The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7A - 2719 Spring Lake Road Case File #97-050 ST AFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 7A "~ JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER ~~ r;K JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97- AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST BY PHILLIP AND BYRON HINES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OHW) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD, Case File #97-050 NOVEMBER 17,1997 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal by Phillip and Byron 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 and on September 15, 1997. Upon request of the applicant, it was continued to November 17, 1997. This request was verified via conversation with Mr. Hines and written confirmation on October 20, 1997 and he will be sent a copy of this report. BACKGROUND: Phillip and Byron 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" EMPLOYER 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. The lot is considered to be substandard. It is under 15,000 sq. feet in area (12,800 sq. feet) and 100 feet wide. Ifthe 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 TERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution 97-XX denying the appeal by Phillip and Byron Hines and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Phillip and Byron Hines' appeal by L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: 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. Motion and second adopting the attached Resolution #97-XX, denying the appeal a upholding the decision of the Planning Commissio . L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\97-050CC.DOC Page 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COIMMISSION TO DENY AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH 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 BYRON mNES 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 Byron 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 WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal on November 17, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon hearing the facts, concurs with the decision made by the Planning Commission to deny the setback variance requests. 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 Byron 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!i~ef(!~~~'kvf\'S;~-~.~~.c~!liMcLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61!)!,gM7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 November 17, 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 Byron Hines on property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. Passed and adopted this 17th day of November, 1997. YES NO Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins Andren Kedrowski Mader Schenck Robbins 1:\97files\97var\97 -050\ccres.doc Page 2 _._~~~----- {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake I: \97files\97var\97 -050\ccres.doc Page 3 .:>UHVt.I I""H I:. 1""/.\ H t.U ~ Uti. Valley Surveying Co., P.A. 'SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 EXHIBIT A PHIL 2719 PRIOR .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 REVISED PLAN SPRING 9l5,tzlAkE' . .....AGI nAIl IL. .".40 Et 1..4kE' II ;/~ 909.8 DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED: /96 ~ 'l'he westerly One lIaIf of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the 12sterly C'ne Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a strip of land betweP.n said [,ota and lying southerly thereof and the waters ed<Je of Spring lake, i.n Spring r,ake Townsite, accordin'] to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registral:' of Deeds in and fol:' said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part or portion of any street 01:' alley abutting said premises vacated or to 00 vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pl:'oposed NOTES' Benchmark Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gal:'age slab on Lot 4. nO.l '" Denotes existing gl:'ade e:t"?vation Denotes pl:'oposed finished gl:'ade elevations ~ Denotes pl:'oposed dil:'ection of finished 81ll:'face dl:'ainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 , The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Area = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH 8 GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY cer"'y t/lot 'hi. lUrV,y wo. pt'fporld by m. or under my dlroct .uporv;,;on ond 'hot , om 0 duly Hc.n.1d lond S....."or under thl "'yr., 'h. S'ot~:.~/nn~.oto'l? ,. 'J' t.',,[.. /.4/i~... ..... -, , ~.I. ,. ..~.... ":&. :; IN FEET o O.not" 1/2 Inch. /4 Inch Iron rnonUtlllnt .., and markld by llc.",. No. lo/e 3 .' r ~~ t.:;G) "':> "';u ~m :> n~ ~! ! ~ \- :i' ,I~ 'I ~-- i-u------ ...j I ~~ ~ r-. -, "'I 7' It 7- IJ be; 1(' (5 th~ I~\ IT::' 1(' '1\ I~ c " f}cJflOS~ I-:J!.d'- o r' I, II I, 'I !I Ii Ii II ~ I Ii Ii :1 II Ii II I' :1 II II II II II II 11 II I II 18' ~~ (' ~ :r ~ ~ I (> 2<' 8' +---1 U .... <: z G) T, :ii ;11 " W 1'1 I ~ , .. Hi,., "! ii . I :1 l I II, "li I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 I II I ,I I i i I I I I I I I ~ i I I I I i..------------ 2C' 1 I "l" I I i I I : ! I I I l-<. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with Building Pennit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address .1.. '1 \ q Sr~'~. ~~~ .~c.~'S) Lot Area \'2-1 C(?oO Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. -;<0'-\0 \ . **************************************************~********************* HOUSE ATTACHED GARAGE ~ . LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET t.1<O..~, . x ~ = ~. "2.LD . <S x 1.. '2-. c; = -S'1LP x = TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... \ ~le 0 DETACHED BLDGS BCA-+ (Garage/Shed) 1Ao1"....c,e. "'2...e:>.S X \0 .x "'2-0'7 (Driveway-paved or not) @:"~arking A~eas) -~ TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... .1-0 .? -f- 2"'2.. - c:; ~ L. \ \.~ X "-\<1. = ~~'1 .1...1J1 X 6 . s = '?.. '"L 1 ct-x -"2.. V = \ b,-\ -to~ DRIVEWA YiP A VED AREAS \'-\L~ . J~~<;t . PATIOS ORCHE ECKS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface belowj are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS.................,....................... \ lo X \ S. <01 = -z..'So.,_ X = x = ,TOTAL DECKS........!,.............................................. .~ ~D ~1 OTHER X = x = . TOTAL, OTHER....~............................r..'.................. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE e::R ~~~h1~~ Company \J p. \ \,,'" S"~"';e;,! \:0 Co. 9. A . . . \ \ . L~ 36 '-Ie; L /9! . Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ -, Phone # L\ '-\1 - -Z- ~'l 0 I I SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 IDJ!rn @ rn 0 \Yl [g rm 1\1\\ .... I I !~:j ( .~ 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 EXHIBIT B ORIGINAL PROPOSAL SPRING u~,~zlA.k€ GA.....OI SLAB U.. 911.40 DESCRIPTION AS <I. 1/ //4 PROVIDED: l.41(~ 909.8 /96 1'he westec 1 y One Half of Lot 3; and r,ot 4; and the i':astecl y one Ila 1 f of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a steip of lnnd between said Lots and lying sOllthecly theceof and the watecs edge of Speing lake, i.n Spcing r,ake Townsite, accocdin'J to the plat theceof on file and of cecocd in thp. Offi.ce of the Registcar of Deeds in and foe said Scott County. Minnesota, including any pact oc paction of any stceet oc alley abutting said pcemises vacat~ oc to be vacnt~, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTJ~' Benchmack Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gacage slab on Lot 4. 928.1 ... Denotes existing grade e !.pvation Denotes pcopased finished grade elevations ---+- Denotes pcoposed di.cection of fi.nished sucface dcainage The existing gacage slab i.s at elevation 9/.8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 92B.7 The lowest flooc e)evaticrl is at 920.37 30 Net Lot Acea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK. PORCH e. GREEN HSE, REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PFlOPOSED ?~;r~bY certIfy 'ha' thil survey wal prepored by me or under my direc' lupervilion and 'ho' 10m a duly Ilcenled Lond Surveyar under 'he loW.'" 'he S'o,e. o~_~inn..a'a "'~ ./ . ~: ./: ,. : 60 IN FEET r') Oenot", /2 inch I( l4,inch iron PHIL 2718 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ill.Jlley ~urve:rlng l.,U., f-:.4. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOM/NIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOT4 55372 TELEPHONE (612 ) 447 - 2570 .~. JUN :"U LS~' .-... I 2 199T EXHIBIT C ------.. ( SPRiNG l------ 9~.U AkE' 'R---.- , OAD) Co SHOWS EXISTING DECK " ----7 / r- '/ ---.- "---"""'--- ..------ WOOo FEN(;;-~--;;--.-- .. NE:'Iy Ii". N7'4_ O'lo,s J _ ../0038'35"1V .48S 00.. ['JC.IST1HO HOUiE to") .;; S PfTlNG DESCRIPTION II,', El. 11/14 PROV!!)!':\): 9098 /96 '-41(1: ~ The Wl!lster:ly lJne lIalt of Lot J; and I,ol 4; and the 1;;''1stedy me flalE. of t.ot <Ill in fl.Lock. <lb, "nn " I'ltdp 01: 1.",,-, bf'twI"en [",;:lid I.ot<" and lying sOllth@r:ly ther:l!Of and th", ,,-"Cf'r,' '><:1qe or :;pt'inq I.,ke, in Spt".in', ,,:,10<> Townsite, accot"ding to the plat ther.eot 0/1 fi le ilno ot t"f'r:or:d in thf' Offk", or the Hcgistrar: of DeP.ds in and for said :..;( 'ott :(-,unty I ~li.r.nf')r;ol..;), 1 nr l1Jc] i n(,l rlny ~.';;'k't'. ()t.:" ~ 'or.-t i ','P of nny strp.et or alley abIJt~.:.i.nq ~nid pl-e[l1i~10"1 VdCF1I:floti ')(" to b"~ VilC.1!-.f-:-c.J, ~)cott County, Minneeota. Al"o nhnwing the location of th" pt'nl"'~ed OOl'ES' Benchmar:k ~:levation 92A.3tl top of the existing qac-aql" slab on Lot 4. 920.1 .. !)fmotes existin<J qr:anp , ""tion '. Denotes proposed f i.n ished qr.~d'" <, levations _ Denotes proposed dit'ection of finished sur;face dt"ainage The e,.;istinq gat'a<J" slab in i'lt elevation SI;>B.3~ Thp f'!Xistin9 top blor.k ;" 'It ",1"V'ltion 'l7t1. 7 The l,o...,~~t floor pl~v;~t:iofl i~ r'1t 97.0.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net pc-o~sed impm,"vi.011" cnvr.caq<' I.H.OO REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW ~ED ?~;~bY cpr"'y f""f tfli, -.., "'" prepcnd by m. 0' .-e, my di..ct. ...,......... _ fllcIt 10m 0 duly h"'_ l.dtiIt,.....,........". Io.....~ the Stot~ ,"'.....,'_11I, . '" It....",.~,- _.~~. .if 0;,;-11. t~.,... Lic.n" No. lOle3 Net ""t Ar:e" " 1/, noo nq. f t. IN FEET o Denof. 1/2 file", J4 iIlell Iron _urnent .., lJIId mdI'ftd by Lic..... No rO'83 ,., ft' '-...IV I I ... LI I IILI nl\L.U I Vf\. Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT D PHIL 27.9 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 92s.:zlA/(E ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE EXISTING t) G.-R'-OC: 'l.,q 1El.. U..40 SPRING OESeRI P'rION 1\8 <t. 9 " 09.8 //<1 /96 PI{OV IDED: L..4k~ ~ The wester:! y One Ilalf of Lot 3; and [.ot 4; and thn Eastecl y One lIa Lf of Lot 5~. "- all in Block 46, and a str:i~ of limd between Qilid LotH and lying sontheeIy . theeeof and the watees edCJe of S~cin<J lake, i.n Spci.n'.l r..:J'<e Townsite, accoedin'J to the plat theeeof on file and of encoed in the OEfke of th,? Registt:"at. of Deeds i.n and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, inr..ludinq any paet oc paction of any steeet at:" alley abutt inq said peemises vacated oe to be vacilted, Scott County, Minnesota. 1\1130 showing the location of the peo~osed NarES' Benchmaek Elevation 928.38 top of the existing 'Jaeage "l."b on [.ot 4. nB.l ... Denotes existing geade P.~..~vation Denotes peoposed finished geaue elevations --+ Denotes proposed direction of finished surface deainage The existinq gaeage slab is at elevation 97.8.3B The existing top block is at elevation 97.8.7 The lowest floor el"!vation is at nO.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot I\eea = 12/1300 :1q. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW ProPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HS E. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;r~bY c.,my rhat ".. _v,y wa. pr.pand by me or under my dirtct supervision and thot I am CJ duly lirtnJ,d Land Surveyor" uncI.,- th. law."f the Stat~. o~,;nnf_'O'O._" /~,,'..-,.t~ ..' (_J:: ./"~~"", IN FEET o D,"olt. 1/2 Inch, /4 inch iran .....-''111''''.."' e.t "n~ ,",,,fr.,., hv. lJrn@~OW~Ji~' I) i/~I JUl 3 I 1997 lJ III \, l~ July 31, 1997 Jenni Tovar Planner City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, .MN Dear Jenni, Please receive this letter as written notice that I intend to appeal the decision ofthe 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. SinCer:lY,. I J;/. ----yyU} Phillip . Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, .MN (612) 447-8033 October 20, 1997 Phil Hines 2719 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Scheduled City Council Meeting Dear Mr. Hines: The purpose of this letter is to verify that your appeal has been scheduled for City Council review on November 17, 1997. On October 10, 1997, you left a message indicating that this is the date you wanted. If this is incorrect please let me know. If there are any changes to your request, please forward the revised surveyor other information by November 3, 1997. You will be receiving an agenda and the staff report for your request prior to the meeting. The meeting will be held at Fire Station #1, located on Fish Point Road just south of C.R. 21. The City Council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. This is the same meeting room where the Planning Commission meets. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 447-4230. ~CereIY' l# ~ JC/fJWJ nnifer ~ lanner 1:\97fil.!l,s\97var\97 -050\ccmting2.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTliNITt EMPLOYER - ., 'S .... ~ '. , I O' \ i ' . ~ ,.J I I ;j '-' ..; .... '-' 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 THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET FORA 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 CRIEGO, 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 WATER 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 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. ~. ~-, ,..., r;:: L;l I r ' /,\ I ~~ :.: \ !~ '. , ! i: ~) L-U U I' Ut~ U 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 motlify. There are other alternatives. . Does not oppose to replacing existing deck. Stamson: . Strongly agreed with V onhof. . Recognizes the substantial changes. It would be different if the distance to the lake was 50 feet. : L} /:\ is C~~J i U\\ I' \ . "\ U U LJ uJ 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-l4PC 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 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 offmal survey. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE AUGUST 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . :... .T AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT S',q CONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE FROM OHWL FOR PHILLIP AND BRYAN HINES, Case File #97-050 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER -.JV'vK ~ JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINA TO _YES lNO 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 tha'n 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:\97FI LES\97V AR\97 -050\97 -50PC2. DOC Page 2 __n_~__ _ 71'- 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. RECOMMENDATION: 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 ~UNV~I ~N~~AN~U rUN, Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. 'SUlTE /20-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A PH IL . HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372 REVISED PLAN ( SPRING 92s.:alAkE 0...".01 nM IL. 11..40 SPITING DESCRIPTION AS E:t, /1//4 909.9 PHOVIDED: /96 1..4k€ .~ l'1le westeely One flaIf of Lot 3; and r.ot 4; and the l!:asterly One Ilaif of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a !ltrip of land between ,mid r.ow and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring lake, i.n SprinCj r,ake Townsite, accordinfJ 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 o~ portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTES' Benchmark Elevation 928.3B top of the existing garage slab on Lot 4. 920.1 .. Denotes existinCj grade e.!."?vBtion Denotes proposed finished graue elevations ~ Denotes proposed direction of fi.nished surface drainage The existing garage slab is at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 \ The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 Net Lot Area = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 7/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH Elt GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~~~bY corlily 'ho"hi. survry..... proportd by me or under my direct suprrv;s;on and thot , am a duly Ifcm..d Land S.."oyar under th. "'Y'."f tho 5'a'o"Ol A(lnno..o'a,.'~ J /./tJ'" /' I .. /'" / ,./ / F -' J. ...' ,~-~,'-:.-." IN FEET o Donol.., 12 Inch. 14 inch iran manumen' ,., and marked by Lie",.,,, Nn '(UR.~ r- :;:~ ::;Gl ,,> "';u "'m > :-=-1' ~\) ~ "'\-' If" I n :., - - 1- - -.. - --., .0' I I I I I '" ~ ! ~;:' =- J-' 1''''7 'J I_ I C D ,(' 1:5 m~, 1- .J::. i(' I~ I- I i 8' I i i C ." ; 1 ,r I 'i I ,: i ! R-c)T"/lS~ I::::;(.uc:., '" . . 1: I 1" '.. -+ 'i I :~ I ;> ._-~--~ " 24' 1~'l ' I 1 I I : ?~ I I , I I .! I I ' '" I , , 011 i I '1 !~ i i , I I ~ I :! !~ I it 16' ~' I:' ! ~~ (' ~ Y 3; '" a- o ! . , ,. ii !I " " II I! Ii ij I. iI ~ i I! Ii Ii Ii 'I II II II " 'I II II II II II II II Ii II II " II " !f \1 II II II Ii II ,I 'I I, " II II I I II " II 8' " u -r- ;1$ "'z ~Gl :=r. L I !I ,; f I' I l, ii~i I, I il I ;1 I 'I I I i 1 ! Ii 'I Ii I, 'I I' Ii !I !I I' II 'I II !I 'I II II ii , I :< 'I II II II Ii II ::U i i --L CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted with 8uilding Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shore land District (SD), The J\lfaximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address 1.:1 \ q -Sf'~'~ L\-~ .~o.~~ Lot Area \'2-, <::000 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. ~<OL\O *..***********~***********************************.********************* HOUSE ATTACHED GARA.GE ~ LENGTH l.-\ ~.4 . x "2.lD . <S x = W1DTH -z...~ L.'2.S = SQ. FEET . \ ..-.'~.'. i\ 1o'1 .. '5 '1l? x = TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE,..................... \1~O DETACHED BLDGS BeA-+- (Garage/Shed) ~\.;<,e. rtD.S X \0 .X --z.oC; TOT AL DETACHED BUILD IN GS....................... .1.o.S -I- 2 '2. ~ e; DRlVEWA YiFA VED AREAS \ ~ X '-l.<i (Dri::.:.way-paved or not) . 1..1o X 5 . S ~arkir.gA~eas) ~ X '-z..~. -toe; u..~\ = ~ -::,/ = L.. "'L 1 = \b,-\ ~, PATIOS~ECKS (Open Decks ';''' min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface beiow, are not considered to be impervious) TOTAL PAVED AREAS......................................... \ '--\ L. ? llc X \ S. ~ 1 = 1-~.1 X = X = .TOT AL DECKS,.................................."................... .~ ~o ,1 OTHER X = X = . TOTAL. OTHER....;..........................."........",.......... TOTAL IlYIPERVIOUS SURFACE ~VERf\ .... .. Prepared By D J>.-~ ~ ",J Company \l {'. \ \"U S~.:..,,~ '':5 CQ. r 1\ . \ \ . L~ 3~J.191 L____ ! 9.1 I Date 7 - \ 0 - ~ ., Phone # L\ '-\, - -Z- S'l 0 SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL .HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying CO., P. A. SUITE: 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (5/2) 447-2570 EXHIBIT B ~rn:~~:,rn~ J ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ( SPRING '.5,ulAkc , G.~"'Qr SLAe 11..91.,.0 SPRING DESCRIPTION AS F:t II /I~ PHOVIDED: 909.8 /95 C"li( € The westedy One Half of Lot 3; ~ NOTES' Bp.nc~'~k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing ga~age slab on Lot 4. 9/.0.1 .. Denotes existing gt"ade P. >vation Denotes p~oposed finished g~ad~ elevations ~ Denotes pt"oposP.d di.t"ection of fin.ished sllt"face dt"ainacy' The existing ga~age slab i.s at elevation 9;?8.JO The existing top blor.k is at elevation 928.7 'I'he lowest floo~ e1 evation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 J Net Lot Aceil = 12,800 sq. Et. REVISED 6/10/97 ro SHOW PRJPOSED DECK. PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certIfy tha'thi, !Uf'vey wo' prepared by me or under my dirpet superv;,ion and that I am a duly fi(!",ed Land Swv.,-or und", the law.. I)' ,,,!' Sf"te O~_I\(;"~~'O'O IN FEET PHIL 2719 PRIOR o r SCALE HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN, 55372 ~ lIulley :JurveYIIl<) L.O.. r:- J4. SUITE /20-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ---:.:....-~: .', u t.S~~: "_n.. \1 2 1991 ,U) ~ JUN EXHIBIT C --.-- SHOWS EXISTING DECK " ( SPRiNG- ----- lAk -- 92,.92 1: R----.-. , OAO) <--7 / r- / I . I --- --... Vtloo-;-------- ~!Nl.f. J-..- II/E",~ /. N 7'4:". O( 101, J -"'00313'35"", ,4S5 00... ['O(I$1'lHO H OU1 E ,.:. on SPRING OESeR IPT ION ,\;'. ct " / '4 DROVIDED: 1.~1(~ 9098 /96 'n11'! _stet"ly Une Ilalt oE I.ot .<; and 1,("_ <I; ",nd the 1",ste("ly <JOe Half of. Lot S,~ 'Ill in Rieck ,Jh, "Inri a !Jtci." ot: ',,,,,.' "..':'"..",n !y',i,l [,ot" i>nd lying sOlltherly thereof and th"? './;l,.pr:; (~dqe ot ::ipr::inq \'ljr.~, i:l SpC'in'l !,;1~:~ Townsite, accordintj to the plat theceot '~l [i t<'! 'lllri at e""oed in th.. ~)f.f t',,, ,,!, the 1~E:"~istt"at" of D~s in and for ~;,id :;,'ott: :'>\lnty: ~1ir.rH~[)ol'J" inr1qdin<'1 i=ln-I F'.:,;~I', (;0: ~'oct;','n of (]uy .o:;tcp.et or: a.lley ahIJt._','~'i ~i1id pl-e(lil~,p<; v.1t;;:ll:~".~,:i "c to t~ V;,(:.'~.~""tj, ~;c:ott County, Minnesota. AJ:1o "hr..., tng thn location of th.~ p['r)pn~ed OOI'ES' Benchmat"k f.;Jevation 92A.3H top of the p.xistinq gaeaqe st,~b on (,ot 4. 920.1 .. l)l~notp-s existinq qC;\ci(~' "ation Denotg!! proposed EinishPrl (/r.~,~" l'll!vations __ Denotes pt"oposed di.rection of Eini.shed sut"face drlOinlOge the e:-:istinq gaca<]" slab i" i'!t "leval:ion (!7~'.:J:< ThE-' ~:-:i.9ti.n'-l top b!or.~ i:' ,"IC pi~,,~)tjcn ()7~'-1 j'hf:~ I_OI..IJ'!''1t (loor (..' .~H;' ~ i rJrl 1<"" ,It ':70. ::',7 Net '."1: Acei'! " 17, !\(Xl "'J. 't. REVISED 1214/96 TO SHOW PROoosED 9~'~bY .,,'ffy 'ltGl"". ....,.,.... ,.,.,.....u by ""' .' .ml' my di~. .",.,.,iliOft _ """ I om " duly "~_ Ld"""""" - ""' Io_~ fh. S,,,,..llf-1'_ra,~ . . ,'.'A': ft < /.-,4~:., ~,' 't::.Y. ~~ "ot". , ". l~. 7,w I ,r."n.. Nit uu",~ 30 60 I N~t pccp::lsed im~c"i.("lll:: (:nv~C'1:4P loti.CO IN FEET o 0.""''' 1/2 lite" . 141f1d1 Iran _urN"' ,If and """"ed by lIee"". No 10lS 3 '-'UII v LI I 1\ 1.1 HI\ LLI ( VII. Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKliN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE EXHIBIT 0 P~i IL 2719 PRIOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANS/O ( SPRING u5,ulAK!: , ~ BUILDING tL::L:::1 ENVELOPE EXIS'f1t40 I l,; ____________-------. I I a."ACU: t\.A8 U.. ,U..40 ~) DESCIUP'l'lON ^S <t /1 / /4 t'HOV WED: 9098 /96 l..A,k~ ~ .....,~ '" 'I'he westeely aile flalf of f.ot 3; and Lot 4; and th!! l';a5teeJ.y ()rip. Ilal( of Lot 5.-" 1111 in Blede 46, and 11 ntdp of J.;md betwEen 5aitl [,ot" ilnd lying sOlltheely theeeof and the watec3 edqe of SbJdnq lake, i.n Spdnq f"lke Townsite, accocdinrJ to the plat theeeof on file and of eecoed in thf! Office Qf th.. riegisteac Qf Deeds i.n and foe said Scott County, Minnesota, inr:J.udinq any pact oc pxtion of any 5teeet oc alley abutting said pcernises vacated oc to Of! vacntP.<l, Scott County, Minnesota. ^lso showing the locntion of the pcoposed NOr/::S' B(mchrnm'K E;levation 928.38 top of the existing <Jacage slab on f.ot 4. 9/.0.1 ~ Denotes existing gCAde '=! ~...~vation Denote" PCOP08ed fini5hed CjCiKle f!levations ~ Denotes pco\lOsed clicection of fini.shed sllcface dc"ina'l'~ The existill'J gacaqe slab i.s at elevation no. 3fl The l'!xisting top block iD C1t "levation ':1/.8.7 The lowe[1t flooc p..I."!vation in at 9/.0.37 Net Lot ^cea = J.2,UOO sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 fO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 ro SHOW PROPOSED ?~;'~bY ctrtify that this UJrV'Y wo' IJ,tpored by me or under my d;r~' superv'Slon and that I am 0' duly /ic.nsed land Stll'Vt!yor under ,,,. law.:, th, Stat' ~~...~;n/.n;.'oto. . / . - ~ ~ /':_. .,." o I SCALE 30 60 IN FEET o O.no'" 1/2 inch x 14 inch "on mt:)nllm~"' ut r1nrl mnrk..d by- RESOLUTION 97-14PC A RESOLUTION DENYING AN 11 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERlVIIT A 39 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK OF SPRING LAKE (912.8 EL.) RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 50 FEET FOR A PROPOSED PORCH AJ.'lD EXPANDED DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD FOR PHILLIP AJ.'lD BRYAN mNES 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 ofrecord 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 EQL.-\L OPPORTCNITY 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. /f H ~ t f - /1 v~""t' ,~ - , \ .. \.... Anthony S tams on, Chair 1:\97var\97 -050va\97 -0 14re.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 c:? ~ ~ c~~\S ' \,\ \'S0. . '. ) \./ 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 IDGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE 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 , I, :,! fCl, c, l8j" ~ 9 ,. ! ! C,' t\ \ 'Ul LJ ud -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 ITJOOffiifu Stamson: . Questioned previous variances. . Concurs with staff and commissioners. There are no hardships. . Reasonable use ofthe 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% V ARlANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK V ARlANCE TO PERMIT A DRlVEW A Y SETBACK OF 1 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 ---X- 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\97VAR\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. RECOMMENDATION: 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\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 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 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. 1~' . - i , / . / ,,~\.t \. ~ -,- Anthony Stamson, Chair 1:\97var\97 -050va\97 -0 14re.doc 2 PHIL 2719 PRIOR .HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 VUI/tty ::>urveymg <';0., I-!A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570 EXHIBIT A \D)lrn @ rn O~ rn ~ I~~ PROPOSED ADDITIONS ( SPRING u5.ulAkE . G".....OE 'LAB EL. 9Z..40 DESCRH"r ION AS CL II. 909.8 /1'1 /96 PROVIDED: L...4k~ ~ 1'he westedy One Half of Lot 3; and [,ot 4; and the Eastel:"ly CY1e Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a stdp of land between said [,ota and lying sOllthel:"l.y thel:"eof and the watel:"s ed<je of Spdnq lake, i.n Spdng r,ake 'rownsite, accol:"din<j to the plat thel:"eof on file and of I:"ecol:"d in thp. Officp. of the Registl:"al:" of Deeds in and fOI:" said Scott County. Minnesota, including any p;ll:"t oc poction of any stl:"eet 01:" alley abutting said pl:"emises vacated 01:" to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the pl:"oposed NOTES' Benchmal:"k Elevation 928.38 top of the existing gal:"age sl.ab on Lot 4. na.l ... Denotes existing gl:"ade e !..~vation Denotes pl:"oposed finished <jl:"ade p.levations -- Denotes pl:"oposp.d dil:"ection of finished 5Ul:"face dl:"ainage The existing gal:"age slab is at elevation 97.8.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest flool:" eJevaticrl is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Acea = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED IZ / 4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY certify 'ho' 'hi, !lUry.y wo. pr.pored by m~ or under my dinet sUDerv;s;on and that 10m 0 duly lic.n..d Lond S...".,.or und... 'h. law.." 'h. Stot. p~_,;nn..o'o. /- :.. .':/ .../t:' j , IN FEET o D.not.. 1/2 inch. 14 inch iron manum.nt !It and m.ork.d bv CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations . (To be Submitted with Building Permit Application) . For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SO). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address .1.:1 \ q S f'~\~ ~ \-~ '1<.0 A'S) Lot Area . \2-, ~OO. Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. . '1,<c,Y,O *****.*************~************************************.*************** , LENGTH WIDTH SQ. FEET ~~.tj, " x~ = ~' . ~ "2.lD .'5 x 1:2.. S = S~ LP ATTACHED GARAGE J HOUSE x = . TOT AL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE..'.................... \~le 0 DETACHED BLDGS e,o~+ (Garage/Shed) ~\J4e. ..z.o.~ x \0 ,x --z..oc:; TOT ALDET ACHED BUILDINGS....................... DRIVEWAYIPAVED AREAS' ''f.:;? ~ t.;~,C; = ~~ (Driveway.paved or not)' . '1..LP. Xs .S = "2.."2...1 ,~arkingAreas) ~ X 't..~ = \ b,-\ 1,oC; . ',p~~, PATIOS~ECKS (Open Decks W' min. opening between boards. with a pervious surface below; arc not considered to be impervious) TOTAL P A YED AREAS......................................... \ '-\ 1... ? ~X' lS.{g1 x' = '2..~'L = 'x = OTHER , f~o~() G~~~ ~-.)'6'e.. ,T OT AL DECKS. ....... ~ ,.......... .... ........... 't. ..... .... .......... ,1..l'~c " >- '\.s x x \~ = -'rJo.S = TOT AL' OTHER.... ~.......... It. .......... ........................... \eo.<; TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE --~~~J a' @VER l\ .. 4.r~' . Prepared By D I>,.~ ~~ . Dale La - \ 0 - '" 1 Company '\J I>. \ \ex\ ~~"'1~ C,a. eA. Phone # L\ '-\1 - -z. <;1 0 1:>100 1\40 PHIL 2719 PRIOR SURVEY PREPARED FOR HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, NlN. 55372 Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 '~~::"' ~::T~i~ ~ o I SCALE EXHIBIT B ..- -- --(SPRiNG l ---- 9Z~9Z Ak€ -R----..- , 0040) SHOWS EXISTING DECK -------7 / I' I / / I --------- --------- w~:_;__---~ "_ F! "'(;~ -J ;r--'_____ NElly 1i,,~ N 74. o( 101, J '" I(X/8'JS"W . 4 85 .00.. ['l(ISTlHO HOUYE \-"") SPRING <I.. 1..4kC I 90913 J /14 OESCR tP'l' ION 1\;'. PRClV IDED: /96 'l11e westerly lnle lIalt of Lot .'; and r,c't <I; ,md the I'"sterly <Jne Half'. 0'111 in !llock <lh. Clnrl " AtICi.,' ot: '."'<.1 "f't"f'en ~i(! 1.ot" i'lnd lying sOlltherly thereof and the <",'Ii~pr:. edqe of ,,~Jt"inq ''''.e, in Sprjn'l I,;,;;e Townsite, according to the plat thereat on fi Ie i'lIlrl ot record in the uffic.. af the 1~e<~istC'ar of Deeds in and for said :~(.()tt ',':C1untYI ~1ir.nt~,;.,ol".i'l, inf~ll1rlinq ;:my ~~i~t: 0':" {.-'lOt"t icn of aJlY street or alley ab!Jt~_ IJ""'!q ~r-l:id peerrd.sp:, W1Cf1tPli ')C to t."~ Vf1'~,'!"_~"(;' ~;cott County, Minnesota. Aho ,;h""'lll') the .location of th'~ prnp(.,~ed NOl'E'S' Benchmark f.~levat.lon 92R.3H top of the p.xistinq ga('aqp. "lo'lb on Lot 4. 97.8.1 ... I)(motes existinq qracl" . "ation Denotes proposed finishoo q(,'ld" "levations __ Denotes proposed di.r-ection of fini.shed IlUrface d('ajnage The existinq garage slab ;,; FIt elevation 9;>11.3,' 'l'hp m:istin<'l top btor.k i,; .,t ..If'v-]tion 'l7~L 7 The lowp.~t floot" p,,~V;"l!:i()r' i~ ~lt 970.J7 Net \'0(: At'e" " 17, nex) ,vJ. ~t_ REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PRCPOSED ~~;~bY c.rllfy ,h.,,/ti. arwy WIt. prepand by m. or under my d;~ ""....iliOll _ flMrt 10m 0 duly hctn~ Land s.n.,w.llIIINr 1M "'w.~ rh. Stot..llf..-.,'""...,''' Ii . _ . ,.' A'" fl ' / - /__~...;.~~__L.A_,~._~__,_,- 30 60 I N~t pr:o~se(l irnp;-rv ic;I l:~ cov/'":' ( '1.q~ 1.11.00 ... - - -.I. __ , 1'.. ,__'" ., I~._i:<<o>.. .___ IN FEET PHIL 2719 PRIOR ,HINES SPRING LAKE ROAD LAKE, MN. 55372 Valley Surveying CO.. P. A. SUITE 120-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL EXHIBIT C FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 - 2570 LEGAL BUILDING ENVELOPE ~ AREA FOR ~EXPANSIO ( SPRING 9ZuzLAKE . ~ BUILDING ~ ENVELOPE tlARAOI Sl.AB I[L. 9Z8.40 tl.. 9 1..4k~ 'I 09.6 /'1., OC:SCRIP'rlON AS PROVIDED: /'96 ~ 'l'h<! westerly One Half of Lot 3; and [.ot 4; and the l"'"lsterly Une Jlalf of Lot 5, all in Block 46, and a .'Jtdp of land betwe<!n oaio f.otu and lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spdnq lake, i.n Spr:iny r,a:<e Townsite, accordin'j to the plat thereof on file alld of recOl:d in the Office of the Registrat' of Deeds ill and for said Scott County, Minnesota, including any part OL portion of any street or alley abutting said premises vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota. Also showing the location of the proposed NarES' Benchm<,\rk Elevation 928.38 top of the <!xisting garage slab on Lot 4. 9213.1 ... Denotes existing grade f!.t;~vation Denotes proposed finished grade <!levations --to- Denotes proposed di.rection of flnished sllrface drainage The existing garage slab i.s at elevation 928.38 The existing top block is at elevation 928.7 The lowest floor elevation is at 920.37 o I SCALE 30 60 I Net Lot Area = 12,800 sq. ft. REVISED 6/10/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED DECK, PORCH a GREEN HSE. REVISED 12/4/96 TO SHOW PROPOSED ?~;~bY cortify that this ",,"v.y was prtpared by m~ or und~r my dirrd ,,,ptrY;J;on and thot , am a duly Ik.nstd Land S.",oyar unci.. 'h. ,IaVi.~f tho Sta'~.~!"";:..ata : IN FEET ^--_Jl.al'ldl.... -11'!1 ;_..... .. IA. _.. . 29 ~IO PROPERTY LOCATION \.,0-1\ )-1\ ",\-1\ <:;0.... COUNTY OF SCOTT T 12 13 17 I'-- WAHR FRONT --- . -- 4 SENT BY: DNR METRO; 6 - 1 9 - 97 10: 34; 6127727573 =:> 6124474245; #1/2 Minnesota Dcpartrncnl of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 _Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 JW1C 19, 1997 Mr, ()on Rye Plunning Director City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-171 4 ,~ Phon.. # f' (II( U RE: HINES SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST (SPRlNG LAKE) AND MATTSON SlDEYARD AND IMPERViOUS SURFACE COVERAGE VARlANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Rye: I have received the hearing notices for the subject variance rcqucsLs which ",,-ill be considered by the Prior Lake Planning Commission on June 23, 1997. Please include the foHowing commenls into the offici.,l record o[the hearing. HINES OHW SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST .~ The city of Prior Lake recently amended their ordimmce to rellect a relaxation of the lake setback standard for Priol' lUld Spring Lakes. The required setback is 75'. it is recommended the variance as reque~ted be denied. 'fhe deck Sil.C depicted on lhe survey which accompanied the hClIring notice appears to have placed little regard for the setback requirement in its design. T note the structures on either side of the Hines' properly un: :selback at 51' and 46'. The DNR recommends Lhe applicant re-design the proposed improvemenlS lO meet the required selback. There appears ample buildable a.rea to the wcstlllld north of the existing structw"c. in i1cidition, 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 loc:tl.ion. Olnd to rhe e~isling dimensions of the current deck. It will be djmc~lt to argue hardship in this case. MAITSONTMPI1:RVIOVS SURFACE ~OVERAGE AND STDEYARD SETBACK VARTANCl:; The subject lot is very small (5,607 square I'eet), and is reli1tively narrow. The potentii1l for additional development on the lot without l,hc need for multiple variances is limited. The DNR is not opposed to !.he cOnsl.nJetiOll of a gnrJgc at the proposed location, provided iUl equ:11 amOlUlL of impervious surl:,ce is removed. It appears thJt tllere i.s u ~ignifieant amount of concrete on the west side:: of the pruperty which could be removed to balance the additional impervious of the proposc::dncw gar<lge. Another option, pcrhnps more suitable in 1.crms ofi.mpervious surfOlcc, would be to construct a garage on the existing concrete slob. This would result in the elimination of the need for variances from impervious surfnce and from the sidcyaTd setbnck. ltwould, however, most likely require: a vmiance from the rood setback. The DNR would not be opposed to the Toad setback variance. As proposed, the DNR recommends dcni;l! of the varianee for impervious surface coverage of 54%, f>NR III (...", Iillil.lll: (i)l-l'UH'l157. I-XllO-7lio.r,/1l10 . TTY, I,I} }'lI., ~~Ho+. ,.~I)U-r,."/-YI2') :\11 b(ual I )l'l'~Hrtllllil\ I impJII\'I'r \'t'lhl \':111110, r'i\'l.'r,ir~' ..... 10'1 iIHl,.'U ~m H.......~..:ku P:.aP":1 ( '1IIlLltlllft." ,I ,-.;t ~tiJlllllUlll III 111':; I'n,;1 "PI1-;Ul1h" \V'.J';:" 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 hcaring record. If you have any quesUons or commcnts regJIcling DNR review of the pending shorcliUld issues, plciJSC call me at 772.79\ O. Sincerely, 7~~1UlL2 Patrick 1. Lynch III Area Hydrologist - . ..-..--; ::. '1,\ illll'i ! I I I~ Planning Case File No. ~ -()50 Property Identification No. ,:) ~ / :} 50 7- , 0 City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek A venue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) to (proposed zonin~) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land sheets/narrative if desired) J I'yicr@ rj. C~G;n -J.Ai2 Dt>"'J.. rfrlA~/,.~ S e~ Aft-=:. c~('} (~ e;us/~ o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit ~ Variance o Other: Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): E.9fn;~I:JJ"J Ph,j}; LJ l-lt::Js:.i Address: :J.7/9 ~r' Ai-... Rd. s,w.l pr'l~~' J,.."r..e. t\;\(J. Home Phone: 4t;-f X:03~ Work Phone: 170 -~G'~ Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Type of Ownership: Work Phone: F ee ~ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement ------"" Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet): 5' P Q Alloc~<' 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. '-"/ / ?1/, ignature #' 5/30/C:;; 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 DATE 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 ofthe 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 final 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 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 I 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. .d .. ... r- I 1'1 --~~64'-- ~- I 3'2 2" 16' 3'6 Z' 3'6 Z' 1 48' 3'6 Of 1 <D io ;, N LIVING 15'6x 15' ;, N LIVING AREA 1607 sq ft <D ~ ____ _________ _____________..47'_ SLAB ---.-.-----.-.-----.~5"" - --------- 63' -.--.--------- ~ ON 4Z DECK 45'4 x 15'8 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING V ARIAl'\TCES; 1. A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQillRED 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-SHORELAl'\TD DISTRICTS You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #l, located at l6776 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 VARIANCE TO PERMIT 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~~~!)#AR~t.:ofo\\971o~AP~B5C'~~~N~~~6t4 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) f47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 lVlailed: June 10, 1997 Revision Mailed: June 16, 1997. L:\97FILES\97V AR\97-050\9750V APN.DOC9750V APN.DOC 2 SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PHIL HINES 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD PRIOR LAKE, MN, 55372 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE IZO-C, /6670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6IZ) 447-2570 SPITING E"t. 9 // //4 09.8 DESCRIPTION AS PllOVIDED: /96 ~ The westeely One Balf of Lot 3; and [,at 4; and thp. l::asteely CT1e lIalf of Lot 5; all in Block 46/ and a stt"ip of land between said [,otll and lying sOlltherly thereof and the waters edcJe of Spring lake, i.n Spring ',ake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in thp. ofticp. 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. Also showing the location of the proposed NOTJ~' Bp.nc~.rk Elevation 928.38 top of the p.xisting garagp. slab on Lot 4. 9?13.1 , Denotes existinq qCi'ldp. ,,,',""'Tiitinn ..