HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Variance for Redevelopment of a Home in R1 Zoning District
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
L:\Cl
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 17, 2007
8B
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A HOME IN AN R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT.
I ntrod uction
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Dalsin and Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Dumke have appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve variances from the zoning ordinance to allow
for the redevelopment of a home in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.
The lot is located at 16035 Northwood Road.
Historv
On November 13, 2007 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
to discuss an application request by Jerrad Robinson for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the redevelopment of 16035 Northwood Road. To construct
the additions to the dwelling as shown on the attached survey the following variances
are required:
. A 0.7 variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in
the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)).
. A 2.0 foot variance from the minimum 5 foot east driveway side yard
setback required in the R-1 District (1107.205 (1)).
. A 2.0 foot variance from the minimum 5 foot west driveway side yard
setback required in the R-1 District (1107.205 (1)).
. A 3.0 foot variance from the required 5 foot east side yard setback
permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. A 0.4 foot variance from the required 5 foot west side yard setback
permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. An 8.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yards
required in the R-1 District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 4.9 foot variance from the 15 foot east side yard building separation
required in the R-1 District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 9.0 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum east side yard
setback required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
www.cityofpriorlake.com
. R~gi\~ngS~i.7!l,f7:~aal 'l rJS?9g2~4 7.4245
FILES\Ol
. A 6.6 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum west side yard
setback required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
. A 409 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area
permitted for nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902(1 )a.).
. A 25.0 foot variance from the minimum 50 foot lot width permitted for
nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902 (1)a.).
The Planning Commission approved the requested variances with the additional
condition of a $10,000 letter of credit/escrow to be used if any damage results on
adjacent properties.
On December 19, 2005, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Dalsin and Dr. & Mrs. Bruce Dumke
appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variances as
requested. This appeal was filed in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows a property owner within 350 feet of the site to appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 5 business days of
the date of the decision.
Current Circumstances
A single family dwelling currently occupies the lot. The lot was created in 1951 within
the Spring Lake Township. In 1959 a building permit was issued by the Township
and Scott County to construct the existing dwelling on the lot. In 1972 the lot was
annexed to the City of Prior Lake. Since the dimensions of the lot have not changed
since the annexation, the City of Prior Lake has classified it as a legal non-
conforming lot.
The homeowner is proposing to remove the existing house and shed to construct a
new home on the site. The homeowner would like to rebuild on the current 20' x
54.4' foot foundation of the existing dwelling. Also, a 507 square foot addition is
proposed to be constructed at the rear of the current foundation. (As stated in the
attached narrative, originally the homeowner proposed to renovate the current one-
story structure, add a second story, and add a two-story addition. After further
financial and reconstruction analysis of the overall project; however, the homeowner
has requested additional variances to also remove the current structure down to the
foundation and rebuild the first story of the dwelling rather than renovate it.)
The lot area, to an elevation of 904.0 feet (OHW), is 7091 square feet. The
proposed house has a footprint of 1,595 square feet with a proposed driveway of
522 square feet for a total of 2,117 square feet of impervious surface coverage
(29.9% impervious surface coverage).
ISSUES:
The following table compares the proposed setbacks and other specifics of the site
with the ordinance requirements and existing conditions:
Ordinance Existing Proposed Variance
Requirement conditions conditions Requested
Lot Setbacks
Front yard 25' min. 24.3' 24.3' 0.7'
Driveway side 5' min. 3.0' 3.0' 2.0'
yard - east
Driveway side 5' min. 3.0' 3.0' 2.0'
yard - west
Side yard - east 5' min. 2.0' 2.0' 3.0'
Side yard - west 5' min. 4.6' 4.6' 0.4'
Sum of side yard 15' min. 6.6' 6.6' 8.4'
Side yard building 15' min. 9.0' 10.1' 4.9'
separation -east
Side yard building 15' min. 21.0' 15.1'
separation - west none
50'+ wall side 11' min. 2.0' 2.0' 9.0'
yard - east
50'+ wall side 11' min. 4.6' 4.6' 6.6'
yard - west
Shoreland 75' min. 193.3' 161.2' none
Other Lot
Requirements
Lot area 7,500 sf min. 7,091 sf 7,091 sf 409 sf
Lot width 50' min. 25' 25' 25.0'
Impervious 30% max. 23.7% 29.9%
surface none
Building Height 35' max. 20' 32' none
Front yard Setback
The front yard setback of the existing structure is 24.3 feet. Since the homeowner
proposes to use the same foundation as the existing structure, the front yard setback
would remain unchanged. The front deck (as shown on the survey) is proposed to
be removed as part of the redevelopment of the site.
- Robinson
GO
Driveway Setback Variances
The existing driveway side yard setback is 3.0 feet on the east and west sides of the
lot. The homeowner proposes to utilize the existing driveway location since the
current lower level garage and foundation are proposed to remain as the base for
the proposed new structure. Therefore, a variance is required to maintain the
existing driveway side yard setback.
Side vard Variances
The General Provisions Ordinance (Section 1101.502 (8)) states the following:
Nonconforming lots of record in the R-1 and R-2 Use Districts may have side yards of
not less than 5 feet if the following criteria are met:
~ The sum of the side yards on the nonconforming lot is at least 15 feet.
~ No yard encroachments, as permitted in subsection 1101.503, are located
within 5 feet of an adjoining lot.
>- A minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained between all structures on the
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot.
In addition, Section 1102.405 (6) states:
.. The width of the side yard setback abutting a building wall shall be increased 2
inches for each 1 foot the length of the building wall exceeds 50 feet. The additional
setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% of the
entire length of the wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any
building wall within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a
lot. (Ord. 00-08 - pub. 6/10/00)
In this case the existing side yard setbacks are not proposed to change. The
homeowner would like to utilize the 20' x 54.4' foot foundation of the existing dwelling
and add a 16' x 31.67' foot addition to the rear of the existing foundation. As the
chart on page 3 illustrates, the nonconforming side yard setbacks (including side
yard, sum of the side yards, building separation, and 50+ wall setback) are proposed
to remain unchanged with the exception of the east building separation distance.
This distance (as measured from the existing shed to the house on the adjacent lot)
is proposed to increase from its current separation of 9.0 feet to 10.1 feet, thereby
decreasing the nonconformity of the building separation. The structures on adjacent
lots also have side walls that exceed 50 feet in length with an average wall length of
74.5 feet.
Lot Area and Lot Width Variances
The lot area and lot width of the parcel is 7,091 square feet and 25 feet respectively.
As stated earlier in this report the lot was created in 1951 and the existing dwelling
was constructed in 1959 while the lot was part of Spring Lake Township. The lot
was annexed into the City of Prior Lake in 1972 and is currently recognized as a
legal nonconforming lot of record. The Shoreland Ordinance permits new
development on nonconforming lots with an area of at least 7,500 square feet and a
lot width of 50 feet. The current lot area (7,091 square feet) and lot width (25 feet)
are below these minimum requirements, therefore variances are being requested.
cc
Variance Hardship FindinQs
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the
strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application
of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The shape, lot area (7,091 square feet), and narrowness (27.5 - 25 feet) of the
lot create a hardship for the re-construction of a single family home within the
requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, encroachments into the driveway side
yard setback, structure side yard setbacks, sum of the side yards, building
separation, and 50'+ wall setbacks are necessary for reasonable use of the lot.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
This is likely one of the narrowest buildable lots within the current city limits. The
homeowner has proposed the location and design of the new structure so as to
not increase the nonconforming nature of the lot and not interfere with the lake
views of the adjacent properties. Variances from side yard setbacks, which are
sensitive to the lots narrow character, appear warranted in this case.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a reasonable use of the property. The narrowness and shape of the buildable
area of the lot create the hardships for the property owner.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
the public safety.
Granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or negatively impact public safety. The homeowner chose to
propose the new dwelling at the front of the property rather than between the
adjacent dwellings so as to maintain a larger building separation distance
between all the dwellings. The homeowner proposes to increase the building
separation distance on the east side of the lot, thereby decreasing the
nonconformity of the building separation.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variances will not impact the character and development of
the local neighborhood. Many of the adjacent homes have similar walls greater
than 50 feet in length. Furthermore, the granting of the variances will improve
the existing conditions of the lot by updating the current dwelling and removing a
shed that is located directly on the east property line.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and
undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land
and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them."
This purpose is implemented through required minimum setbacks. While the
proposed variances will not alleviate the required side setback and building
separation, they will allow for the construction of the proposed house that will
improve the existing conditions of the small lot without increasing any of the
nonconforming setbacks on the lot.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
Granting the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the homeowner,
but rather is necessary to alleviate an undue hardship due to the existing
extreme narrowness of the lot.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the
owners of the property.
The shape of the lot creates the hardship in the manner of the side yard
associated setbacks. The needs for the requested variances are not the result of
any actions taken on the part of the property owner.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
Staff does not believe that increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship are the basis of this request.
CONCLUSION
The strict applications of the various side yard setbacks and lot area and width
requirements create a hardship for the property owner. The homeowner proposes to
reconstruct a two-story building on the current 20' x 54.4' foot foundation of the
existing one-story dwelling. Also, the homeowner proposes to attach a 507 square
foot addition to the rear of the current foundation. The overall footprint of the
cc
Robinson Variance
Location Map (16035 Northwood Rd)
N
+
225 450 900
Feet
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, Jerrad Robinson is requesting variances to allow from the Zoning Ordinance for the
redevelopment of a residential property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) at the
following location, to wit;
16035 Northwood Road SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372
The East Half (E1/2) of Lot 116, of the TOWNSITE OF NORTHWOOD, according to
the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for
Scott County, Minnesota. (PID 25-141-080-0); and
WHI;REAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
File 07-145, and held a public hearing thereon November 13, 2007; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variances were consistent with the criteria set
forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and approved the variances S1,Ibject
to conditions; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 07-145 and Case File 07-153, and held a hearing
thereon on December 17, 2007.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HERESY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council finds that the requested Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the criteria set
forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions.
3. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variances subject to
conditions.
<17 FILFS\07 APDEALS)wn,w' . F\()!)inson V8(8nCe\~~tyofpr,1qr1.ake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) The decision of The Planning Commission was properly and timely appealed in accordance
with Section 1108.210 of the City Code.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 07-145 and Case File 07-153, and held a hearing thereon on
December 17, 2007.
c) The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety,
and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air,
danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area
and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan
d) The shape, lot area (7,091 square feet), and narrowness (27.5 - 25 feet) of the lot create a
hardship for the re-construction of a single family home within the requirements of the
ordinance. Therefore, encroachments into the driveway side yard setback, structure side yard
setbacks, sum of the side yards, building separation, and 50'+ wall setbacks are necessary for
reasonable use of the lot.
e) This is likely one of the narrowest lot within the current city limits. The homeowner has revised
the location and design of the proposed structure so as to not increase the nonconforming
nature of the lot and not interfere with the lake views of the adjacent properties. Variances from
side yard setbacks, which are sensitive to the lots narrow character, appear warranted in this
case.
f) The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a reasonable
use of the property. The narrowness and shape of the buildable area of the lot create the
hardships for the property owner.
g) Granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or negatively impact public safety. The homeowner chose to propose the new dwelling at the
front of the property rather than between the adjacent dwellings so as to maintain a larger
building separation distance between all the dwellings. The homeowner proposes to increase
the building separation distance on the east side of the lot, thereby decreasing the
nonconformity of the building separation.
h) The granting of the variances will not impact the character and development of the local
neighborhood. Many of the adjacent homes have similar walls greater than 50 feet in length.
Furthermore, the granting of the variances will improve the existing conditions of the lot by
updating the current dwelling and removing a shed that is located directly on the east property
line.
i) The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and buildings and the
bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented
through required minimum setbacks. While the proposed variances will not alleviate the
required side setback and building separation, they will allow for the construction of the
proposed house that will improve the existing conditions of the small lot without increasing any
of the nonconforming setback distances or building separations on the lot.
j) Granting the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the homeowner, but rather is
necessary to alleviate an undue hardship due to the existing extreme narrowness of the lot.
L:\07 FILES\07 APPEALS\Appeal - Robinson Variance\uphold resolution.DOC
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
. A 2.0 foot variance from the minimum 5 foot west driveway side yard setback
required in the R-1 District (1107.205 (1)).
. A 3.0 foot variance from the required 5 foot east side yard setback permitted
on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. A 0.4 foot variance from the required 5 foot west side yard setback permitted
on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. An 8.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yards required
in the R-1 District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 5.0 foot variance from the 15 foot east side yard building separation
required in the R-1 District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 9.0 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum east side yard setback
required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
. A 6.6 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum west side yard setback
required in the R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
. A 409 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area
permitted for nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902(1)a.).
. A 25.0 foot variance from the minimum 50 foot lot width permitted for
nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902 (1)a.).
The property is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District), and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density Residential) on the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A single family dwelling with a two-car garage
currently occupies the lot. The lot was created in 1951 within Spring Lake Township. In
1959 a building permit was issued by the township and Scott County to construct the
existing dwelling on the lot. In 1972 the lot was annexed to the City of Prior Lake. Since
the dimensions of the lot have not changed since the annexation, the City of Prior Lake
has classified it as a legal non-conforming lot.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house and shed and construct a new
home on the site. The applicant would like to use the existing foundation of the current
dwelling for the base of the new house. (Originally the applicant proposed to renovate
the current structure, add a second story, and add a 507 square foot addition. After
further financial analysis of the overall project; however, the applicant has requested
additional variances to remove the current structure to the foundation and rebuild the first
story of the dwelling rather than renovate it.)
The strict applications of the various side yard setbacks and lot area and width
requirements create a hardship for the property owner. The applicant proposes to
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI I I307.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
construct a two story building on the same foundation of the one story dwelling as well as
attach a 507 square foot addition to the rear of the current foundation. The overall
footprint ofthe proposed structure is a reasonable 1595 square feet. The proposed
structure would not increase any of the current nonconforming setback distances on the
site. The applicant does not request any variance from the building height requirement
nor the environmentally sensitive impervious surface or lakeshore setback requirements.
Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval of the requested
vanances.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Jerrad Robinson, 16035 Northwood Road NW, wanted to thank the planning
department and especially Jeff Matzke for helping him through this process. It has been a
two year process with all the phone calls and meetings. It's hard to describe the property
without seeing it. Robinson stated they looked hard and long to find a property they
really cared about. They do not want to change the foundation except to add a second
story. Adding a 507 square foot addition will basically bring the front of his house equal
to the neighbor's garage. As it currently exists, there is no privacy when the neighbor's
garage is open. The lots are narrow and he needs the variances to improve the situation
bringing it up to current standards of a livable home. The existing home is 1,040 square
feet. They are staying under the impervious surface requirements and are generally
trying to do more with less. The new structure will be an asset to the City. It will not
interfere with any of the neighbor's lake view or access. The proposed home will be an
improvement and remain behind all of the neighbors' structures.
Tom Dalsin, 16033 Northwood Road, said he is the neighbor to the east and was out of
town until recently and did not realize the significant number of requested variances. He
felt the proposal was a problem and put his home more or less in a box. Dalsin said he
assumes Robinson is putting in 9 foot ceilings; the home already sits higher than his
driveway. How can he build this structure and stay on his own property? There would
have to be approvals and easements to go on his property. That would be a real problem.
Dalsin said another problem with Robinson's lot is that it has no street parking. All the
neighbors have wide driveways along the street and Robinson happens to have a
narrower driveway than the rest of the neighborhood. There are a number of problems
with neighbors parking in the area. As a matter of fact, people put out their own signs
trying to keep cars away so they can get out of their own driveway. Most of the other
homes can fit 6 or 7 cars in their driveway if they have company. Dalsin said they try
hard to keep guests off the street so does not cause confusion in the neighbor. He had
conversations with the people across the street about cooperating.
Dalsin also felt running two stories along 10 feet of his driveway would be a problem and
would be a negative affect on the value of his house. Putting a house like this next to his
house, in his mind, would definitely diminish the value of his home. Dalsin said he also
assumes there will be a deck on the front of the house at some point. Where it (walls) go
up along his garage, it will shift the look of the neighborhood. Dalsin stated "There has
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI I I307.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
to be approval from the neighbors to even build this." The overhang is on the property
line right now. He did not feel an oak tree on the property line would not survive the
construction. Dalsin said in summary he "would not like to see this building as
proposed."
Fleming asked Dalsin to point out his home. Dalsin responded.
Dalsin stated "When you go into something like this; you work with the properties that
are there. You can't assume you can make a lot of changes. When he bought the
property he knew the neighboring home was a nonconforming lot. The house was
remodeled in the late '90's and is acceptable." His assumption was the home would
never change, maybe make some improvements.
Jerrad Robinson addressed Dalsin's concerns. He explained the construction access
would be through the current foundation so there would be no need to access either of the
neighboring property. He has background in construction and the addition to the current
foundation would not be affecting either neighbor. Dalsin's argument on the height is
unfounded. The current code allows residents to put on a second story without variances.
He is not changing the height solely for a new structure - he is rebuilding to improve.
The variances are to improve the entire structure. The existing home was built in 1959
and remodeled in 1994. Robinson also pointed out the basement has 7 foot foundation
walls.
Robinson explained in reviewing the viability of putting a new kitchen and bringing
everything up to date it made sense to rebuild the structure to current standards. He also
noted a future deck would be a platform less than 24 inches (in height) behind their
garages. That would not be a hindrance in any way to the neighbors. Robinson said they
basically look in their neighbors' garages as his house currently sits. A second story is
also irrelevant because he meets the height requirement. Again, his home is behind
(closer to the street) their garages.
Robinson continued addressing the parking - no one owns on-street parking. Ifhe
moved the house further to the lake he could put 7 or 8 cars in the driveway. As far a he
knows, the City does not restrict parking except in the winter. His property will
accommodate 4 parking stalls. People park in front of his house all the time and didn't
feel that was an argument. Robinson explained the height and pitch of the addition in
comparison to the Dalsins. In being a good neighbor he did not want to make issues
however, as the survey indicates, the Dalsin's kennel and retaining walls are on his
property. He did not want to tell Dalsins to move them.
Robinson said he talked to an arborist and City staff on removing the oak tree. The tree
may very well have to be removed or not survive. He is aware of the tree ordinance and
replacement regulations. The Dalsins also have retaining walls next to a number of large
trees. An arborist would not allow their type of landscaping so close to a retaining wall.
Robinson stated "The addition will not affect the neighbors' property values in any way.
It will not impede their view of the lake. If the Dalsins assumed there would not be any
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl1 1307.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
improvements to my property, they however, did a number of additions and landscaping
improvements to their own home."
Ringstad asked Robinson "Looking how narrow the lot is - If the neighbors did not want
anyone touching their property during the construction period they probably do not have
to allow it."
Robinson said "The fact of the matter is living by the lake, we are all in close proximity
and on the east side a ladder or something could be on the property line. If there would
be any damage to the neighbor's property he would replace anything damaged." It is not
his intent to have a bulldozer or loader to go on their property. The neighbor's guests
always walk around the kennel on his property. Anyone who walks up or down on that
side of the house has to walk on his property. Robinson said he is not going to say "Stay
off my property." If someone told me we could not go on their property and there was no
code to allow that, he would tell the builders to crane it in the property. We can make it
prefab." He could put up a fence and tell them not to go past it. He is going to make every
attempt to make this project work and do not want to make enemies. Robinson said he is
respecting their concerns.
Matzke said "From a staff prospective, we have always felt if there is construction close
to a property line the neighbor's usually give permission to go on the yard. The closest
wall is 3.5 feet. There is nothing in the planning ordinances addressing this concern."
Staffwill check with the building officials on this matter.
Robinson explained the prefab walls and siding and could set it up within the property
boundaries.
Tom Dalsin stated he did have a five foot setback on the west side of the house and the
kennel does in fact go onto Robinson's property. The prior owner felt it was okay to
have the retaining walls on both properties. They felt it would benefit both properties to
have a wall as it was a better use of the property instead of having a hill. Dalsin also said
they have gates on the kennel and they encourage their guests to walk through the kennel
or use the other side of the house.
Bruce Dumke (16037 Northwood Road NW) lives on the other side of the applicant, felt
there are rules for the protection of the adjacent homeowners. He pays taxes and expects
to be protected from this sort of infringement. This addition will certainly add to the
crowding and won't make anyone happy. Dumke also said his two little girls have their
bedroom window on that side and would have to look at his structure. It will lower the
property value of his home. He feels he should have some protection because he pays
taxes.
Fleming said he appreciates the emotion behind this.
Fleming asked Mr. Dumke ifhe made any improvements to his home. Dumke said he did
- it was painted and recently re-roofed.
L\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl 1 1307.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
Fleming explained the rights of homeowners and noted the importance of the ordinances
and regulations the Commissioners are bound to interpret and uphold. "They are not just
for the neighboring property owner. Mr. Robinson is a property owner and has rights as
well. The Commissioners really try to guide development and redevelopment." Fleming
hopes he (Dumke) understood the ordinances and rules are not just to preserve the rights
of homeowners but to guide redevelopment.
Dumke appreciated Commissioner Fleming's comments. Dumke said this is zoned and
not designed for this type of crowding.
Fleming said he had to be candid and had questions for staff later but when he first
looked at this map and the report, the first thing he said to himself is how did the City
wind up with a 25 foot width lot? Not going to ask staff to dig up the archives but this is
a real brain bender. Even still, Mr. Robinson is a property owner and the
Commissioner's job is very delicate, and need to take the ordinances and interpret this
from all sides. The Commissioners are going to do their best with all parties and the
regulations.
Dumke noted the recent California home fires and felt this structure is a threat to his
home and children. Fleming agreed but did not want to discuss. Fleming pointed out that
would be the case with every single home in that neighborhood including Dumke's.
Fleming said that was not as compelling. The distance between all of the existing homes
. . .
IS surpnsmg.
Applicant Jerrad Robinson said there was nothing on his deed regarding an agreement
with the previous neighbor indicating Dalsin's retaining walls could be on his property.
Robinson went on to explain the structure's foundation.
Robinson also addressed Dumke's statement regarding his children's bedroom - it is well
beyond where the addition is going to be. Robinson pointed out the proposed structure
and Dumke's home on the map. "There is clearly no window that this addition will
impair. Robinson is not wedging any home - they are not extending past any garage."
Robinson also pointed out he meets all the setbacks of 15.5 feet on Dumke's side and his
concerns for California fires are unfounded.
Robinson addressed the neighbor's (Dalsin) concern for his deck - he had to put up a
fence because one neighbor used his side yard for trash cans. They are using that side of
their home for a storage area. There is plenty of room in the front of their home. He is
not devaluing their property.
The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl 1 1307.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned staff on drainage with the close proximity of the homes. Matzke
responded the engineering department had no concerns for the drainage and he
specifically asked about the drainage as well. The added hard surface is in the back of
the lot and will remain unchanged. The contours follow straight back on the lot.
Fleming - Do we have any sense on how this landed on our City? Matzke said staff
found a letter from a former planning director in 1993 detailing information that this
property was annexed in 1972. This parcel was created in 1951 and was the standard lot
size for cabins. People bought lots and split them up. This is a legal nonconforming lot.
It was a condition the City did not create. The current house was built in the 1950's.
Fleming asked if the intent in 1972 was to have a single family dwelling sit on a 25 foot
wide lot. Matzke responded Robinson's house was built in 1959 and the adjacent homes
were constructed in 1990 and 1998. Fleming noted a span of about 25 years went by
before the adjacent homes were built. Matzke felt they were probably cabins similar to
Robinsons and later rebuilt to the existing sizes. The (Northwood) area was all cabins
and seasonal homes in the years previous to the 1970's.
Lemke - Is it correct the applicant could build a second story addition without anything
other than a building permit? Matzke said that was correct.
Lemke said none of the variance requests are to increase the height, it is only the
reconstruction of the first story and the original footprint. Matzke said that was correct
and it will not change the current walls and setbacks except for the addition. The
applicant would be increasing the nonconforming by adding the second story; however,
they are not asking for the height variance.
Lemke confirmed under Minnesota Law and the City's current ordinance is if someone
owns a legal nonconforming lot, the property owner is entitled to a reasonable use of his
property with a single family dwelling. Matzke said that was correct.
Fleming asked staff if the applicant's current driveway is below grade. Matzke pointed
out the retaining wall and explained the controlled grading. Fleming confirmed the
proposed structure is not a dramatic change from the existing structure. Matzke agreed.
Ringstad:
. I have never seen a lot this narrow until tonight.
. One of the things Commissioner Lemke touched on is the legal right to use a
nonconforming lot. "Nonconforming" does not mean "unbuildable". Sometimes a
mistake is made from people who think the property cannot be built on.
. There are no encroachments on impervious surface. If it was over, it would
change my view on going ahead on this.
. Two things that chinch this:
o This does not increase any of the existing nonconformities.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNll1307.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
o Suggest a Letter of Credit of about $10,000 to make sure damage of this
structure does not harm any of the existing properties.
. The 9 hardships are met.
. Support the requested variances and the $10,000 Letter of Credit for protection of
the neighbors on either side.
Billington:
. As much as we might like to, we cannot rewrite the evolution of this property. It
is a legal lot. Mr. Robinson has a legitimate owner right to his property and wants
to improve this home and property.
. It seems to me to be a favorable impact to the neighbors and it's basically on the
same footprint.
. Commissioner Ringstad has a good point with the Letter of Credit.
. Based on the information we are ready to move forward.
. Again, it is what it is. You cannot change it. What are you going to do? Make
him tear it down. Nobody could reasonably expect that to happen. It is his right.
. Support staff.
Fleming:
. This is a difficult situation for us. As my fellow Commissioners stated very
clearly - individuals have property rights and the Laws of the State of Minnesota
are very clear on what recourses are available to property owners when their
property rights are alienated. I for one, do not want to be party of alienating
someone's property rights.
. The technical aspects of the ordinance are in good form.
. The Commissioners clearly indicated the property owner has a right to reasonable
use of his property.
. He would ask Mr. Robinson to take a Letter of Credit out to make sure there
would not be any foreseen damage to the neighbor's property. I would also ask
Mr. Robinson to knowledge his right to improve his property is having an impact
in the perception of the neighbors. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just
asking you to acknowledge it and continue to do the good work you have as a
good neighbor and get the outcome you essentially want to have in the end.
Lemke:
. Commissioner Billington felt liability insurance coverage would suffice.
. Commissioner Fleming felt it should be part of the conditions and would be
satisfied if Mr. Robinson could assure the City his liability insurance would
suffice.
. Billington asked staff if it is common for a resident to post proof of insurance.
Kansier said it is required of contractors on city projects.
. Robinson said he would be retaining a licensed registered contractor and would
also obtain a Letter of Credit if the Commissioners wish.
. Fleming suggested proposing a meeting with the contractor and the neighbors.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI I I 307.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
. Billington felt between the Letter of Credit and insurance would be enough. The
Contractor would also have insurance. Robinson agreed.
. Agreed with Commissioner Ringstad on the impervious surface.
. A second story could be constructed without variances. It is a reasonable use of
the property.
. The 9 hardships have been met as outlined.
. Support the requests.
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION
07-06PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED 11 VARIANCES WITH THE
ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF A $10,000 LETTER OF CREDIT/ESCROW.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Lemke explained the appeal process.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Zoning workshop to follow.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl 1 1307.doc
9
10 October 2007
r:-:~---___
, fr-"i rc; iT-J Ie; n r ,- rrC f' '\1
..1../ .Ii .kC, ~J [! '\ ~ I 'l r: I I'.....i...:..
" ' ~ ~ ~ .~. "
I ./ .~~ ';:
fl Ii
i I J ,~
; 1/ OCT 1 1 2007 ':
I~:- J
To: City of Prior Lake Planning Dept.
From: Jerrad and Renee Robinson
16035 Northwood Rd. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(651)-206-5762
Subject: Variance application
We are applying for a variance(s) to add a 16' wide by 31' 8" long two story addition to
the south side of our existing home. The existing home is only 1080 sq. ft. fInished on a
narrow Y2 lot. The narrowness of the lot is restricting us to utilize the property to its
fullest potential.
The adjacent dwellings are signifIcantly larger (+/- 2500 to 3000 sq ft.) and have a
drastically superior proximity to the lake. There proximity to the lake places our dwelling
in front of both garages and reduces our privacy exponentially. The side lots beside each
garage are used for storage, trash cans, and a dog kennel (photos included). Because of
this side lot use there will be no hardship incurred due to out application. In addition the
proposed placement of our addition does not obstruct any entry or windows from a view
of the side lots or lake.
By granting our request we are increasing the value of our property and the properties in
the neighborhood with no hardship to any property owners.
Thank you for you time and consideration.
Sincerely,
~ ~ tk--
Jc\ml~ \V\~
Renee Romel-Robinson
!)." ~ .
t ,1/','
~':
- ~
-
, -
. i
.x
"It
~
\-
-l
\t
1.\
\.~
-l
~
V\
-b
.....
\-
, ~
'''- ""
'0) ~
~ 0
~ <' V\
,~ <:... ~
,., Q.. .t:)
-T-O_
V\ \_\ V\
~ '1"2
~ \i.: ~
g g '^
~~ -;
~ \- 2-
\\,\ ct VI,
*...l ..,
~\L 1
..... Q .
~
I
~.......~...' .
~
~
U:
~
l
~
i
rJ
r-
CV\
~
<\
" ~ '"
CQ t'i "
'0 ;s
. ~~ ~i
" 9~'~
~.., ~
~ \I)"q/.
uJ ro..., 0
\-; ~i
)
~ <.
~.~
f.
i . f
l. r
, !
'j
~
i
l
,
I
,
.
r:..
i
i
\
i
~
,
l
!
i
r
\
,
\
I
.~
i
,
!
!
1
~
I
\
\
~-
('1
..0
t"
\,f'\
I
.....0
U
r(
,
-
VI
--..9
""< .
0 ~
\::' ...
... -
..-;) ~~
,.;:)
<;t: .. I
I
- I
'--' tv)
w I
'" I
\,} ~tS
~
Clo I
rt lLl~ I
.::z.-4 I
I
I
I
I
,.
I
1 -
I
.J
::t-'
::)-' ;
~ V>.
()
J.~
~ ,=:
() <;t' .
....\ Cl'
\L :2'
').
~ \f:'
-S-'
.C) j
\.U -
'S ~:
Q... -
o ~
~ 1U
_. t. .
...
:
,
,
,
- .
,
,
.
.......-.-.--...-- ....--+---
;- _-:
/(0'
~
I
!
I
i
I
I
!
I
-
I
--- I
I
'. I
-
,
; 1- \-
,Il
i-- 0-
-
1-=-- \U
~. l--- 0
t--t-- :?
t--t-- 0
I,
:J 0
,.
..... ;
~
..........
l+~ T
f I
1-~ .,
, ,
, ..
..
.'
; &;P j.
.1 T
I . . I I I -..
I ' I I J I
.~: \R-.. ..- '.
iI. ,... '.' -
;:.;.bI
"
'Ii. .
. =r '7 ~ '.:/.""1:"., '1-
.;; ...' .,...
, ~. .~;Z:~: .~. "-,
. ~,~ : .
~ ~ I
. ";:r I.i
,l.....;...iL..~..Z QM" ....,... I
."...~ ~';,." . ,"
~....:...L~ : ,-':." :
.1. _,... 'o--~"I-' :.~
. - : 'JIA. I
~'_.. ~ ' '1'"
_i ,.
, . l
-_... J
~ I
,
::- ~.
,"',
.. .I ..
-.J"':,r\(i'
, f , .
. .l,~ . II .:
i t':'- ',;'
~::::
::; I--- _ .
~~
:~~~'
~ ~.
, .
~ . -.j. ".
I I
1\
j""
-
\ 1
r-
~
-
If
.,. ".. ~.~.._~:..<,_.. ..'~',.-
I
,OZ
-l
-........:.. '. ....,.
1
-+
Q
.0
<;t
~ ::
00
V' ...
0
Cl- -
::l ('f)
~
\--
~
\..J
~
o
<.....J
~
S'
~
~
D
~
i
i.
..".:~
~
\.l,j '<
~ 0
~ '
rd. <::" !
.:) CI :;r!
~ ~ -..:1.
-.i :> \i) l
\L ~ !
~~
<"'{ '<
4-
Q V"'
~ x
.'8 .~
C>..
<:>
~
i
!
. i
I
I
r/VOIS/V;1WIQ II?''"'' "70'UnO
\ I' I
\\.
\-
-
:>
VI
:r
~i
~L
=:to ...
~'A
-i
I L
I
.1,
r
I
I
\Il
..,..
"
o
Cl
I
....
'-l
\l.>
cD
C"'{
,'I
I~
,. I. d
,ce
; ..
A
.~
I,
i
;
i
!
l
I
i
j
,
---'
i
-... ._,
,
i
.i
32'-1112'
3C1-7112" 1'-6"
--------------- I
I 25'.1118" 5'-6318"
I
I
I
~ I 7
~ '" ~
'" -? I>-'
I .
lp ~ - - -m f-- \:" [) ~
" ~
L- ,
I PROPOS. I
ISTING HOUSE ~ I ~ ~ OF ADDITION
I
I ~
~ I 7'...()1/2" . 9'--31fZ'
S! ~ '"
,;,
::r:= M.BATH ~
~
'M.CLO ~ MASTER BEDROOM
I
~ I ~W
L____ Q Q
,. I
________________...J
3'-8314M 7'-8112" 10'-Q1/4M 3'.101/Z' 6'..g 1/Z'
32'.1112"
AN
-0"
32'-11f2~
3(1-71rZ'
"..,
GUTTER
SLOPE 3"11'-0"
SLOPE 3" 11 '-0' r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.----------------~
PROPOSED AREA OF ADDITION
AN
1'_011
~ iI-a~ r
~
I
EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED AREA OF ADDITION
9' TAll WAllS
.P:!.~ ~
,
ENT PLAN
, = 1'.0"
4'-1112" 13'-11/2" 12'-11.
I
oE.1U! /1 - '"--' !L
,
PROPOSED AREA OF ADDITION
EXISTING HOUSE
LIVING ROOM
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
4'.1112" 04'-41fZ' 4'-41fZ' 4'-4 lIT
31/0"
LAN
= 1'_0"
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, #210
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: hbg@oriorIakelaw.com
t'"~~ ,. ~-~
I. I
----G.-;'! 12Tr~
I jI i
200 ' .
') . ; ii
J.. 7 I u;
....... J
JAMES D. BATES
DEAN G. GAVIN
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
THERESA A. PETERSON
,. ,'-::-'
II . :~ -.
t. , .
!!i,' r--
I."" .1 ;.,.,Li l::..C. .
J' '
8y ...
-'
December 5, 2007
~
Prior Lake City Council
c/o Jeff Matzke
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake MN 55372
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Appeal of variances for property located at 16035 Northwood Road NW, Prior
Lake, Minnesota
Dear City Council Members:
Our clients, Dr. Bruce and Lisa Dumke and Tom and Michaela Dalsin own the
properties adjoining 16035 Northwood Road NW, Prior Lake, Minnesota. Each couple
purchased their homes adjacent to what they understood to be a nonconforming lot with a
house on it.
On or about November 13,2007, the Prior Lake Planning Commission heard a request
for eleven (11) variances from the new owner of the nonconforming lot, Jerrad Robinson.
Mr. Robinson had diligently worked with City staff and obtained their support for this rather
large number of variances, due in part to the very unique character of this lot. At the
Planning Commission meeting, Dr. Dumke and Mr. Dalsin were surprised to learn of the
extent of the proposed building, including an addition. They had discussed with Mr.
Robinson some plans but were shocked to find out that those were not the plans he was
presenting to the Planning Commission,or the plans that City staff had been reviewing.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 2
December 5, 2007
Minnesota statutes authorizes zoning ordinances and allows for the Board of
Adjustment:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to
grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
~
Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is
clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where. . . the property owner
would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance."
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917,922 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1989).
As stated by the Court, the prohibition against enlarging, expanding or extending
nonconformities can be read to mean that no increase can be made to the current
nonconformity. In Mr. Robinson's case, the addition requires an additional variance from
the east side yard building separation (Section 1101.502(8)) that was not an existing
nonconformity. The ordinance states (Section 1104.202(3)) that structural alterations which
substantially increase the nonconforming dimensions may not be allowed. Further, in the
Planning Report prepared by City staff for the November 13,2007, meeting, Section
1101.502 (8) is cited which states that nonconforming lots may have side yards of not less
than 5 feet if:
" A minimum separation of 15 feet is maintained between all structures on the
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot."
What has been granted is a variance of a variance.
Based on the nine hardship criteria used by the Planning Commission to evaluate
variance requests, Mr. Robinson has significant obstacles to overcome under a strict
application of the Ordinances. It is only reasonable to grant him the ability to renovate his
older home. However, to allow an addition to expand the nonconforming dimensions is
specifically prohibited under a plain reading of the ordinance (Section 1104.202(3)).
Under the first criteria, Mr. Robinson's lot is a non-conforming, extremely narrow lot
that was split in 1951. When Mr. Robinson purchased his property in 2006, he was aware of
Prior Lake City Council
Page 3
December 5, 2007
the proximity to the street and his neighbors. While his knowledge of issues with the
property certainly doesn't prevent the City from exercising its authority to grant variances
from the strict application of the zoning ordinances, it certainly should be considered when
an expansion to the non-conformity, specifically an addition to the structure, is proposed.
To overcome the practical difficulties and undue hardships associated with his
property, Mr. Robinson has proposed extensive excavation to triple the square footage of the
house he purchased. It is this excavation, combined with substantial additional drainage (Mr.
Robinson's gutter downspouts now direct all of the water from his roof directly onto my ,.
client's property - there is no area between his roof and the property line), and invasion of
privacy issues created by the addition, that bother my clients. The Dumke's property has
already seen an increase of groundwater issues due to recent landscaping changes on this lot.
The proposed construction would substantially increase drainage and further the likelihood
of additional damage to the property.
Second, the lot and area surrounding it consist of upscale lake homes. Mr. Robinson's
current home is significantly farther back on his lot than the existing houses on either side.
When those homes were built the position of Mr. Robinson's house was taken into
consideration. Plans for using the footprint of his current home mitigates the peculiar
challenges of his lot and provide a reasonable use, without the proposed addition.
Third, it is evident that Mr. Robinson needs some type of variance in order to build.
However, the need for eleven (11) variances is unwarranted, as is the addition that expands
the dimensions of the nonconforming use. Mr. Robinson purchased his home in 2006 and
can certainly resell it for what he paid for it. He is not required to build - he has reasonable
use of the property.
Fourth, allowing Mr. Robinson to build the proposed structure impairs the supply of
light and air to both adjacent properties. Although Mr. Robinson is currently substantially
back from any neighboring houses, his proposed plan brings rooflines within mere feet of
each other and allows no light between the homes for the current gardens planted along the
Dumke's home. There is, in all likelihood, additional danger of fire and to the public safety
by having the roofs in such close proximity. Again, to allow the footprint to remain the same
would avoid these problems created by the addition.
Fifth, while Mr. Robinson asks for what he feels his neighbors have, he did not
purchase what his neighbors did. They have no objection to his building on the footprint of
Prior Lake City Council
Page 4
December 5,2007
his current house, although there are questions on how that will be accomplished without
access through their yards. However, they do feel that to permit the variances for the
addition will significantly diminish or impair their property values.
Sixth, the granting of the variances requested to build on the footprint of the existing
structure will preserve the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by
contravening the undue hardship created by conditions unique to the property due to its shape
and size and proximity to the lakeshore. However, the expansion of the nonconformity to the
addition is directly contrary to the prohibition under Section 1104.202(3). ~
Seventh, our clients understand this request for variances is not a convenience but a
necessity in order for Mr. Robinson to improve his property. They further understand that
City Engineering and Planning Departments worked hard with Mr. Robinson to minimize the
variances required. What they don't understand is why Mr. Robinson presented them with a
different idea of what he was proposing and it was only at the Planning Commission
meeting that they discovered the plan he had been working on with City staff. While the
granting of certain variances may be necessary for Mr. Robinson to build on his property, the
variances granted to expand the addition are not.
Eighth, the strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances to Mr. Robinson's
property would provide for little or no buildable area. However, to permit Mr. Robinson to
build on his footprint is a reasonable use of the property.
Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell decision,
we believe the City Council should find that the variances granted to Mr. Robinson that
permit the construction of the addition be denied and, if necessary, the matter be referred
back to the Planning Commission for approval of those variances necessary to build on the
footprint of the current home without expanding into the addition, as proposed. My clients
appreciate your consideration and will have more information, including some engineering
and market analysis data to present to you at the hearing on December 17, 2007.
~Y0~' l1Jt-
Allison J. Gontarek
cc: Dr. Bruce and Lisa Dumke
Tom and Michaela Dalsin
HEDLUND
Planning Engineering Surveying
December 5,2007
DEe 1 ( Z007
Mr. Bruce Dumke
16037 Northwood Road NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
re: Personal residence
Dear Mr. Dumke,
At your request, I have analyzed what additional runoff will flow onto your property from the
adjacent landowner to your east due to a proposed addition that is being added to the
existing residence. That property, which is the Robinson property, located at 16035
Northwood Road NW is proposing to add on approximately a 500 square foot addition to
their existing residence.
I have examined an approximate 2000 square foot portion of their property that lies
immediately adjacent to your house which will include the 500 square foot addition. Please
refer to the attached graphic. Based on existing topography, drainage from this area flows
onto your property.
Based on my calculations, the proposed addition will add about a 45% increase to the runoff
rate flowing onto your property. Please refer to the attached calculations. The calculations
show that when analyzing a 5 year rain fall event, the additional runoff rate to your property
will be approximately 15 gallons per minute. You have indicated to me that you are already
experiencing foundation problems that could be due to drainage. It would appear to me that
the most practical solution to divert runoff onto your property along your house would be for
the Robinson property to construcJ a drainage swale just adjacent to the property line
through the length of your house. Ultimately this drainage would still run across your property
at the end of the swale but it would be beyond your house and any additional. potential
damage to your foundation.
Please don't hesitate to contact me at (651) 203-6612 should you have any additional
questions regarding this.
Sincerely,
c
Randall C. Hedlund, PE
attachments
2005 Pin Oak Drive. Eagan, Minnesota 55122. Telephone (651) 405-6600. Fax (651) 405-6606
· ...,.... ...... ........ " l../ l../.L/
-' L V.ri:.L/
I
r
I
I
,
I
I
\ /' ,
. -\ ..( - - A .i
\ ",," - .
\ /
\ \ ..9~O
\. /'
< 'llo \,(
\\ \ \, .
\ ""/ " .
\ /'%,. \.
.\, . ~ \
\ ":;. \
\ -<. \
. ,
, \
, ,
, ,
\ ,
'. ,
, ,
, ,
, \
\ \
, ,
I ,
I ,
, "
: ......
I
,
.
,
,
1
,
I.
I
,
l
.
,
,
I
I
,
i
~
<d
:::
"-
~
~
f:)I1S1IN;;
OtlE1./.MG
"
\
\
\
^
\
---
~
ute
. .
, ,
.... '"
. "\\7
'/1; 'J'
(,_'-1 '
---
J
3D'
A "
;.a-S
2'R.EK L.KCKH.12
8 DENOTES 2" ASH TREe
& DENoTES. 22" BASSKOOO TREE
8s DENOTES 36" OAK TREE
",,1
Rob \'1\ SOV\ L.D+-
a d ~ a.. c. e.V\ 1-
-1-0 PVM)ce
Re s,de.V\ c.e-
0' r;
2)002 (51' rt.),
0'
S\lcL::: 78
0... V' e.. c..
-
-
G)(6fi~
prDp5~J Add 14-;6'1'\
pJ
:;:::.. 507
---:--
SURYIY P.RIP.A.RlD 'OR:
.1.UlIJ) R()J1INSfJN
f8IJ?3 INeRT JlY.l'NUI
i'.ARKINC1'ON, NN 5502-1
~L-d' :'~-!)'lny alley Surveying
1.'\1 _. .-.... Phone (~) 447-2570
P/ann.,. Fox (952) 447-2571
Co., P.A.
SUite 230
16670 FfYIfIldIn Troll s.€.
Prior Lake, IIlnn_t<z 55:172
- - - -'- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
~.
/'
~
WORrHIYOOJJ
"
ROAJJ
~
PROPOSED SITE: DATA
~...... - 7,0111 .,. ft.. (to eIewItIotr 9(4)
ExItIt/nf DrIwItrg - 1,..,. ft..
&Iritrg Dr'-Y - 622.,. ft..
",.,..., AdtItIon - 601.,. ft..
",.,..., /mpitnIow ~
Co-.r - 2.111.,. ft.. (29.9~
, Tr;n.. '2IS.4'
\ ~__...-f-"NOH71TW
\ ; /___9'lr) \
\ \ ,," ~
- - - - - - ~ - "':'..--...,L - - ;::f .1.
\ ,~/ ..-
\ \... .,.---
'\ \, /
, \ ~?tJ
\\\\\(
\\, 'lI\.\\\,
\ ~/\
\ ............,. \.
.. . \ ..
. ,
, ,
\ :..c. \
. ,
, ,
, .
, ,
. ,
, ,
. .
, ,
\ \
. ,
. ,
. "
~ '......
.
!
,
f
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
..
I:
I
,
I
I
.,
I
t
I
:
...-...-......... :
I,
I,
I I
I I
I I
, ,
, ,
_,--------J i
8 /' :
I "-
~
t-~--
\
\
EXISTING SITE: DA TA
1'r'o(wfy Atwo - 7,091 .,. ft.. (to _1IOtJon 9(4)
E*ttr, DwItIg - 1,0811 .,. ft.
E*tIng Sh<<J - 12.,. ft..
. E*ttrg ~y - 622.,. ft..
E*ftrg "",.,.. ~
eo.... - 1,882.,. ft. (23. 7:()
TREE LECEN.o
8- DEN01ES 2- ASH mD:
& DEN01ES 22- BASSItOOD TREE
8a DEN01ES 36- OAK TREE
~
\
...
~ I
t._-~
:=,
....1
."",
~\
..,/
\
EXISTING
Dre.LJNG
LECEN.o
^
\
^
\
-no- DENOTES EZEVA 710N CONTOUR
^
\
,.., ~.. '. ': . '.1 DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
_ DEN01ES IIVQD DreK
l..
I .
I
1
I
,
I
.
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
ill:
11:
,
I
,
I
~
,
f
,
r
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
~
2~O.
8CAUI JIf rar
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND
MARKm BY UCENSE ~O. 42309
LEGAL DE:SCRlPTION:
(per IltImlnty Deed ~ pro'llded)
TIre .Eat Hatf (E1!2) of Lot 116, of the TOrwstTE OF' NORTHWOOD, occordIng to the p/tJt thetwof
on file and of record, In the OffIce of the RegIe~,,,,, of DHde Tn and for Scott Count", ~~ii- ...~..~O
" 'd II \ I :0
BENCHWtRK: EleVf1tlon 926.94 top of exftItTng garage 1IIob. 'J) U
)( tJ!' Denotn exftItIn,.rpxJe eleVf1tlon
(aU4) Dflnoin profJOftd rpxJe -.votlon
--+ DfItIOtn ptY1fJOftd dhctIon of "",."ed wrlr1ce drainage
TIre pI'tIpoeed top of tIdtItIon foundGt/on mall match the
exftItIng top of foundotlon.
-coNTRACTOR TO ~ ADD/11ON DIIIENSIONS PRIOR 10 CONSTRUC~
:\ \1 OCT 1 ! Z007
I', J'
r"l
t:2.:=---'
RrMed thltt 24th dtly of September, 2007 to
MOW the profJOftd addition.
lweby cerlffy that thltt Topogrophlt: /kJutrdtlry
iY _ prept1red by me or under my dlnJct
pet"IIfIIon and that I elm 0 duly I.IoeMed Lond
!JCIt' undtJr the /tin of the State of
1m_to.
to bet" 42~
thltt_ dtly of Su ,7
Doto Collected Augu~ 11, 2006
FILE ~
BOOK ~
PAGE ...JL
GREG c: !Drowinge/10364-Permlt-R1.dwg
DEC. 17.2007 9:54AM
NO. 4555 P. 2
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, #210
POST OFFICf, BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, 'MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952kP .2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: HBG({))priorlakelaw.com
BE
BRYCE D. HUE MOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
DEAN G. GAVIN
ALLISON J. GONT AREK
THERESA. A. PETERSON
Dec.ember 17, 2007
Jeff Matzke
Prior Lake City Planner
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
By Facsimile Only (952-447-4245)
Re: Dumke/Dalsin appeal of variances
Dear Mr. Matzke:
My clients have requested that the hearing scheduled before the City Council this
evening be c.ontinued until the January 7,2008 City Council meeting. Dr. Dumke's father is
critically ill, in the Intensive Care Unit at St. Mary's Rochester and was in a coma over the
weekend, Needless to say, the Dumkes have pressing matters to attend to.
Thank you for your consideration, cooperation and efforts in this matter.
~ truly )~rs, AJ
l{~ .~. L
.r.J
Allison J _ Gontarek
cc: clients