The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8F - Property at 2719 Spring Lake Road, Case File #97-050 ST AFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 8F JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX 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 AUGUST 18, 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. 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 opportunity to modify the proposed additions to reduce/eliminate the variance requests. The applicant modified the proposed expanded deck so as L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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: 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 L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: 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 0 HW 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. 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. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #1. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 3 ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. ;( r\ () (II \ \ I \ ~ ~1. , ~\h;/~ \ i/ hv _ / \ ! I Reviewed By: Frank J3Ioyld, Pty Manager ; i 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 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 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, WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council; and the City Council heard the appeal on August 18, 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, 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 II 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 (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2719 Spring Lake Road, legally described as: 16200 E~gYJieW~r(aA~~~og<?E:.~rPn\9f Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61I2p~47-4245 AN EQL"AL OPPORTUNITY E:VlPLOYER 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 August 18, 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 varIance 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 18th day of August, 1997. YES NO Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins I :\97files\97 var\97 -05 O\ccres.doc Page 2 {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 1:\97 fi les\97 var\97 -050\ccres. doc Page 3 ..:JUt1Vt.1 PHIL 2719 PRIOR o I SCALE r-n t.t~l-\t~ t.U run. .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ DESCRIPTION I\S Valley Surveying Co.. P.A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT A REVISED PLAN ( SPRIN G LA 91S.:2 k€ SPRING ~t /1//4 909.8 PROVIDED: /95 l..4kc The westeely Cne Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4: and the t>;:13tedy Q1e Jlalf of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a !ltrip of J.nnd between ::laid f.ottl and lying sOllther:ly thet"eof and the watees edge of Spring lake, i.n Spdng r.ake Townsite, accot"dinrJ to the plat thet"eof on file and of t"ecot"d in thn outen of the Registeat" of Deeds in and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pat"t oc pDt"tion of any stt"eet ot" alley abutting said pt"emisell vacated ot" to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pt"oposed NOTr~' Benchmat"k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing 'lat"age slab on Lot 4. 30 60 I IN FEET o Oe"oI" , /2 Inch. 14 inch iron mo"ume"' .., and """ked by l/c.".. No. 10183 9/.8.1 ... Denotes existing gt"ade e.!..wation Denotes pt"opDsed finished gt"ade elevations -- Denotes peopo8ed dieection of finished 8\lt"face deainage The existing gat"age slab is at elevation 9/.8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 9/.8.7 \ The lowest floot" elevation is at 920.37 Net Lot I\t"ea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PR:lPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify thot fhi. IIJrV'Y 100. prepared by m~ or und@r my dirrd superviSion ond 'hot , om a duly lice"'~ Land Stneyor under th. layr.~f the StOf~:.~'""~.ot,,.,.) I ,: /' g...- / /. . . . ~ " ,',-' .... -, J. (.. '?-~.~.... ---;." --. r <: ~z ~G) ~?o -m )> li' , ~')... ~ ~ c.-- _ . _ '1_ - - .-' -- .,'" j i I I I I ~~ ~ r-~. " - U' I ~ J Ie i' ,\' C5 ~~ ,~ if" I" !~ I 8' I I I I l c .., t> I , i I i R-cJf"OS~ I~!.u~ ,; 24' i i ! i :'-+ i ~, ".:~ \ '~lll I I l'l I i :! 1 I I ,I ~ I I I ~ '[ I I i' '" , I" 1 9' I I 'I :-+ I !\ I I !i I . !.., \1 i I II i! \1 il II !\ II II II !I II 11 \1 ! i I I I 11 II I i I I I I I I \ I I i I I 8' 16' : : ,...-~,----~--, ii' U ~~ \'> \) :r :1i ~ r <: '7 Gi n I' '-' ;": i \, 11 !j it \1 r-! II Ii I, II ji !I il I, Ii II 'I I, \1 Ii lj II II if 11 II II II 1\ II II II II II II !I Ii Ii II II II II \1 ,I I' II II II II II 'I II 1\ !I i I I : I I I i I I , I I , i i I i i i , I i ! I : 1 I I' ~ i I i I I i I I I ~ -:!.(' 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 Pennitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1.. ~ \ q s r\'\~ ~ ~~ ~c .~'Q Lot Area \'2-1 ~oo Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. -;<6L\o \ **~***********************************************~********************* HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ . LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET YCO''7.'x~ =~. 1.~ .<S x 1:"2- . S == '5'1lP x == TOT AL PRlNCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \) .ee 0 DETACHED BLDGS BCA--+ (Garage/Shed) \-to\...."e. ...z...e:,.S x \0 X --z.oC; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... l..P . S i- 2:2.., c; u.. ~ l DRIVEWAY/PAVED AREAS \~ X '-l,q = tJ:,'~1 (Driveway-paved or not) 1...1o X 8 . S L.. '"'L I @~arkir.g A~eas) -~ ~ X '"2.. 4 == \ 0'-\ 'laC; ~""~~~ PATIOS ORCHE ECKS (Open Decks tj," min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface beiow, are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS.................,.,.,................... \~L~ , lc X \ S. ~ 1 = 1...~.1_ x == X == ,TOTAL DECKS.,................................,...,................. ~ '7::>0.1 OTHER x == x = TOTAL OTHER.,..~.,......".....,...,......".,.,......,........... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ~::R ~~~ ~~J Company \J p, \ \€~, S".;:.,,"'" \~ CO, QA ' \ \ , L~ 3(" i<J! L f9! I Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ f Phone # L\ ~1 - -Z- S'l 0 , y SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAil FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TElEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ID)~ @ rn O~ rn 1m I~Elw ( SPRING uS.:2LAkE QARAOf tLAl!l (L. u....O SPRING 909 a II /14 DESCRIPfION I\S PROVIDED: /95 ~t l..4kc ~ The westeely One Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the Ealltecl.y ()r1e Half of Lot 5:"~~~ all in Block 46, and a "trip of Jond between [laid Lots and lying sOlltherly thereof and the water::; edqe of Spring lake, in Spcinq r,ake Townsite, accordin(J to the plat thereof on fi Ie and of ""cord in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc portion of any street or illley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTES' Benchmaek Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slob on Lot 4. 9?-8.1 .. Denotes existing gri'lde e '.,~vation Denotes proposed finished geade elevations --4- Denotes proposed di.rection of fi.nished surface drainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 9?-8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 9?-8.7 The lowest floor e)evatial in i'lt 920.37 Net Lot Areil = 12,80'.1 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PRJPOSED DECK. PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;'~bY ce,tlfy that 'fl. survey was prepared by m~ or undtr my dirtct supervision and thot , om a duly licensed land SlXVeyO,. undft'" ,ft. Iow..e( th~ State of_~;"".'o'o. /' .. >r o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET o O!nct~s 1/2 inch ~ 14 inch iron PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 iltJ/ley :JUT \Jey/lllj l,().. ~ /4. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ,I~? ,U~ JUN ~19~;'lW' EXHIBIT C ( SPRiivG~ '~----_ 92~?2LAk€ SHOWS EXISTING DECK , --. "------. -j /r / I --- ROAD) . '- Co ----- ----- ...--- WOOn FEN;;-._____--r-----..-. i;",:;j.,* "~ \"I,fJl4, ',' '~ Nt'I}'!" N 7"4:"" 0' JOI, .3 _"/OO38'35'"W'485 00. [XlSTING HOUiE t'-:, on SPirING ~t '-4k~ I 9098 1//4 DESCRIP'l'ION ^;'. PROVI DF.IJ: /95 ~ Ttm wateC"ly ()ne lIalt oE Lot J; dnd 1,,''- <I: and the I",sterly IJne lialf of Lot 5;' all in Aleck ,Jh. "nrl " r,tr.iCl ot: !.1"'-~ hptwf>en "<lid I,ot" and lying sotltheC"ly thereof Clnd the '.ol~Jj~P.r:~ edqe ot ~)fJt'i.nq 1-11--:8. in Spt"ifl' I Ij<l~:f:' Townfiite, accordin<J to the plat ther.eot (~1 Ii ie and ot n~c:oC"d in thf> uffk.. 0r: the HcyisteaC" of Deeds in a:nd fot' said ::(~()tt \'jllnty,. ~li.r.nf"'!~nt-.rl, 1Ilf-1lJdirH.1 i'\ny t.~(f~ (>r:'" ~'I()r-t. i'.'~l of fltly ~trp.et or: alley ah'Jtt_ ~ rYI :~rlid pt.erni ~~prl v':1CF'lI:I"'>t'i -'r. to tll"~ Vf,{_~,l!-.1'-"d, :3cott Count.y, Minnesota. Al "0 Ghowtllg the location of th.~ pt'oposed OOl'ES' BenchmaC"k r-;Ievation 92A.3H top of the ?xi.stinq 'Jar-age slab on Lot 4. 920.1 .. Dpnotp.s p.xistinq qcaop ') "ation Denot9s propoRed Eini.shPd 'Ir.'1(1" C'levations __ Denotes peoposed diC"ection of Eini.shed sueface deai.nage rhe existing gaC"aCJp. slab in at p.levati"n 9;>fJ.3i~ Thp ~xistln9 top htor.k i:~ ,1t ~l~v;...]tjcn ')?~L 7 Thf? 1()\.1e,~t fl<X)t" pl~,,;,t:;(.)n i~ /1t 970.J7 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net pco~sed imp-?'cv i011:3 (:(~V~r il<.JP )11.00 REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW PACtoosED ?~~~bY cerlffy 'hol /tW. ......,..... prepcnd by m. 0' und.r my m~, IUPrritiOll _lIIGt 10m 0 duly ,,~_ l..cn1lt,""""'lIIliHr"" Io.....~ 'h. S'ot~,lIf--1J........ta. ". 'A':' '! ~ ;:--'1~" ..~ C .'if. . Dol. ,/. t.-J.'.... Liclltl.. No. lOle! N.:!t Lnt AC"ea l;>,!\()O "'1' n. IN FEET o o.not. 1/2 fnc" . ,....eII Iron __ Nt fJftd ......." by lIe_ No 10183 IVI\ \I'Ll I 1\ Ll 101\ LLJ I UtI 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 SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANS/O ( SPRING 92s:zlAKE ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE 12 (XIS f I NO I \\T ~) GAAAO[ 'LA" E\.. 9211.40 SPITING t"t C~kE 1 909.8 I "1'1 DESCRH"l'ION I\S PllOVIDED: /95 ~ .,,~ '1'h~ westerly Olle Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and thp. Eastecly e'f'e lIal( oE Lot 'i,' all in Block 46, and a Gtr-ip of Jand between Gaid [,ate; and lying souther:-ly ther:-eof and the water:-s ed'Je of S;:>dnq lake, i.n Spdnq r,,1'{e Townsite, accor:-dincJ to the plat ther:-eof on [j Ie and oE r:-ecor:-d in thp. 0[[ lCf' of tl", Req istr:-ac of lJe~ds i.n and for:- said Scott County, Minnesota, incJudinq any [X'lr:-t DC p:>r.tion of any str:-eet or:- alley abutting Raid pr:-emlses vacated or:- to he vacated, :3cott County, Minnesota. 1\1130 showing the location of the pr:-o[JOsecJ N<JrES' Benchm.'Kk Elevation 928.38 top of th~ ~xisting 'Jar:-aq" sli1b on Lot 4. 97.fJ.l <. Denotes existing gCi'lde ~ ~..-~vation DenoteR pr:-oposed finished Cjr:-ade f'levations --+ Denotes pr:-op:>sed cJir:-ection oE finished sur:-face dr:-ainage The existing gar:-age slab is at elevation 9)B.3fl The existing top block is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowest floor:- elevation is at 97.0.37 Net Lot ^r:-ea = 12,BOn sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8t GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify thot tN, wrvey wa! preporftJ by me or under my direct !UP~vj!;on and that 10m a duty liC'ennd land SllfV~or und~ th. law"~f thr Statl!. ~~~i:n~!ota ' / . ,.... /.',' I, 1'_...' "{'.,V ,--J, "-'C./ ,.... o I SCALE 30 60 I IN FEET o D.nol.. 1/2 inch x /4 inch iron monum@ot Jet and mark!d by. July 31, 1997 Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, MN Dear J enni, 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,.. . I .;y:;.J.~'- ") __' . 17 _./' ~ Phillip . Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, MN (612) 447-8033 .~ ---.J ....._ . I ... ..... MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97-16PC DENYING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK RATHER THAi\J THE MINUvfUM 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 ANN A TRAIL SE. Commissioner StarllSon 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 CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO AUGUST 11, 1997 PL'-\J."'\INING COMMISSION MEETING. 5. Old Business: =;> A. CASE #97-050 (CONTINUED) BRYAN Al'l'D PHILIP HINES REQUEST SETBACK VARIANCE FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD. Planner J enni Tovar presented the staif 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 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 Ordinary High Water setback of the existing principle structure of 47 feet. The originally proposed greenhouse has been eliminated. L_) ; L, I: I , I i...J'_ 1(- : 1..J L_ ,j 1.J r-"', I \ I ,. \ r--' \ _ d~ I l.J 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 if the distance to the lake was 50 feet. , ; "_, !;'J L..../ ...; ,~ L....J 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 11 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 SURF ACE 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 . v JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ..)V\d\ ~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDlNA 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 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. 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:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -SOPC2. DOC Page 3 .:>UN vC.r PHIL 2719 PRIOR r-nt.r-ANt.U rUn. Valley Surveying CO., P. A. 'SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 REVISED PLAN HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 EXHIBIT A ~ o I SCALE ( SPRING ....:.LAkc .,...,UlIn n.'" u.. 'Z..40 ; ..~6-..." / ~'l\" 1I~~ OF" I""", IN eo,.,. _. , ~or$ <'"\ O~~':)j ^J7' 00,00 c:.!J 8, ~ 4.J8'J';:1\I S'ioff~-O'l !'tIN~~ ~~ ~'",,"Ir ~ "'. ~'- ~ l( ~ ~ l'he weste!:"1y One Half of Lot 3; <lnd Lot 4: and till? l':aster:.ly Cne Half of Lot 5,""-_~ all in Block 46, and a ."trip of li1nd bet'.een oaid LotH and lying sOlltheely theeeof and the watee:,; edge of Speinq lake, i.n Spdng r,a:<e Townsite, accoedinrj to the plat theceof on file and of cecoed in the Office of the Registrae of Deeds in and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part oc portion of any stceet oc alley abutting said pcemises vacated oc to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pcoposed SPRING <t l..4kc I 9098 I ,.. 14 /95 DESCRIPTICN I\S PROVIDED: NOTES' Benchmaek Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 9:<8.1 <. Denotes existing grade e !,,~vBtion Denotes proposed finished geade elevations - Denotes peoposed direction of finished sueface deainage The existing gacage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existi.ng top blo<:k is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowest flooc elevation is at 97.0.37 30 Net Lot Aeea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH Ell GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/95 TO SHOW PRCPOSED ?~;'~bY c!rtify that tN, ~ wos pr'pond by m, or undtr my dirtct ,uptrv;t;on and that , am a duly lictnud land Surv.-yor urtd~ fh. Ia"".~f f"t Stoff ,of Nlnnuofo./, "~ .,":,/ /iA'-:' 1.' / " 1>7, '. , (..,,' /J-' ,,-,,,,,,.. " -, . .' ~, , .'" 60 IN FEET o O.no1.. 1/2 Inch, 14 inch ;ro" monuml!nt ..t rmd morlt~d by .... <: :;:z ::;Gl .. > "";lJ "'m > r I -::.,\) I v t7 "?~ I~ c--- 1<" i I ~ '" I i I , ~~ ,... ,.. ~ if" 1'_ "J. IJ Ie ~ ,<' C) jQ.~ ,J) II' I~ I- i -r-8' I I i "I . - _. .....~ I c: " R-of"O.S~ I~~J'- , ~+ I, HI" , ~' .:.a: r"-2--...-- 1:1 ~~ ('. ~ j ;:;; ~ o ; i " 'I II II II Ii Ii II ~ i !I ii II ii d II II il II II I' iI il II II I, il " II I, ~ ~ Ii II il II I' I I II 'I II il Ii Ii " " II !I I> u ,..., u .... <: z Gl ,.. :=n j' '~ I' , I 8' '! I i I :i ,~ :11 ~ I I 1"1 I I 1 I ' , : I oi ! : ,I ! i '''I I I . i ~ ai !"'! r ~ ai ! , "l~ I , i I : il II ii d !i !I !! ii il II II ij II II II Ii !I I' i/ II 'i " " lJ II q II 11 ;1 'i II II II II , I I I II II II I' II II Ii II II ::!J I I C --'- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) F or All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The :\;laximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1.:'l \ q -<:; f'~'~ ~ 'L~ . ~a .~'V Lot Area \'"2-1 C(:)oO Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~CG,'-\O ***~**************~******************************~~********************* LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET HOUSE l--\tJ.~ ,x 1-Y = i\ G~ ATTACHED GARA.GE ~ l..lD .~ x 2'2.S :; S l.p x = TOT AL PRlNCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \) ~o DETACHED BLDGS BCA-+ (Gmge/Shd) \+J\-;":'e. '1.D.S x \0 --z.oS x (Driveway-paved or not) ~ark:r.g A~eas) ~ TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... 1.0 ,S f--"2- L.. .. c:; u.. ~ \ \?;) X \4,~ = \...p~'1 1-G7 X 8.S = L"2..1 'i X '"2- (., \ ()~ .toc; DRlVE'ylA YIP A VED AREAS ~""~~~ PATIOS ORCHE DECKS (Open Decks ';." min. opening be:ween boards. with a pcrrious surface beiow, are not considered to be imper;ious) TOT.U PAVED AREAS....................,.................... \'-\-z...? \lc X \S.~l X L-~'( = X = TOT.>-\L DECKS... ..... ............ ...............,....... ............. ~So.1 OTHER X = X , = TOTAL OTHER,..'~.......,.,..,..,..,...'.....,.I......,............ TOTAL IIYIPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VER (\ Prepared By D ~'--'-- ~ ","-oJ Com pan y \J p, \ \,,' \ S"'.;.. '" "-U \ "j Co r A . \ \ L~ 3~L191 L_~__ ! 9,/ I Date 7 - \ 0 - ~I Phone #. Y ~1 - '1- S 1 0 PHIL 2719 PRIOR SURVEY PREPARED FOR: .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 EXHIBIT B ~rn:~~:!rn~ o I SCALE ~ Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ( SPRING us.:.LAkE II.."AO( JL.A8 [1..91_.40 ./ I ~ . ~.. ~;- ~, ~. ~ The westeely One Half of Lot 3: and Lot 4: and the Easter-ly C'rle !Ialf 8r Lot 5;' all in BloC:< 46, and a .'3tr-ip of l,md bet'.een "aid i.ots and lying sOllther-ty theeeof and the watees edge of SpC"inq lake, i.n SpC"ing r,a~<e Townsite, accor-dincJ to the plat ther-eof on file and of r-ecor-d in the Offi.ce of the Registr-at" of Deeds in and for- said Scott County, Minnesota, including any par-t oc por-tion of any str-eet ot" alley abutti.ng said pr-emises vacated or- to be vacatP.d, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the peoposed SPRING ~t 1 909.0 1/14 Q DESCnIP'l'ION I\S PROVIDED: /95 l..4kc NOTES' Benc~~r-k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gar-age slab on Lot 4. 97.8.1 .. Denotes existing gr-ade P. >vation Denotes pr-oposed finished <jr-aue elevations -->- Denotes pt"oposed dir-",ct ion of fin; "hed sllr-face dr-ainaCje The existing gar-nge slab i.s at elevation 97.8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowest floor- ",I evation is at 920.37 30 Net Lot At"ea = 12, BOO sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PRlPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK I hereo~ c!rtlfy that 'his !urVl'Y was prffportd by me or under my dirN:t suoervIs,on and that 10m., duly r,cen,@d land Surv~or under 'h~ law. 4f f"e$t"t~ o~,_.\(;n"e.oto 60 IN FEET PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 vtJ/Jey 2:JUT\Je}'IIH) l,u., r.!-\. SUITE /20-C. /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 ~i UI Z 199'" ~; EXHIBIT C (sPRirvG- -- 9l,..lAk~ SHOWS EXISTING DECK '-- ----- R~D)- ,? / / / / ~ --"""'--- w~~:--------_ ~~NCF: ---' -r--__ N~'ly /. N 74~"'P Of 101, J ..'/003/1'35"W.485 00. E-..ISflHQ .,.,. OlJ7E ,_1'1... .L.... Il. '11..0 '.~ ---,---~~~.~.. -~'''> ~ . ~" SPRING .~ ._.~~ - ----.: ---.... D&SCP. IPT ION .\; 909 e 'I /'4 DR( ", I L)~~I): /96 tt L.A.KE ~ '!"he westecly r_~'l1e ilalt of [...at ,'; and ,'-"'_ <.1; 1nd the 1,:.c.,.st.er:1/ r)ne Half of. all in RICf:k dh, 1nn " .'1l':C'.:' ()l" .1r~.../ r-'p':.....~p.n ~0LI I,ct;- ilna lying sonther~y theC'eof Clnd t:h"? '';--I,.pr' P(j(J~~ Dr :;pr:lnq i,dr.~. :1 Spcirl'l I,;l~:~ fo\msi.te, ac:::orrli.nq to the plat thereot en [i I",,,ri ct cp.cOl:d In thp 'If.t,.:p ~f ~he i~C'Jistt'ac of D~s in and Eoc 3i1id 'clt:: ",llnty ~1ir.n~-'..,nl-.;), ir:r1'~din(,l ~nl t......".I.';'": ~'o('l-.. .., r_"'E ~lflY ,"3trRet: ('l(" 2\lley 3hlj!':._,q,. ~r,id pcerlil~~r:>" V,1\;111-".....:1 '~(' to r~ V;l':_1~.r"ot.j. :jcor-~'C:. Count':"(1 Minnesota ~ AJ:io :;hn\W tllg t.he locati:)n of th.~ p[J)pn~ed NOl'ES' Benchm.',ck e:Levi3tion 92R.3H top of the "xisti.nq 1"lcaqp. slab on Lot 4. <)7.fJ.l ... i)f~not~s ~xistinf1 qCnrlo . 'r~ltion Oenct~~ propoAed fini~hPrl 'Jr.~(~~ c"'l~vation::; ~ Denote" pcoposed dicect ion of Ei nishP.d sueface deain"ge 1'11e '-?:,:istJnq gncaqp siab i~~ '1t ~levaticn ~.~7~~.~:-l l'l--lp o.:-:l,StQl(J top !)~cr-:~ i:' .1!: ;:!Ija.~J~ltjcn ')7\\,-; "hl'~ C.....;I:<~t f I (Xl!:" ...--' .~\I,' ': t ':'1 "t. ?70. .:,~i ~J~t pC01.)Osed im~("li.("l'\:: ('r~vr;r'qp )IJ .CO QEVISED 12.14/96 ro StiOW f'RJ'OSED "Eel( I h~,.,.b'f c.rfffy thot ttW. WI"W1 wow pr..,.....; by mf' or llf'tdtr my dit'PCt alPwy;e;on ",.,. ""', I am a duty "".,_ LDmt k....,.ar _ 1M :o...~ tho S'010.ot-1'nnfto"';1, _~~ ~J;,--/:f....-4~.. _ Np.t '."'r. Ar-p." 1/ . H(X) ;1' J. .. o 30 60 SCALE IN FEET o Oonat.. 1/2 Inch.,.. ilrcfl Iran rttOf"'Jt'f'WHlt ..t f'7I'Jd rncrt'~ b.., >JUI\.. L-l I . \....1 }-~ (\ L- LI ',-,' r \ Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. 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 ~EXPANS/O ( SPRING 925.:2l4kE ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE EX1ST1f'40 \") Cl",...Cl'l' ,,-48 lEt.. 'lite. 40 DE3CrUP'I.'ICN ^S f( /( //<1 FHOV WED: 909.8 /96 l..-4/f~ .~ '<~ '" '1'h~ westedy Olle IIal[ of Lot 3: and Lot 4: ilnd th~ l",nter:ly C'ne flalf of Lot 5," illl in Block 46, Mnd a ::Jtt"ip of .1.,lnd het'..J€'~n !J(\icJ r.ot~J and lyi.ng sOllthecly ther:eof and the watec3 edge of 3pr:inq lake, in 3pdn(J r"l:<e Townsite, accor:din'J to the plat ther:eof on fi le ilnd of r:ecor:d in th~ Off lee of th,~ fo:eqistr:a(" '.)f lleeds i.n and for: said Scott County, Minnesoti'l, incJ.udinq ilny pclr:t 01.: par:tion of any str:eet or: alley abutting said pr:emise1l vacatP.d or: to he vac"t~cL Scott County, Minnesota. 1\1110 showing the locntion of the pr:OfXX1Cd NarES' Benchmar:k Jo:levation 928.38 top of the existing yar:aye "lnb on rJot 4. 97.B.l ~ Denotes existing gCode ~ ~,,-~v8.tion Denotes pr:opo."P.d finished CJr:ilt1e elevations ->-- Denotes pr:opased cJir:ection of finished s\Jr:face dr:ainage The existit1':I gar:ilge slab i.s ilt elevation 9;!fJ. JfJ The existing top blor.k is at elevation '.17.8.7 The lowent flooe eJ.eviltion in at 97.0.37 o I SCALE 30 60 Net Lot 'Ir:ea = J.2,130,) sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 ro SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH Bo GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK I hp!,~by ctrtify that thi, survry was P"~ by mp! or undf'!r my d;r~t '11O~v;sion and '''at f am (J duly Ijc~nJed land Surv~or und~ thp IoW.9f Ii'll Statr o'jwf.innuoto. /. ~ ..- <-'-?.... IN FEET o O,not.. 1/2 ;nch x /4 inch "on 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 THAi~ THE MINIiVIUM 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 of land 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 ot1ice of the Registrar of Deeds in and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street or alley abuning 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 .-'IN ECL.-".L:::PDORTLNIT{ E"IPLOYER 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. 11' H /' v~""t' .~- , \ "- Anthony S tamson, Chair 1:\97var\97 -050va\97-0 14re.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 c:2 c-. \0~ ~\ ~ .~ \ \ \~\ ) 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, Stamson 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: V onhof 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 ~!mL~\~~u L_J U iJ-U If 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. MN0623 97 .DOC 2 ~ ....... ~ Ie) l~ i i "j " I UI L.J q 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 SURF ACE 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 RI- 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 f. ,. 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 Shoreiand 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:\97FILES\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\97VAR\97 -050\97 -050PC. DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 20 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 30 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 GREENHOUSE 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, greenhouse, 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 of land 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. 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, greenhouse, and new deck, as shown in Exhibit A; 1. A 20 foot variance permitting a 30 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 June 23, 1997. William Criego, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\97var\97 -050va\97 -0 14re.doc 2 PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 VUl/t!Y ::,urveymg <;0., Po A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A \D)rn@rn D\Yl ~ ~ u\\EJ~ I PROPOSED ADDITIONS ( SPRING 92s.uLtH<€ , O.AAOI SLAB lL. 91t. 40 SPRING DESCRIP'l'ION I\S ~t ". 909.8 / '4 /96 PROVIDED: l..4kc ~ 1'he westeely One Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the l':astecl.y ()"1e lIalf of Lot 5,""""'~ all in BlocJc 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying sOllthec1.y thet"eof and the waten3 edge of Spring lake, i.n Spdn'J r,ake Townsite, accot"ding to the plat thet"eof on file and of recot"d in the Office of the Registt"at" of Deeds in and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, including any pact oc pDt"tion of any street ot" alley abutting said pt"emi.ses vacated ot" to be vacated, Scott County, ~innesota. Also showing the locati.on of the peoposed NOTES' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 9?0.l .. Denotes existing geade e 'J~vation Denotes pt"oposed finished geade elevations ~ Denotes peoposed dit"ection of finished sueface deainage The existing gaeage slab i.s at elevation 928.30 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest floot" eJevaticrl is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 Net Lot At"eil = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH Ell GREEN HSE. REVISED 12 I 4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;r~bY certify thot this survey wo. prepared by m@ or under my dirK' supervision ond that , am a duly fit:en'.d Land Swveyor under ,,,. kJW~~f the Sta'~:,~.-,~~.'o'a: /. ...' ,. t/ J IN FEET o Denat.. 1/2 inch . /4 inch iron rnnn"~n' ..t ""rl ,."",L-.rl "V 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 r~\~. ~ l~ ~c A-'D Lot Area \'2-, ~oo Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. -;<bL\,O **************~********************************************************* HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET I1B.tj.- x ~ = ~ "2.lD .6 x 7- '?.. . S == S~ LP x = .. TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \,Leo DETACHED BLDGS BClA-+ (Garage/Shed) ~,",.c;e ~,S x \0 x "'2.0 c; TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... "Lo .? -I- 2'2.... '? DRIVEWAYfPAVED AREAS \ .~ X '4<i (Dri,:::way-paved or not) 1..1o X 8.<; ~arking Areas) ~ X 't..~ .toe; ~~\ = ~"'.:;,'1 ::: --z.. L-. I = \b<-\ .P~~ .. PATIOS~ECKS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface below, are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... \'-\"l..'3 ~x \S.~l = -2-~'L X == x == OTHER f~o~..ec.() G~-et>rJ ~"'~e.. TOT AL DECKS........ ............ t'" ................................ 1,r?O .1 >- ~.S X X \1 = ~ro'~ = TOT AL' OTHER.I' .~.......... ........................................ \eo ,C; TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE @VER [\ . Prepared By D I\-~ ~ ......J Company \JfI.~\eH. S~~"\\~ C,o,BA ' \ I -~~~~ I ~~- Date to - \ 0 - q -, Phone # L\ 1...\.1- -z.~'l 0 13100 1\40 S' I RVEY PREPARED FOR PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 VaHey Surveying Co., PA. SUITE , 20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 'u \ i.j (t): l,~ i i \U ~---'w'~\ I r--_ _ -'=> I ~' J~. 2 199/ / -, ----i ~ o I SCALE 30 EXHIBIT B ------ ---'-- SHOWS EXISTING DECK ( SP'R-"N.~~ ---_. G L -- 92S~l Ak€ R-O;;O--)- ---- -- -----7 Ir / / / I ;; --- ----- ----. -----...... \NOOn FtN(;f ~-:r--___.__ 1V~'ly li~~ III 7'4- Of 'o,~ J '.. IOQJ8'JS"w . '" 85 00._ E)( IS r I NO / HouiE I / i;-:, ! 9'<-.8, SPRING IV - - -'-. Q/-? 8 ..~-,.~ --:--: ~t I 9098 I /14 DESCIHP'l'ION 1\.;'. PROV1DF.D: /95 l..4k~ The westeely (n](~ !lalt oE Lot }; and r,I'\. L1: ,md the Ei1ster!y Une Ilalf of Lot 5, all in RI.ock ~h, ~nrl 'I Atr.tt) ot: I.in'_~ bp.t:'.Jp.en ~i"Ii(! ],ot~ r1nd tying sOlJtherly thereof and the ''''..'JI.:.pr:: (~dqe of: ;;prin<1 I.li<",e, i;\ Sprjrlq J,;lke Townsite, according to the plat thereat (111 [i Ie ami ot recoed in thp. off trcF' nt the I~egistt"ar: of Deeds in and for said :~(~()tt ',-:(HJnty, :'Hr.nl'?!v...,t".(1, ;nr~l1]r]inq ..;ny f:.'.-:"J;~I: ()':" I-Y.)(-t.lcn of any strp.et or al.ley ahljtl_~t1q 82lid pl.eflil~~f',) V:1.Cf1t.f"'loti ')C to rl'~ V;lr~~l~.f-~;1 ~)cott County, Minnesota. A.I "" ,;how ill'1 the .I OCi"lt ion of th<> propn~ed NOl'F.S' Benchmaek ~~Ievation Y2f1.3H top of the existinq 'Jaeage slab on Lot 4. 92fJ.l Co Denotes existin<J '-Jearlp , "ilti.on Denotes peoposed finishM qe'l(l~ "tevations __ Denotes peoposed di.::-ection of fini.shed sueface dea.inage The existing gaeage slab i~; ilt elevation '!7il.3i1 'l'hp p.xist;_n~l top bl()(":k i~"j .1t ~l.PV'1tjon ()7.fL 7 The lowp-~t fl<1C1c p'.~v;'\~ir-.Jp i."' ~lt: 970.:1,7 Net r,()t Aeeil .1;1, H(Xl '''-1' rt. REVISED IV 4/96 TO SHOW PRCPosED ClECK 'hereby cerlffy thot ft1i. _, .... prepIJrftJ by me O' undor my d;~ ..........iaiOfl _ ""'t I am a duly "ct/h- Land s.n.,tw...... 1M .Ia~ tho St"t. .pf~''''''.O"' i'l /. / A'" JI /-. . /.. . ,'>"L/ j 60 I N~t t)col:)(:n.~ec1 irn~r:-'li011:5 (;r)V0r'1\~(\ IIl.OO .....____ . ,.. t__~ .. IA..... i_.. IN FEET PHIL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying CO., P. A. SUITE 120-C I 16670 FRANKLIN TRAil EXHIBIT C FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE ( SPRING 92s:zLAI(€ ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO I \7 --------- . ~~ ! ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE OAR,t,O[ 'LAB EL. '1111..0 DEScru P'l' ION I\S ~l.. II 909.e /14 /9 PHOV IDEO: 6 l..4kc ~ '1'hP. westedy One Half of Lot 3; and [,at 4: and the Easteely ()rle lIalf of Lot 5~- all in Block 46, and a std[.l of .land betwep.n :Jaid LOtCl and lyillq sOllthedy theeeof and the watees edqe of S[.ldnq lake, ;.n Spdng r.ake Townsite, accoedin'J to the plat theeeof on file alld of n"cot"d in the Office of the Registeat" of Deeds ill and fot" said Scott County, Minnesota, includinq any pact ot:" pxtion of any steeet oe alley abutting said peemises vacated oe to be VilCi1ted, :>cott County, Minnesota. 1\1130 showillg the location of the peoposed "'-, NarES' Benchmaek Elevation 928.38 top of the existing yaeage "lab on Lot 4. 97.0.1 "- Denotes existing geade e '-',vation Denotes peopesed finished 'leade elevations --'t'- Denotes peop:lsed dieection of finished sueface deainage The existing gaeage slab is at elevatial 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest flooe e I p.vatioll is at 920.37 Net Lot I\eea ~ 12,8()() sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK I PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED 9~;r~bY certify that this Jurv!y WOJ prepared by m~ or undtr my dirpcf !I","yision and that I om a duly ';C'tns~d LOrtd SI6V,?,or und@r th~ Jaw"'~f the Stot~,.~~},y~~'o'a. ~ / . .:. ."'...'/. o I SCALE 30 60 IN FEET fl njl"tlf.~' /' in,.." ., 14 ;n/"'h irnn PROPERTY LOCATION \,0\ l~ \J\"\ GO COUNTY OF SCOTT T !9 ./0 -- ---- ..... " SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6 - 1 9 - 97 1 0: 34 ; 6127727573 => 6124474245; # ~ /2 Minnesota Dcpanrncl1t or Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, 51. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 Jnnc 19, 19~7 To J 7671 /\~"'o.f (latE! t-. C\ L. l)(\..jQ Ph(HW ri ,.., t. . F...m .-:::::\ ~ , Post-It" FClX Note ,.:> Ci--\ Mr, [)on R.ye Plunnmg Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-171 4 Co.lD..pt. Cu, Phon.. ~ i"-"q D Fsx It r i))( /l RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQlJEST (SPRING LAKE) AND }.fA TrSON SIDEYARD AND lMPERVlOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARlANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Rye; 1 have received the hearing notices for tbe subject vari!l.l1cc requests which u,-ill be considered by Lhc Priar Lake PlannIng Commission on June 23, 1997. Please include the following commenlS into the official record of the ncanng. HINES OHW SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST .~ The cily oePrior Lake recently amendcd their ordinilIlce 10 reflecl a relaxalion of the lake setback slandard for Prior and Spring Lakes_ The required setback is 7St. it is recommended the variance as requested be denied Tht: d~ck sil.l~ depicted on the survey which accompanied the hc;mng notice appears lo have pl:lced little regard lor the setback requirement in its design. T note the structures on either side of the Hines' property un.: ~ctback at 51' and ..Hi' The DNR te\:ummcnds the applicant re-design the proposed improvements to meet the required setback. There appC:lJ"S ample buildable area to the west and north of the existing structure. In addition, the property currenLIy has a deck If the existing deck is in a sLlte of disrepair, the DNR is not opposed to reconsLruetion at the existing location. :md to the e:xisting dimensions of the CUITcnl deck. It wiJl be dilTicult to argue hardship in this casc, MATTSON IMPERVIOUS SlJRFACE C:OVERAGE AND STDEY ARD SETBACK VARTANCE The subject lot is very sm<lll (5,607 square rCel), and is relatively narrow, Thc potential for additional dc:vcloplllCl1l on tile lor wilhoutlhe need for multiple variances is limited. The DNR is not opposed to the construction of:l g:lrJgc at the proposed location, provided an equnl OJmOlU1l of impervious surfLlce is removed. It appc;1fS that Uler~ I:> J ~ignifie:mt amount of concrele on the west side \,)[ the prupcrty which could be removed to bOJlance the additional impervious of the proposcdnew gar<lge. Another oplion, pcrhLlps more suitable in lcrn1S of impervious surfJce, would be to construct a garage on the existing concrete slob, This wuuld rcsult in the elimination of the need for varinnccs from impervious surface and from the sidcyard setback. It would, howf:Ver, most likely requirc a variance from the road setback. The DNR would not be opposed to the road setback variance. As proposed, the DNR n:commends dellJ:\! of the vurianec for impervious surface coverage Qf 54%. D!,'R 1"",'''11''1;'''11: hJ2-:2'.JI'l-t'lI.'\7. I-XIlIl-7hfl-i'rIJlJlJ . TTY' (,,' ,"-If, ,..1-:... i .XI,JlJ-h.'1.1-.\'12') 'II j'.L{U;lll)l'l'orltlll1!\ l;mpJ"'.'I'r' "","hi' \':lIn.... I)i\>t'r"j,\," .... II, III,I.,"U ',,'II H.l..l.: ~,:l\.:d Il:1p-';1 ("I "tLIIlII rll' .1 C-.) .\.tlllll11Ulll c'l Illr; 1'1l~;1 ('.~lh~ll\h'r Voi.l';:'" SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6-19-97 10:35; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2 Don Rye June.; 19, 1997 page 2 Please enter these DNR objections into the hearing record. If you have any questions or comments regarding DNR rcview of the pending shorell1r\d issues. plci1Sc call me at 772.7910. Sincerely, 7~~iklJU- Patrick J. Lynch III Area Hydrologist .. . Ir: -- '":'- --- '~~I-= J:;:'I- 2 ------. i ' ! , 1.1' , 'I I I' I'. i II J& Planning Case File No. ~ -{)50 Property Identification No. d.r 11 ~ 0 :; ( 0 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: I Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zoninji) sheets/narrative if desired) J to (proposed zoninji) R@.oJcr-f' cJ.- ~x:.~c; YI_ f J..e . if I o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance Df>c h rl rf/lc- It ,~ o Subdivision of Land S e.c> .Aftc:.. c~c) (~ ex/sl~ o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit lXl Variance o Other: Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Bsy-a~c, rJ Ph,l};/.] I-!tt:ls:.i Address: :1 "}/9 ~f'-: :; P-,J-S , w.l pr'l ~ ~. J.."" ~ ~ MN. Home Phone: 'itlt s:o)~ Work Phone: t70-S-Gb'f Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Work Phone: Fee L- Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement----,- Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy if there is not enough space on this sheet): )PQ ANQc~(1 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 ntH deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. >~, # 6/30/'97 Date Fee Owner's Signature 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 DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc 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 [mal 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 ~he DNR in an attempt to determine what other methods of shoreline 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 ReviewlDecision) section of the Variance Procedures / Land Use Application. We thank you for your consideration of our request. 1. 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 ofthe 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. t.: I 1e~----I----~~ I ' 2" 2" '6 n" 1'1 ~3'2~ _3'6-"1~3'6--"-' _3 ~ 64' 1 --48' -- ~- Il(. ...."'"..~.'_. ----, co '" ~ ;,i-~ "'1 "~F ~ "I~~ :~~ I _Lr- ~~ -:J -~ LIVING 15'6 x 15' ;, N LIVING AREA 1607 sq 11 I I I lk~3'4 g'41 J I I ~_ ~-------- o L..J" II I I I 3'2 _2L 3'2 Jg,L- 3'4-d. 1e l- .-.------------.- 63' -~--------.- ~ S~B ~-----~--~-~x 95 ~ -DN- , V --~--~--~ 42'----~----- ~~ DECK 45'4 x 15'8 /. /. /. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLO\VING VARIANCES; 1. A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PER\1IT 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 Ai~D A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELA1~D DISTRICTS You are hereby notiiied 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 ofC.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 V ARIAt"TCE TO PER.cyIIT 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<tS~~Ifts\~A:R~f~oro\\9f5ht~~pt1~5'C~go~NJ~d6t4 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) ;+47-4245 AN EQL"AL OPPORTUNITY E:vlPLOYER 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 lO, 1997 Revision lVlailed: June 16, 1997. L\97FILES\97V AR\97-0S0\9750V APN.DOC97S0V APN.DOC 2 SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PH IL HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAil OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 ( SPRING ...:zLAKE (JAI',,t,cl€ SLA8 (l,9I:S,40 ft l..41( C I 9090 1/1<1 ..... DESCRIPTION 1\5 PHOVIDED: /"96 ~ The westerly One Ilalf of Lot 3: and Lot 4; and thp. Easterly ene Ilall: of Lot 5;' il11 in Block 46, and a 3trip of Innd between 8ili(] Lots and lying sOl1thecly theceof and the .....atec3 edge of Spcing Lake, i.n Sprinq r,a1'(e Townsite, accordin(J to the plat thereof on fi le alld of rp.cord in thp. otticp. of the Registrar of Deeds i.1l and for said Scott County, Minnesota in<:','"ling any part 0, paction of any street or alley abuttlng said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing th~ location of. the protX'Jscd ~'-~ NOTr~' Benc~ack Elevation 928.38 top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 9;>fl.l Denot~.:-; p.xiDtinrj nr:"\c1p ,..,' ,..,';~t i on :~