: At'p.;) " 1;>, fICX) "']' ~t. N~t. pr:o~X)sed irnp:-('v i011:~ (:nV0r -1- V~ //\'00 REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PRCI'OSED ?~~r~bY c",tlfy thot thl ..-., woo ttrf!POl'Od by m. or under my diroct """....di"" _ ""'t 'om 0 duly "Cl/hsed Land s.n.,ar, UIIINr 1M "'_~ tho Stot.Alf~'''''''.orat .. l A"; FI ,/ ," ,.__/I~/ j/ ,.Ii o I SCALE 30 60 IN FEET PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE 120-C I 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT C ~ ( SPRING 9Z5~2l4KE' --------- R04D ) ~ BUILDING ~~ ENVELOPE ~-~ ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANS/O EXISTING / I \\T ------------. \) GARAO'( SLAB EL. 918."0 DESCIUP'l'ION TIS C( II /1'1 PHOVIDED: 909, e /96 I...~kt Th", westerly On" Hal [ of Lot 3; ~ Non's' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing yaray(! ,;lilb on Lot 4. 9;113.1 ... Denotes existin'J grade A ~..,vation Denotes proposed finished 'Jt:'ilue elevations --r Denotes pro[?Osed direction of finished surface dt:'aina<)e The existing garage slab is at elevation 9;18.313 The existing top block is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowe"t floor elAvation in at 9;10.37 o I SCALE 30 60 Net Lot Tlreil = 1.7.,80,) n'1' ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HS E. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PRCf'OSED ?~;~by certify thot t,lIS ~urvey was prepared by ml" or under my direct 'lIptrvlJ1on and thot 10m a duly /irpn5ed Land SlIVftYor und@f ,,,~ law. ~f the Stal~. ~~;:;.'o'o. ~ IN FEET PROPERTY LOCATION \...o~ I~ ",\~ (;0.... COUNTY OF SCOTT T ~9 './0 --- ~ -- ~ " SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:34; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #1 2 Minnesota Dcpartrncnl or Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 JW1C 19, 1997 Mr, Don Rye Plunning Dm:ctor City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesotll 55372-t71 4 C:o.lO..pt. c". J 7671 /\~"a..r Ll",te Post-It" FElx Note To From Phon.. ~ Phnf1f! if Fsx It r C1X 'I RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRlNG LAKE) AND MATTSON SIDEYARD AND lMPERVlOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARlANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Rye: I lulve received the hearing noLiccs for the subject variance requests which \.1,;11 be considered by the Prior Lake Pbnnmg Commission on June 23, 1997, Please include the follO\ving comments inlo the official record o[Lhe hr..:anng. HINES OUW SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST ~ The city of Prior Lake recently amended their ordinance to rdlcct a relaxation of the lake setback :itandard for Prior and Spring Lakes_ The required setback is 75' H is recommended the variance as requested be denied Th~ dt:ck si.l_e depicted on the survey which OIccompanicd the hearing notice appears to have placed little regard l"or the setback requirement in its design. 1 note thc structures on either side of the Hines' properLy ~n; setback aL51' and ~n' The DNR recummcnus the applicant re.design the proposed improvements Lo meet the required setback There appe:J.f$ ample buildable urea to the west and north of the existing structure. In ilddition, the property currently has a deck If the existing deck is in a slate of disrepair, the DNR is nol opposed to reconstruction at the existing location. :md to tbe c:-;isLing dimensions of the current del:k. It wiJl be difricult to argue hardship in this case, MATTSON IMpERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND STDEYARD SETBACK VARTANCE The subject lot IS very small (5,607 square f'cel), .md is retiJtive1y narrow. The potential for additional dcvclopmcnr on the lot wiLhoullhc need for multiple variances is limited. The DNR is not opposed to Lhc comitructioll of;1 g:JrJgc al the proposed 101:0Ition, provided an equnl OIIllOlUlL of impervious Sllrfilce is removed, It appears that there IS ;.J ~igniticllnt amount of concrete on the west side of the: prupc.::rty which could be removcd to billilm:e the addilional impervious of the proposed new garage, Another option, perhLlps more suitable in terms of impervious surface, would be to construct a gange on the existing concrete slab, This wuuld result in the eliminaliun afthe need for varinnc;:s from impervious surfilce and from the sidcyard setback. It would, however, most likely require a variance from the road setback. The DNR would not be opposed to the road setback variance, As proposed, the DNR recommends dellln! of the vurianec for impervious surface covcrage of 54%, fli'if, 1,,'.""""1;"11: bI2-2')f>-nl.'7. I-XIHI-7hh-hIJIJ() , TTY, hi' )'11> '..J-;.., i ,XUII-r",l-.1'12') \11 \".I\II;III)l'l'llr1111111\ l~mpJ'I\'I'" \0\-'1111 \':11111" l)jv,'r"i" .,., I/lJlJ\l.'U ',.'[I H.l.l.,:''.'kd t':.1 !i'..:I CI'!lI.III1II1\' I C-,J .\11J1lJIIUllllli II'JI; 1'1,0;1 ('l'll'dlllh'r 'W',J'.:" SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2 Don Rye Jum; 19, 1997 page 2 Please enter these DNR objections into the hearing record. If you hove any qucslions or comments regarding DNR review of the pending shorell1nd issues, please eall me at 772-7910. Sincerely, ?~~1UlL2. Patrick 1. Lynch III Area Hydrologist fr(, ~=~.~' u._. . _ __, .",~ I~II! :ir-------~:'! i L/ ' i ::. : i (' i :1 '!) ::: II , 'J'" ~...' I : J !" II i ! I !~ Planning Case File No. 17 -()50 Property Identification No. ;; ~ /:) ~ 0 7- ( D City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.I Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-17141 Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: I Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonin\i) to (proposed zonin:;) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit lZI Variance D Other: sheets/narrative if desired) I Re,O j c c- f' rj. c!: ~ ~ 1'1(: ;. )...Q if Dr"c: h rfrt.k Ie 1v-4. S ~(> ,Aile.. c~rA ,~ ex/sl~ i I I Applicable Ordinance Section(s): I I Applicant(s): .BCjfcJ~c., rJ Ph,lIo /-ftJ.s::.'i.. Address: ,Qi-/9 '5p" :; R,J s,w.l Pr'l::Ir J...."y.~ MN. Home Phone: ift/i s:03 ~ Work Phone: 7'70 - 'i(;[::? Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Work Phone: Fee A-- Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ~ Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): S- P Q AHQr-~rl 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 applicatio ot be pro essed ntil deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. , 4L, d Fee Owner's Signature 6130/<91 Date Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc DENIED DENIED DA TE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING Date City Planning Staff/Planning Commission, We are proposing to make some additions and changes to our home located at 2719 Spring Lake Road South West. Despite the fact that the majority if the proposed construction does not occur closer to the lake than our existing structure, with the present changes to the setback requirements the project will require a Variance to meet current Ordinances. We are proposing to add 16 feet to the West End of the house. The lower (ground) level of the structure to be used for storage of recreational equipment (canoes, life preservers, ski equipment, etc.). The upper level is to be an entry porch facing the north and a screened porch facing the lake. The second part of this proposed building project would be the replacement and updating of the existing deck. The existing deck is 24 feet along the south side if the house and extends 8 feet toward the lake. The existing deck is structurally over spanned with most of the members substantially rotted. When it was built I am sure that 8 feet was the standard, but by today's standards 8 feet is an impractical size with limited use, As is the case with many aspects of house design, over time the normal uses of a structure change. When this deck was built it was common to pull a couple of chairs out on the deck in the evening and spend an hour or so enjoying the weather (until the mosquitoes chased you away). Today the deck is a family gathering place and the focal point for most recreational activities on the lake. Its structure is far more substantial and its size increased to accommodate meals and permanent seasonal furniture. We are proposing to increase the depth of the deck toward the lake by an additional 8 feet and the length of the deck along the house to the other side if the windows that open from the living room (14 feet). The design of the addition and deck was done with our neighbors in mind for both privacy and Lake Ascetics. The enclosed structure has been designed to the West Side of the house, where it is behind the line of site to the lake. The house to the West would only have partial view of the structure through a single window on their Easterly side, a view that is obscured by a large pine tree. The deck once constructed will also fall behind the line of site to the lake. The view from the east is blocked by an out building and a large oak tree existing on the neighbor's property and the view from the west is blocked by the location of the home itself and a large pine tree on our property. The fmal part of this proposed building project would be to attach a small Green House on the South (lake) side of the house, This structure would be glass over a aluminum frame extending approximately 10 feet toward the lake and would be six feet behind the proposed deck. We would ask you to consider, when reviewing our request, that a large portion of the area between our home and the lake is unusable. It consists of fairly steep grades or is encompassed in the retaining system currently in place to help counteract the shore line erosion conditions experienced on the north side of this lake. We have been in contact with the DNR in an attempt to determine what other methods of ~horeline restoration have been approved for this area, but to date the most reasonable course of action seems to be to create level recreation space next to the house. We would also ask you to consider the following four responses to the Ordinance criteria: outlined in the (Planning Commission ReviewIDecision) section of the Variance Procedures / Land Use Application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. L Our home is situated on a substandard lot (Less Square Footage than standard lot). The home was constructed approximately 47 feet from what is now considered the (OHW). The setback requirements as they exist today do not allow any improvement to the lakeside of our home, All will require a variance. 2. Our lot is at the apex of the shore line arc which makes our home closer to the lake by inherent geometry even though our house falls on a strait line with our neighbor to the east. 3. When this home was constructed I can only presume it met all the building codes and zoning requirements. Today however the Ordinance has been changed to the extent that this house no longer complies with the standard. 4. The change we are requesting will significantly improve the use and enjoyment of our home. And because of the topography and location of other existing structures on and around the area., there will be no reduction of views and no other reduction of use or enjoyment of the adjoining properties that we can foresee, r---- 64' ---.--~-~--. I ~ '" I 16'. 1--------~_____________.___________~____48' 1'1 ~ 3'2 ~ j.---- 3'6 ~ ~ 3'6 ~ j.---- 3'6 - 1.9" " .. ,--~ -- ...' . ---- f--f--J ~rf- r,:J "~e LIVING ~ 15'6 x 15' LIVING AREA CD 1607 sq It '" t=F , "~ :b -~----..:..._~ 0 ~ I I I II I I I ~:! 3'4 9"4 -r 3'2 L 3'2-J9"L 3'4~1 l-- 16' L 47' ~-------- SLAB -- f.--------~63.---- 1910x95 ~ ON ----42' 'V__ DECK 45'4 x 15'B io< T CD '" ;,. N N CD ~ N ~ '" NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLO\VING VARIANCES; 1. A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH \V ATER (OIDV) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PER.l\1IT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OIDV OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHOREL~~D DISTRICTS You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of c.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, June 23, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Bryan and Phillip Hines 2719 Spring Lake Rd. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 SUBJECT SITE: Part of Lot 3, Lot 4, and part of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota, also known as 2719 Spring Lake Road. REQUEST: The applicant proposes the re-construction of an existing deck to be larger than the original deck and a new greenhouse to be constructed in the rear yard of the subject property. The proposed construction will result in the following requested variances; 1. A 20 FOOT OHW SETBACK VARlANCE TO PER.1\iIIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property, 1620~~\~~Iffs';~~R~f.:orm\9f5hVAP~~5e~~o~N~,-b6t4 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) (47-4245 AN EQlJAL OPPORTUNITY E",lPLOYER 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 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. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. 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 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a,m, and 4:30 p.m, Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: June 10, 1997 Revision lVlailed: June 16, 1997. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\9750V APN.DOC9750V APN.DOC 2 SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ( SPRING ...~.L4kE (lAAAO[ 'LAB EI.. 9.1,.",0 DESCRIPTION liS F:( II 909,(1 /14 /96 PllOV IDEO: ~ The westedy One Ilalf of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and th" Ea"tecly One JI,llf of Lot 5>-' all in Block 46, and a "trip of li1nd between Gaid Lots and lying sOlltherly thereof and the water" edge of Spring lake, in Spring r,a'<-e Townsi te, accordin'J to the plat thereof on file and of r"cord in th" Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, includinq any part oc poC'tion of any street or alley abutt ing said pC'emi seg vacated OC' to 00 vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. 111"0 "howing the> location of the proposed '"", NOTES' Benc~.C'k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing qaC'age sli1b on Lot 4. 9713. 1 Denotn.~ exist inq qr~np ,-,' '--"t~t i nn