HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B Phil Hines Variance
ASBUlZJ' SURVEY PREPARE'/) FOR:
PH/L H/NES
2719 SPR/HC .lAKE ROA./) SlY
PRIOR .lAKE:, UN 55372
Surveying
CO,)
P.A.
Phone (952) 447-2570
Fax (952) 447-2571
Suite 230
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55572
EXISTING SITE DA TA
Existing Property Area
(to elevation 912.8)
Existing Dwelling/Porch = 2,945 sq. ft.
Existing Boathouse = 217 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Driveway = 572 sq. ft.
Existing Paver Areas = 620 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft.
12,812 sq. ft.
--------
'"~"/:;,T-
.' . .
"\'," ~^'~ .: 'a---------
. \0 t< ---
'"'\::~~'lI,, .. . '! ~S30,:~< 40
t. '" ~" . . .~ ~"'o
S 0 '\' ' '. .
G \'-' ,. .~.
IJ... '" ...:./ I ~cS50
--------",.' , '. .' I
.'~'~ .
...----..
COC#ry
..1'OALJ M
'0. /<>
Existing Impervious Surface
Coverage = 4,414 sq. ft. (34.9%)
--
rS'Ph>.bVc ---. ~ ~ --
LAA"'~ b
'.>-: " ~.'OALJ/
';~7
.... .. .
.. - ~ .
. .~ . '.
, . I
. .'
. .
.~------.
B
~
I
Maximum coverage allowed 3,844 sq. ft. (30%)
/
/
I
/
/
I
I
G C,
I ,\ '\
I '\ '", o~
I \c,~,\,,\ /
I ,.\ ,\,)
I I) 'I) '1- /
--------
'/--
/..-c--_ /; ; ~ ~
.... '--:--:- I' , ',,- / ,~
'!:l ,_,<l .~,,-> -~_-.l_'." ~. ;;;,'
". '_ '.. .' I
"
"
,
f II r--l
L_ L.I
,
,
::::;:
/I'i-
,
,
,
,
,
,
-----__________ i i
~ -ZS!....
-.-".-~ '",""
-------""'~~~
-"""-_..,-.".-~:'"
,n
v
I '
i\
S'
P
h>
/
4"L4"
1'4
.1"/0./11'
.9"0
L
..4
.:;
0&/
o oS /'
/0,9
~
LEOAL DESCRIP770N AS PROVIDED:
LE'CE'HLJ
The westerly One Half of Lot J; and Lol 4; and the Easteriy One Half of Lot 5, all in Block 46,
and a strip of land between said Lots G'nd lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring
Lake, in Spring Lake Townsite. accardin9' to the plat thereof an file and of record in the Office of
the Reqlstrar of Deeds in and far said Scott County, Minnesota, inc/udinq any part or portion of
any street or alley abutting said premis,~s vacated or to be vacated, Scott County, Minnesota.
Also showing all visible improvements at,d encroachments on to or off fram said property if any,
as located this 15th day of November, .?007.
~Jo ASH TREE (DIA.)
(3) BIRCH TREE (DIA.)
8" BOXELDER TREE (DIA.)
G, MAPLE TREE (DIA.)
<<:512 SPRUCE TREE (HOT.)
=--=== ROCK WALL
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 930.18 T.N H. northeasterly of the northeast property carner.
FENCE
['".... '.' ',~
~W1]
CONCRETE SURFACE
BRICK PA VER SURFACE
20 Ci
~-~
--
10
I
20
I
I hereby certify that this Asbuilt Survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the
/~~~~:a:~ ____~___
~f!ta f~/J~ier NJ09,
Dated this -,-:t~_ day of Lf"il;"'~ 2007
SCALE
IN
FEET
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND
MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 42309
FILE HO, ~
BOOK ..21D..
PAGE ...lJL
GREG C:,/DWC'S/J0538-Asbif.DWG
~
€~E
~INNESOi~
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PREPARED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE MAXIMUM
DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAY
AND WALKWAY ADDITIONS IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
_X_ YES _NO-N/A
JAN UARY 14, 2008
07-149
INTRODUCTION
Phil Hines is requesting variances to allow for the construction of driveway and walkway
additions on a property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. For this construction, the
following variances are required:
. A 13 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in the
R-1 district (Section 1107.205 (6)).
. A 4.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the
R-1 district (Section 1104.306).
BACKGROUND
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland Overlay
District), and is guided R-L/MD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) on the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A single family dwelling with a three-car garage
currently occupies the lot. The house was constructed in 2003. At the time of the house
construction a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback was applied for and
denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The house was
subsequentely constructed according to ordinance at the 20 foot front yard setback.
The paver additions to the driveway and walkway were installed on the property this past
fall without a City permit. The applicant was informed by staff that only through a
variance approval by the Planning Commission would the paver areas which exceeded
the ordinance requirements be allowed to remain. Therefore, Mr. Hines has submitted
these variance requests.
1:\07 filcs\07 varianccs\hincs\pcrcport.doc
wvvw. cityofpriorlake. com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
The applicant obtained a permit from Scott County on November 16, 2007 to conduct
the work in the right-of-way of Highway 12. The permit was approved with the condition
that "all structures and vegetation are subject to removal without replacement when the
County needs the property for public use."
DISCUSSION
The applicant has applied for variances to allow for the insertion of pavers for driveway
and front walkway additions. The lot area to an elevation of 912.8 feet (OHW) is 12,812
square feet. According to the December 3, 2007 survey the existing house is 2,945
square feet and the lot includes a 572 square foot driveway, 217 square foot boathouse,
120 square foot concrete slab, and 620 square feet of paver areas. The total impervious
surface prior to the addition of the paver areas is 3,854 square feet or 30.08% of the
total lot area.
Drivewav Width Variance
In the General Performance Standards (Section 1107.205 (6)) it states "For residential
uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line."
In this case the driveway width including the pavers is 37 feet. In the attached narrative,
the applicant sites the reason for the necessary increase in width of the driveway to
allow for a better turning radius to access the easternmost stall of the garage without
driving off the edge of the driveway as well as a more level surface for pedestrian use.
The increased driveway width also increases the impervious surface on the property.
Impervious Surface Variance
The impervious surface on the lot prior to the installation of the paver areas is 3,854
square feet (or 30.08% of the total lot area) according to the updated survey completed
on December 3, 2007. The applicant previously had constructed 3 foot wide sidewalks
from the driveway to the front doors of the house. By the definition of impervious surface
(Section 1101.400) these 3 foot wide sidewalks were not included in the impervious
surface total. The applicant chose to replace these 3 foot sidewalks with a larger paver
patio area approximately 410 square feet. By definition this entire paver area would be
included in the impervious surface total for the lot. The applicant also added paver
areas on the lot to each side of the driveway that total approximately 210 square feet.
These areas are also included in the impervious surface total for the lot.
A previous lot survey prepared in 2003 (at the time of the current dwelling building
permit) identified the existing boathouse at 200 square feet and did not included the 120
square foot concrete pad located north of the boathouse. Therefore, the impervious
surface totals that accompanied this previous survey were incorrectly identified be 126
square feet below the maximum allowed 30% of the total lot area after the construction
of the proposed house. Dated aerial photographs of the lot identify that the concrete pad
and boathouse were existing at the time of the 2003 survey; therefore the actual
impervious surface after the house was constructed had reached the 30% maximum
allowed on the lot.
The DNR analysis of the variance application is attached to this report.
1:\07 files\07 variances\hines\pcreport.doc
2
ANAL YSIS
Variance Hardship Findings
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 short front yard (20 feet) of the lot create a hardship in the case of a need for a
driveway wider than 24 feet at the right-of-way line. It is difficult for the applicant to
navigate a proper turning radius into the easternmost stall of the garage without a
total driveway width of greater than 24 feet. A driveway width of no more than 30
feet at the property line should be adequate; therefore, staff believes that no more
than a 6 foot driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship. Staff
cannot support a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement. The
applicant has already maximized the amount of impervious surface for the lot. The
lot area of 12,812 square feet is above the minimum lot size for an R-1 low density
residential/at. The elimination of the rear 120 concrete slab would provide the
applicant with an alternative to utilize the excess impervious surface in a small
driveway addition.
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.
The short front yard of the lot is a unique situation in this case. The overall setback
from the street (County Road 12) is approximately 60 feet. Therefore, a variance
from the driveway width at the right-of-way line appears warranted. Staff believes
that no more than a 6 foot driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the
hardship. The lot area of 12,812 square feet is not an uncommonly small lot,
however; therefore staff does not feel a variance from the maximum allowed
impervious surface is warranted.
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 no more than a 6 foot driveway width variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a reasonable use of the property. The short front
yard setback of the lot creates this hardship for the property owner. Staff believes a
variance from the impervious surface requirement is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. As an
alternative the applicant could remove the 120 square feet of concrete slab in the
rear yard for the necessary impervious surface amount to construct the driveway
addition without the need for an impervious surface variance.
] :\07 files\07 variances\hines\pcreportdoc
3
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 no more than a 6 foot driveway width variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or negatively impact public
safety.
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 would not impact the character and development of the
neighborhood.
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 driveway ordinance section is the maintain standards for
driveway construction. Staff believes the granting of no more than a 6 foot driveway
variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
One of the purposes of the Shoreland Ordinance is to "to provide for the wise
utilization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural character
of these protected waters of the City." This purpose is implemented through a
required maximum impervious surface amount. In this case, staff believes a lack of
hardship for the impervious surface variance results in an inconsistency with the
purpose of this ordinance.
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 of a driveway width variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable undue hardship of a
uniquely short front yard setback; however, staff believes that no more than a 6 foot
driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship. Granting the
impervious surface variance will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. It is
not necessary to eliminate a demonstrable undue hardship. A reasonable driveway
area and a 3 foot walking path can be achieved without the need for any impervious
surface.
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 hardship for a 6 foot driveway width variance results from the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property. The chosen designs of the driveway and
1:\07 filcs\07 variances\hines\pcrcport.doc
4
walkway path create a hardship as related to the impervious surface requirement.
An alternatively designed driveway addition and walkway path can be designed
within the strict application of the impervious surface ordinance requirement.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
Staff is not under the impression that increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship are the basis of this request.
CONCLUSION
The strict application of the driveway width requirement does create a hardship for the
property owner by limiting the turning radius for the easternmost stall of the garage.
Staff believes a driveway width of no more than 30 feet would be necessary; therefore,
staff recommends a driveway width variance of no more than 6 feet. While the applicant
had currently reached the maximum impervious surface allowed prior to construction of
the paver areas, the removal of a concrete pad next to the boathouse would allow for the
construction of the driveway addition without the need for an impervious surface
variance. Also, staff believes construction of a smaller designed walkway path is
possible to maintain a reasonable access to the front entry. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the variance from the maximum impervious surface allowed for
the lot.
AL TERNATIVES
1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve any variance 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of a 6 foot variance from the driveway width requirement
and denial of a 4.9% variance from the impervious surface requirement.
ACTION REQUIRED
This request requires the following motions:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 08-01 PC approving the following variance:
· A 6 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in the R-
1 district (Section 1107.205 (6)).
2. A motion and second adopting Resolution 08-02PC denying the following variance:
I: \07 fi les\07 variances\hines\pcreport.doc
5
· A 4.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the
R-1 district (Section 1104.306).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. Survey
3. Landscape Plan
4. Existing Impervious Surface Calculations
5. Applicant Narrative
6. DNR Comment
7. Resolution 08-02PC
8. Resolution 08-03PC
1:\07 files\07 variances\hines\pcreport.doc
6
Hines Variance
Location Map (2719 Spring Lake Rd)
SPRING
LAKE
N
+
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
ASBU/};7' SURVEY PREPARE.o FOR:
PH.f./, H.fNES
2719 SPR/KC .lAKE ROA.o SIV
PR/OR .lAKS, UK 5537/!
,,~.~~~ Valley Surveying
If\l~
\J\J I Land Surveyors Phone (gS2) 447-2570
\J Planners Fox (952) 447-2571
CO,) P.A.
Suite 230
16570 Franklfn Trail S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
EXISTING SITE DA TA
Existing Property Area = 12,812 sq. ft.
(to elevation 912.8)
Existing Dwelling/Porch.::;: 2,945 sq. ft.
Existing Boathouse = 217 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Driveway = 572 sq. ft.
Existing Paver Areas = 620 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft.
Maximum coverage 0110 wed 3.844 sq. ft. (30%)
.~
COU,,1/'J"Y - - -- _ _
~O.4.o hi - -
<?/-e> /' -~
(S"P~/,,1/'C - - -
-- LA..-re> 4'0.4.0../
Existing Impervious Surface
Coverage ~ 4.474 sq, ft, (34,9%)
----
-,
----
a
S"p
4'
&'L&,
"'" ?
/0#
.9"0
.c
.:;
06'/0
s/o .:i'
LEGAL OESCRIPTlON AS PROVIDED:
NOTES: BWlchmark E!(Jvofion 930.18 T.NH. northeasterly of the northeast propfJdy comer.
ASH TREE (O/A.)
B/RCH TREE (O/A.)
BOXELDER TREE (O/A.)
MAPLE TREE (O/A.)
-I:S\2 SPRUCE TREE (HGT.)
O;;.o'GGO:O".=--= ROCK WALL
ThfJ westerly Ontl Half of Lot J; and LOl 4; and the Easterly Ontl Half of Lot 5, all in Block 45.
and 0 strip of land betweM sold Lots md lying southerly thereof and the waters edge of Spring
Lake, In Spring Lake Townsite, accordinr. ta the plot thereof 0(1 fil6 and of record In lhfJ Office of
the R<'1gistror of DtNJds In and for said Scott County. Minnesota, including any port or portion of
any street or o/Iey abutting said premis,~s ',lOcated or to be vacated, Scott County. Mlnntlsota,
A/so showing all vfsible ImproVfJmenls af'd encroachments on to or off from said propl'Jrty If any,
as located this 15th day of Nov9mber, .?OO7.
FENCE
CONCRETE SURFACE
BRICK PA VER SURFACE
IN F8L~f
/ hereby certify that this Asbuflt Survey was prepared
by me or under my direct suptJTw'slon and that I om
a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the
-~~~~ ----
~!!to LlCJ!Il,hfJ mber, 12309
Doted this ---'-~:._ day of Lr:%.'~2001
20 U 10 20
'"'-""-~
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND
MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 42309
FILE liO ~ BOOK---2.1Q..
PAGE -1lL
CREG C:/OWGS/J05J8-Asblt,DWC
III
6Z
ct: oL
v~
~ :0:
,J.()..
>1
~
II
II
~!
.11
d
Ii
-~--~r~::::-c~')
\:,)
>
d
P
~
N
~~
- "
(\ J
j ~
0~
~
D
l)
(/\
~
\
I-
III 'ill ~
.,l >
V' ./(
-< \';) \:0
d:l, > ..!(
e>-
jj \ \
\\l\
;,\
@
G5
I
I
I
I
i
~l
~J
I
r-i
1
~J
I
ilj
'C..J
~
I
I
"I
i
I
j
I
I
I
i
,
i
.~
-----1
,j
DJ
d
I
Jj
~
I
----~
1
j
I
J
j
i
I
I
J
i
*
~~"~' ~"~ ",",'\~~'" ~, ~~',\'1l' l\rt.~t"....
~ '"
J' I lI,d
: . ~li'~,.J'"t ~ l\"",,7f
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surfact~ Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Pennit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted is 30 Percent.
Property Address 'Z,:' \ q
Lot Area \.~, ~;:,,\\ -\-\" 0, \+,.\,Aj f L,,,,,, sq. ft. x 30% = .............. 3SL\3
*****************************************~******************************
HO~SE \J..)' ~JO(c.,.""_,
,
ATTACHED GARAGE
LENGTH
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
x
x
=
=
x
=
TOTAL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE...................... ?w,a11.~ S
DETACHED BUILDINGS ~o(~ \\L::>?
( Garage/Shed)
x
'1-\1
x
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS.......................
"'Z. \ .,
DRIVEWAYIPAVED AREAS c..D~c.. \)~.\"'je. X ___
(Driveway-paved or not) \)A,\.\,tv' ~\'\'''(''''~ X _
(Sidewalk/Parking Areas) ~ \ttb e ~l\r' \\4,,~
=
S -) '2-..
~ -z...o
\"2...0
=
=
TOTAL P A YED AREAI~ .........................................
\ '3 \ '2.-
P A TIOS/PORCBESIDECKS X =
(Open Decks W'min. opening between X =
boards, with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to qe impervious)
X =
TOTAL' DECKS..........................................................
OTHER
X
X
=
=
T O,T AL OTHER......... ...'" ...... ............................ .......
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
I ~L\.'1~
I l.b"b\
Date \"2-~1 0 1
. ~_ Phone # G~-:;'Z_. "'\ '-\.~~I -"2.S1 0
.....~~~'_."\
UNDE " bYE
M?VI ,,_ .-.-....' " "~"_"~"""
~") ~.')
Prepared By :J ~~ '1<"'V.i~"I('
\
CompanJe,\ -e
"
Variance Application
November 30, 2007
Phil Hines
2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Descrivtion of variance reQuest:
Driveway:
My single-family residential property is located in the R-1 district on Spring Lake Road.
My lot includes lakeshore on Spring Lake and is in the shoreland overlay district. My
house was built in 2004 and my wife and I have lived there for almost four years. Prior to
building our house in 2004, we lived on this same lot in the previously-existing house for
ten years.
A copy of a survey for my property is attached. My property is unique. As you can see,
my lot does not extend all of the way to Spring Lake Road. The dark black line that cuts
perpendicular ,through my driveway is my actual lot line. Between my lot line and Spring
Lake Road isVJ.(#) feet of open space. This open space is within the Scott County right-
of-way for Spring Lake Road.
My lot is 114 feet deep. Because of the unique situation with the large County right-of-
way, my garage is only 20 feet from the right-of-way line. According to Section
1107.205(6) of the Prior Lake Zoning Code, the width of my driveway may not exceed
24 feet at that right-of-way line.
My garage has three stalls, and I use all of them. Like many property owners in the area, I
use my third garage stall for storing my boat. My boat is 20 feet long, 24 feet long with
the trailer. Because the code states my driveway may only be 24 feet wide, my driveway
flares from 24 feet wide to 32 feet wide in this short distance. That flare, though, is not
helpful when trying to maneuver my boat and trailer into this third stall. Even the average
sized car or truck would have difficulty. I am forced to drive on the grass, causing
damage and unsightly wear and tear on the lawn. This damage diminishes the appearance
of my property and the entire neighborhood when grass does not grow back and rains
create mud and puddles.
Besides the fact that I have a short driveway, my driveway is also located on an incline.
The slope of my driveway is approximately three feet from the garage to the road.
I am sure you can appreciate the difficulty I have had trying to park my boat in this
sharply angled area and on an incline.
Added to all of this is the drop-off located along the side of my driveway. On the side of
my driveway opposite of the third garage stall, the land drops away at a slope of 2 1fz feet
in a span of 10 feet. If a car is parked on this side of the driveway, and a passenger
attempts to exist from the passenger-side door, the passenger must step down the slope
and is put in a precarious position.
Many property owners can accommodate these conditions by flaring their driveways
from 24 feet wide at the street to a wider expanse at the garage doors. But because I only
have 20 feet of driveway to work with before I hit the right-of-way line, I cannot modify
my driveway like most property owners can.
In 2007 I consulted with Outdoor Environments regarding possible improvements to my
property. We discussed how I could improve the appearance and function of my
driveway. I did not want to drive on my lawn to park in my third garage stall, yet I didn't
want to simply cement over an area of my land (like so many of my neighbors have
chosen ).
I selected a paving brick and the contractor installed the pavers in herringbone and
basket weave patterns. One section extends from the third stall of my garage door and
runs adjacent to my existing concrete driveway. It is approximately five feet wide. Please
see the survey for a depiction of the work performed. The contractor also built-up the
land along the side of the driveway and installed pavers so as to alleviate the drop-off at
the cement line. Again, please see the survey for a depiction of the work performed.
I was not aware of the 24 foot width restriction for residential driveways. I make this
variance application now after learning of this restriction from City staff and after
receiving an updated and accurate survey for my property. With the pavers, my driveway
at the lot line is approximately 33 feet wide including the walk ways on both sides.
I was already done with all of the work on my property when I was approached by City
staff. The only work being done at that time was within the County's right-of-way. I was
told by City Staff that once a code violation occurs the City doesn't force the property
owner to tear out all of the expensive improvements made. I was told that is why my
neighbors haven't been asked to rip out their very large cement slabs (see survey). I hope
the same applies to my property and my exceedingly more attractive and expensive
pavers.
I contacted Scott County regarding any problems with the pavers installed in the large
right-of-way area. On October 2, 2007 I received a permit from Scott County, allowing
the pavers in the right-of-way. I do not have any outstanding issues with Scott County.
My neighbors have not complained about the width of my driveway. I invested just over
$38,000.00 dollars in the project and I have received many compliments on the
appearance of my home. I am happy with how it looks and functions. My driveway is
consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood and in keeping with the character of
development. The pavers are attractive and do not diminish property values.
Please consider the exceptional topography of my lot and the unique and extraordinary
condition of my lot line and short, steep driveway. Without this driveway variance my lot
will be unduly burdened by topography and lot restrictions beyond my control. I know
this because I was burdened with that narrow driveway for almost four years.
Impervious:
My single-family residential property is located in the R-1 district on Spring Lake Road.
My lot includes lakeshore on Spring Lake and is in the shoreland overlay district. My
house was built in 2004 and my wife and I have lived in this house for almost four years.
Prior to building this house, we lived in the house that used to be located on this lot for
ten years.
A copy of a survey for my property is attached. My property is unique. As stated in my
application for a driveway variance, my front lot line is unusually close to my garage. My
lot does not ext~nd all of the way to Spring Lake Road. Between my lot line and Spring
Lake Road is'&.(#) feet of open space. This open space is within the Scott County right-
of-way for Spring Lake Road. My lot is 114 feet deep. Because of the unique situation
with the large County right-of-way, my garage is only 20 feet from the right-of-way line.
According to Prior Lake City Code, my driveway may not exceed 24 feet in width
without a variance. My concrete driveway is 24 feet wide at the right-of-way line and
then flares out to meet the third stall of my garage. Whereas most property owners can
start with a 24 foot wide driveway at the right-of-way line and then flare out their
driveway over the course of 30-40 feet to meet the third garage stall, I only have 20 feet
to work with. Any boat, trailer, car or truck to be parked in the third stall must negotiate a
difficult turn and even then the lawn is almost always damaged by a vehicle traversing
off of the cemented area.
Add to this the steep slope of my driveway. The slope of my driveway is 3 feet from my
garage to the road. And along the side of my driveway (the side opposite the third stall)
my property drops away 2.5 feet to the side lod line.
Because of my uniquely short, narrow driveway, and the topography of my lot, I
consulted with Outdoor Environments regarding possible improvements to my property.
Outdoor Environments is a reputable business and is known for designing and creating
beautiful property improvements. At that time I had a survey for my property. I reviewed
the survey with Outdoor Environments. Outdoor Environments concluded, based upon
that survey, the impervious surface on my lot was just under 30%. I had a 120 square foot
cement slab on the property. If I removed the slab the impervious surface would be
reduced further. Outdoor Environments designed a brick paver addition to each side of
my driveway and a brick paver walkway leading from the driveway to my front door.
With all of these additions, Outdoor Environments concluded the final impervious
surface would be 30% or less. According to Section 1104.306 of the Prior Lake
Subdivision Code, impervious surface in all use districts may not exceed 30% of the lot
area.
I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of that survey. The survey was created by Valley
Surveying Co. in 2004. I relied on the survey in good faith. It was the same survey that I
submitted to the City, and was accepted by the City, when I built my house in 2004.
Outdoor Environments reviewed the survey and the City Code and told me, based upon
the survey, the 30% impervious surface limit of the City Code would be met.
Outdoor Environments represented to me that they would do all of the work for the
project. I did not realize a permit was needed for the project. I did not realize Outdoor
Environments may be wrong to begin work without such a permit. I relied on my
contractor in good faith.
Mter work began on the project I learned that the City may not necessarily agree with
survey I was working off of. I didn't think that my survey was inaccurate, but I ordered
another survey at the insistence of the City. I was surprised to learn that the original
survey was inaccurate. My property actually now has 34.9% impervious surface.
The driveway addition adds approximately 180 square feet of impervious surface. The
unique topography of my lot and the location of the right-of-way, over which I have no
control, create an undue hardship for me and the increased driveway space alleviates that
burden.
The walkway addition to my front door adds approximately 440 square feet of
impervious surface. The walkway skirts the drop off that affects the driveway and adds
safe passage for my wife and me and our guests. My wife and I have some elderly
relatives and we welcome them into our home for family celebrations and events. Before
the pavers were added, the narrow walkway from the driveway to our front stoop had a
12 inch incline. The three foot wide sidewalk, going up this incline, was situated as the
top of the drop off located on this side of our property. At a family event, my elderly aunt
and uncle fell on this sidewalk because of the difficulty negotiating the narrow sidewalk
on the sloped terrain. The pavers now create a wider sidewalk in this area, and I flattened
the terrain and added a step at my stoop so that guests may walk on wide, flat surfaces.
The topography of my lot necessitated this change.
My neighbors have not complained about the width of my driveway or walkways. I
invested $38,000.00 dollars in the project and I have received many compliments on the
appearance of my home. I am happy with how it looks and functions. My driveway and
walkway are consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood and in keeping with the
character of the development. The pavers are attractive and do not diminish property
values.
Please consider the exceptional topography of my lot, the unique and extraordinary
condition of my lot line, and my short, steep driveway. Without this variance my lot will
be unduly burdened by topography and lot restrictions beyond my control.
I selected a _paving brick for this project. In some cities, these pavers are considered
pervious because of their unique qualities. Pavers are unique in that they can be
rearranged. My first request is to be granted a variance. If the City insists that a variance
will not be allowed, I am willing to work with City staff and increase the space between
the pavers or otherwise increase the pervious surface surrounding the pavers. However,
since the pavers are installed in intricate patterns, haphazard removal will affect the
design and appearance of the entire property. City staff represented to me that a directive
from the planning commission is preferred before undertaking such actions.
Thank yo~ fr/~~0ime.
~ ~/ /'" 6/
/>/'/"'~' ~ -'~'..
" " /, i '
i 1../ / / ....
,..; '-" / """"'"
Phillip Hines
Jeff Matzke
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janell Miersch [JaneII.Miersch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Friday, December 21,20079:04 AM
Jeff Matzke
DNR Comment on Variance request for 2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Dear Jeff,
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the information received on December 12,
2007 relative to the variance request for impervious surface in excess of 30% lot
coverage.
With respect to the variance, we did not see any hardship to allow the additional 4.9
percent over the 30 percent impervious coverage allowed in the current Prior Lake
Shoreland Ordinance 1104.306. Please note that the Minnesota standard for impervious
surface coverage of lots "must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area", so Prior Lake is
already above the recommended impervious coverage. That being said, we would recommend
this variance request be denied. Furthermore, we recommend that the property at 2719
Spring Lake Road SW should be at or below the 30% impervious coverage allowed by the City
of Prior Lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance request. If you have any
questions or comments regarding our recommendation, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Janell Miersch
Janell Miersch, South Metro Area Hydrologist Metro DNR Waters 1200 Warner Rd St. Paul MN
55106
Direct: 651-259-5776
Main Metro Waters: 651-259-5845
Fax: 651-772 -7977
1
o~ PR101>
,:;~<;. 4646 Dakota Stmel SE
U ~..;; Pcim Lake, MN 55372~ 1714
~/NNESO'\~ RESOLUTION 08-02PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 24 FOOT MAXIMUM
DRIVEWAY WIDTH ALLOWED IN THE R-1 DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY
ADDITION ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Philip Hines is requesting a driveway width variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for a driveway addition on a residential property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) at the following location, to wit;
2719 Spring Lake Drive SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372
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 on file and of record
in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained
in Case #07-149 and held a hearing thereon on January 14, 2008.
3. 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.
4. The short front yard (20 feet) of the lot create a hardship in the case of a need for a
driveway wider than 24 feet at the right-of-way line. It is difficult for the applicant to
navigate a proper turning radius into the easternmost stall of the garage without a
total driveway width of greater than 24 feet. A driveway width of no more than 30
feet at the property line should be adequate; therefore, staff believes that no more
than a 6 foot driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship.
5. The short front yard of the lot is a unique situation in this case. The overall setback
from the street (County Road 12) is approximately 60 feet. Therefore, a variance
from the driveway width at the right-of-way line appears warranted. Staff believes
that no more than a 6 foot driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the
hardship.
6. The granting of no more than a 6 foot driveway width variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a reasonable use of the property. The short front
yard setback of the lot creates this hardship for the property owner.
7. Granting of no more than a 6 foot driveway width variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or negatively impact public
safety.
1:\07 files\07 variances\hines\approval resolution.docf
www.cityopriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
8. The granting of the variance will not impact the character and development of the
local neighborhood.
9. The purpose of the driveway ordinance section is the maintain standards for
driveway construction. Staff believes the granting of a driveway width no more than
a 6 foot driveway variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
10. Granting of the a driveway width variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable undue hardship of a
uniquely short front yard setback; however, staff believes that no more than a 6 foot
driveway variance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship.
11. The hardship for a 6 foot driveway width variance results from the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property.
12. Staff is not under the impression that increased development or construction costs
or economic hardship are the basis of this request.
13. The contents of Planning Case #07-149 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 approves the
following variances to allow for a driveway addition on a residential property zoned R-1
(Low Density Residential):
1) A 6 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in the R-1 District
(Section 1107.205 (6)).
The variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The lot cannot exceed the 30% impervious surface requirement to allow for the driveway
addition. Since the lot's impervious surface is currently at the maximum allowed, a
minimum of 45 square feet of impervious surface must be removed in another location on
site to off-set the driveway addition pavers.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 14, 2008
Vaughn Lemke, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jane Kansier, Director of Planning and Building Inspections
1:\07 fi1es\07 variances\hines\approva1 resolution. doc
2
~
€~%
~!J,yNESO~~
4646 Dakota Street S.L
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 08-03PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 4.9% VARIANCE FROM THE 30% MAXIMUM
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALLOWED IN THE R-1 DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR
DRIVEWAY AND WALKWAY ADDITIONS ON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Philip Hines is requesting an impervious surface variance from the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for driveway and walkway additions on a residential property
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) at the following location, to wit;
2719 Spring Lake Drive SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372
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 on file and of record
in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained
in Case #07-149 and held a hearing thereon on January 14, 2008.
3. 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.
4. Staff cannot support a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement.
The applicant has already maximized the amount of impervious surface for the lot.
The lot area of 12,812 square feet is above the minimum lot size for an R-1 low
density residential lot. The elimination of the rear 120 concrete slab would provide
the applicant with excess impervious surface to be used in a small driveway addition.
5. The lot area of 12,812 square feet is not an uncommonly small lot, however;
therefore staff does not feel a variance from the maximum allowed impervious
surface is warranted.
6. Staff believes the impervious surface variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The applicant has the
alternative to remove the 120 square feet of concrete slab in the rear yard for the
necessary impervious surface amount to construct the driveway addition without the
need for an impervious surface variance.
7. Granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or negatively impact public safety.
8. The granting of the variance will not impact the character and development of the
local neighborhood.
1:\07 files\07 variances\hines\denial resolution. doc f 1
www.cityopriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
9. One of the purposes of the Shoreland Ordinance is to "to provide for the wise
utilization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural character of
these protected waters of the City." This purpose is implemented through required
maximum impervious surface amount. In this case an unnecessary variance from
the impervious surface requirement is inconsistent with the purpose of this
ordinance.
1 O. Granting the impervious surface variance will merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant. It is not necessary to eliminate a demonstrable undue hardship. A
reasonable driveway and walking path can be achieved without the need for any
impervious surface.
11. The chosen designs of the driveway and walkway path create a hardship as related
to the impervious surface requirement. An alternatively designed driveway addition
and walkway path can be designed within the strict application of the impervious
surface ordinance requirement.
12. Staff is not under the impression that increased development or construction costs
or economic hardship are the basis of this request.
13. The contents of Planning Case #07-149 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 variances to allow for driveway and walkway additions on a residential property
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential):
1) A 4.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the R-1
District (Section 1104.306).
The variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on January 14, 2008
ATTEST:
Vaughn Lemke, Commission Chair
Jane Kansier, Director of Planning and Building Inspections
1:\07 files\07 variances\hines\denial resolution. doc
2