HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.A.1. Appeal of the Denial of a Variance Request for 912 Lewis Street South 11.111111 General Business 9. A. 1.
SHAKOPEE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Noble, Senior Planner
DATE: 12/01/2015
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Denial of a Variance Request for 912 Lewis Street South
(B)
Action Sought
Mark and Dorothy Raines, owners of 912 Lewis Street South, are asking the City
Council to reverse the Board of Adjustment and Appeals' denial of a side-yard
setback variance.
Introduction
Mark and Dorothy Raines submitted an appeal application of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals' (BOAA) decision denying their side-yard setback
variance request to allow for a driveway to be located up to the side property line.
City Code requires at least a three (3) foot setback (Section 11.62, Subd. 3F).
The BOAA originally reviewed the variance request at their November 6, 2014
meeting, and tabled action to allow time for staff to research possible alley/storm
water related improvements. When the issue was brought back up at the November
5, 2015 meeting, the BOAA denied the request by a 4-3 vote. The staff report,
resolution of denial (Resolution No. PC14-037) and the related materials from the
November 5 BOAA agenda are attached to this report.
Appeals of a BOAA decision must be submitted within ten (10) days of the
decision, and shall include a statement of the alleged errors or omissions of the
Board. The Raines did provide an application within 10 days, and included a
narrative describing where they thought the Board erred in their decision. Upon
appeal, the City Council shall consider the request within 90 days unless an
extended period is agreed upon by the parties.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 7653, a resolution of the Council
affirming the decision of the BOAA regarding Resolution No. PC14-037.
Should the Council wish to modify or reverse the decision of the BOAA, they
should direct staff to prepare a new resolution with revised findings for their
consideration at the December 15, 2015 meeting. The Council may also extend the
review period (within 90 days, unless extended further out as agreed upon by the
parties), and provide staff direction on researching additional information for
consideration at a future date.
Action Requested
If it concurs, the Council is asked to offer Resolution No. 7653, a resolution of the
Council affirming the decision of the BOAA regarding Resolution No. PC 14-037,
which denied the variance request to allow a driveway setback 0 feet from the side
property line, where three (3) feet is the minimum required setback, and move its
adoption.
Attachments: Appeal Narrative
Resolution No. 7653
BOAA Variance staff report
Variance Resolution No. PC14-037
Variance Narrative
Site & Aerial Plans, Photos
November 15,2015
Action Requested
We are asking that the City Council will grant a Conditional Use Permit for the driveway set back of zero
feet.
On November 3 we attended a board meeting requesting the above action and we were denied this at a
motion on a 3 to 4 vote. I beleive that we have not been served justice as there were things that we had
not addressed.
History: The property at 912 Lewis St.was purchased in 1997 by Mark Raines. Contrary to what
Commissioner Brandon keeps stating that we had not looked at any other avenues to fix the problem is
incorrect. When Mark purchased the property he did do additional work to bring up his property level
up as there was a problem with drainage from the alley into our property. There was no cement
driveway at that time and the whole area back where our garage is located would flood the driveway
and garage. After 3 years of flooding we decided to hire a professional,skilled,and licensed cement
mason to install a cement driveway to try and help with this problem,
Before any work even started we went to the city and asked if we needed to obtain a permit. We told
them what we were planning and we were told that we needed no permit for a driveway. We were not
give any ordinances or any further information of what the city required so we were not aware at that
time of the set back ordinance. While we were doing the prep work for the cement Joe Sands,our
neighbor to the south asked us if we could run the cement up to his driveway which was cement. Again,
as we were not aware to the ordinance We told him that we would do this.
We want to say here that if we had been made aware of the ordinance we never would have done this.
It was never our intention to disregard the ordinance or any rules or regulations that the City has in
effect and for that,we do apologize.
When we talked to our cement professional he told us that he would need to build in a swale to try and
get the water to run back into the alley,which we did.
After installing the cement driveway the flooding on the south end of our property has gotten better
where we installed the driveway on the south side abutting the neighbors property but now most of the
water runs into our driveway about 10 feet further down and there is where it runs directly into our
driveway again because of the issues with the alley.
I have answered to all the criteria to the board which is attached.
As stated by you city engineer, Bruce Loney, whether,it is removed or stays, it will have no bearing on
the flooding that is on our property. We will still get flooding. However,the area that is next to the
property on the south is the only area that we can park our vehicles that we are not under 4-6 inches of
water every spring and every hard rainfall. As stated by your Commissioner Collins.who also voted to
grant the variance, that according to the engineer staff there is no benefit if the driveway stays or is
removed. Meaning there is a bigger problem then just this set back. If it does stay we can still use that
area. So if we have to remove the set back area we will no longer be able to use our driveway and that,
we,the property owner have to deal with this all the time,and 1 am hoping that the council will agree
that as a citizen in Shakopee that as us being the end user isn't that what the variance will do for us.
We have been told by the city that they would like to cement the alley but they do not know when they
will be doing this but they don't see this happening at any time soon in the future.
Commissioner Klemm also agreed to wanting to give the variance that he beleives that we have
complied with all the criteria needed for this variance. He stated that he believes that we have tried to
make the property at least somewhat accessable by extending driveway so that we are still able to at
least be able to park in the driveway while the rest is under water.
We also would like to address the economic considerations. We have had verbal estimates done to
have this removed and they are in the area of$3,200.00 to$3,500.00.,which would be devastating to
our lives. We live on a fixed income and we are unable to afford to have this cement removed.
I do want to say that we take care of this area. We keep it clean and neat. We do not use it for storage
or for any other use except for parking when rest of the area is flooded.
I also want to state that the owners that live there now do not want this removed either.
I appreciate your time and consideration with this problem and hope that you will see to grant us the
driveway variance.
Thank you,
/770,e4,67.
Mark and Dorothy Raines
RESOLUTION NO. 7653
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AFFIRMING THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY
SETBACK ZERO (0)FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 912 LEWIS
STREET.
WHEREAS,Mark and Dorothy Raines, applicants and property owners, made application
for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of
Shakopee City Code, Section 11.62, Subd. 3F,to allow a driveway setback zero (0) feet from the
side setback, where three (3) feet is the minimum required setback; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing and reviewed
Mark and Dorothy Raines application at the Board's November 6, 2014 and November 5, 2015
meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopted Resolution No. PC14-037, a resolution denying the
Variance request to allow a driveway setback zero (0) feet from the side setback,where three (3)
feet is the minimum required setback; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.90, Subd. 2 allows for an appeal to the City Council of
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision within 10 days of the Board's decision; and
WHEREAS, Mark and Dorothy Raines filed an appeal of the Board's decision on
November 16, 2015 and included a narrative describing where they thought the Board erred in their
decision; and
WHEREAS,the City Council heard the appeal at its meeting on December 1,2015; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the materials related to the Variance.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee
adopts the following findings of facts and conclusion relative to this matter:
FINDINGS
1. Reasonable use of the property exists without the driveway setback encroachment. The
property owners enjoy reasonable use of the land as they have a two car detached garage
with adequate access to the garage in addition to providing additional off street parking
spaces,which would not be impacted should the three foot driveway encroachment be
removed. The three foot encroachment adds to an existing water storage situation on this
property, and is not needed for reasonable driveway and garage access.
2. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The lot
is a legal lot of record, the house was built in 1949, and the lot does not have any
unusual topography or other physical features.
1
3. The circumstances were created by the landowner by their desire to have additional
driveway area.
4. The variance would alter the essential character of the locality in the fact that the
reduction of the setback is/would be noticeable, it would impact adjacent properties, and
there are not unique physical lot characteristics that create a need for a variance. Staff
believe that the three (3) foot standard is a reasonable requirement for the Old Shakopee
(R-1C) Residential Zone.Prior to March 30, 2006,the Code requirement in the R-1C
Zone was five (5) feet. In staff's and Council's review of this text amendment, it was
determined that three (3) feet was an appropriate setback and staff have reviewed and
approved a significant number of permits for garages and driveways in the R-1 C Zone
that have met that three (3) foot setback.
5. The request is not based on economic considerations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11
(Zoning), since the R-1 C Zone recently was amended to reduce the required setback—
prior to March 30, 2006,the setback requirement was five (5) feet. There is no evidence
that the three foot setback requirement is inappropriate.
2. Removal of that segment of driveway within three (3) feet of the side yard will not
negatively impact the storm water impact to their rear yard.
3. Mark and Dorothy Raines will be able to continue to make use of their driveway for
parking and access to their garage within the requirements of the City of Shakopee City
Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Approval of Resolution No. PC 14-037 is denied and that the Board's decision is affirmed in all
respects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the findings adopted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals are incorporated by reference into this Resolution.
Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this
day of December, 2015.
Brad Tabke,
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest:
Lori Hensen, City Clerk
2
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 14-037
TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Mark Noble, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Variance to Side Setback for Driveway
MEETING DATE: November 5,2015
REVIEW PERIOD: September 4,2014—Nov. 7, 2015 (applicant granted an extension)
Introduction
Mark and Dorothy Raines submitted a variance application to allow for a driveway to be located up
to the side property line, where there is a min. three (3)foot setback requirement(Section 11.62,
Subd. 3F). This driveway was installed up to the property line several years ago and Planning staff
was made aware of this situation after receipt of a complaint. Upon inspection and verification of
the infraction,a notice of violation was issued to the property owners,with the case eventually
going to court,with the presiding Judge ordering the Raines to either remove that portion of the
driveway that was in violation of the City Code, or submit a Variance application.Mr. Raines did
submit said Variance application within the time frame provided by the Judge.
Considerations
The applicants have requested that the driveway be allowed to remain in its current configuration. It
is their belief that this segment of driveway, if removed, would allow storm water from the alley to
run onto their property and fill their yard. They have provided a narrative supporting their request.
Planning staff's position is that if this section of driveway was converted to grass, that would be
additional pervious area for storm water to drain; whereas, the current concrete driveway
(impervious area) does not allow for storm water to soak/infiltrate into the ground nor drain off the
site. The property owner could re-grade their property or install drain tile to adequately address the
water issue. This section of driveway is not necessary for adequate access into and out of the
applicant's detached garage.
The Board heard this case at their November 6, 2014 meeting,closed the public hearing, but tabled
the item to allow staff time to research options for improvement to the storm water run-off issue in
this block. Engineering staff have conducted a survey of the alley located in this block and have
analyzed the data to determine whether the construction of a concrete alley would alleviate some of
the issues. Additionally, they have studied whether installing a stormwater sewer in the alley,
closer to Shakopee Avenue (which is where the majority of the water issues appear) would help
address the storm water issue. At this time,there is not enough information on the feasibility of this
work (assessment costs to the residents vs. reduction or elimination of the storm water) to move
that project forward. Engineering staff have stated that the alley situation should be independent of
the Variance request, and that there is benefit to keeping the driveway in its current configuration,
and there also is benefit to removing the additional hard surfaced area, but that the issue with the
alley runoff is larger than just resolving this driveway issue.
Findings
Section 11.89, Subd.2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each
criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees
fit:
Criterion 1
When the application for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the official control. Practical difficulties means the following:
1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by an official control;
Finding I.A. Reasonable use of the property exists without the driveway setback
encroachment. The property owners enjoy reasonable use of the land as they have a two car
detached garage with adequate access to the garage in addition to providing additional off street
parking spaces, which would not be impacted should the three foot driveway encroachment be
removed. The three foot encroachment adds to an existing water storage situation on this
property, and is not needed for reasonable driveway and garage access.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property.
The lot is a legal lot of record, the house was built in 1949, and the lot does not have any unusual
topography or other physical features.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the landowner by their desire to have additional
driveway area.
1.D. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variance would alter the essential character of the locality in the fact that the
reduction of the setback is/would be noticeable, it would impact adjacent properties, and there are
not unique physical lot characteristics that create a need for a variance. Staff believe that the three
(3)foot standard is a reasonable requirement for the Old Shakopee (R-1 C) Residential Zone. Prior
to March 30, 2006, the Code requirement in the R-IC Zone was five (5)feet. In staff's and
Council's review of this text amendment, it was determined that three (3)feet was an appropriate
setback and staff have reviewed and approved a significant number of permits for garages and
driveways in the R-1C Zone that have met that three (3)foot setback.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Finding 1.E. The request is not based on economic considerations.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variance as requested is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 2
The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning),
since the R-1 C Zone recently was amended to reduce the required setback—prior to March 30,
2006, the setback requirement was five (5)feet. There is no evidence that the three foot setback
requirement is inappropriate.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3
The request for a reduced driveway setback is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals must be directly related to and
must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the Variance.
Finding 4
(Not applicable since no conditions are proposed)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5
(Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone)
Staff Recommendation
Staff finds that this request does not comply with required criteria and therefore, staff is recommending
Alternative 1; approve Resolution No. PC 14-037,denying the variance to allow a driveway setback 0 feet
from the side property line, where three (3) feet is the minimum required setback. Should the Board find
that the criteria for granting the Variance can be met, they should approve the variance request and direct
staff to prepare a resolution for their consideration at the December 3,2015 meeting.
Action Requested
Offer a motion approving Resolution No. PC 14-037, denying the variance to allow a driveway
setback 0 feet from the side property line,where three(3)feet is the minimum required setback.
Mark Noble
Senior Planner
Caselog No. 14-037
RESOLUTION NO.PC14-037
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A
DRIVEWAY SETBACK ZERO(0)FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 912 LEWIS
STREET,WHERE THREE(3) FEET IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK.
WHEREAS, Mark and Dorothy Raines, applicants and property owners, have filed an
application for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation(Zoning),of the City
of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.62, Subd. 3F, to allow a driveway setback zero (0) feet from the
side setback,where three (3) feet is the minimum required setback.
WHEREAS,the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Old Shakopee Residential(R-1C)
Zone; and
WHEREAS,the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is being
made is:
The East 145 feet of Lot 21, and the East 145 feet of the North half of Lot 22, Block 6,
Greenleaf and Overton's Addition to the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota
WHEREAS,notice was provided and on November 6,2014,the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community
Development Director and his designee and invited members of the public to comment; and on July 9,
2015, again heard from the Community Development Director's designee;and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Variance is hereby DENIED, based on the following findings with respect to City
Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2,"Criteria for Granting Variances".
Criterion I
When the application for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the official control. Practical difficulties means the following:
1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by an official control;
Finding 1.A. Reasonable use of the property exists without the driveway setback
encroachment. The property owners enjoy reasonable use of the land as they have a two car
detached garage with adequate access to the garage in addition to providing additional off street
parking spaces, which would not be impacted should the three foot driveway encroachment be
removed. The three foot encroachment adds to an existing water storage situation on this
property, and is not needed for reasonable driveway and garage access.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property.
The lot is a legal lot of record, the house was built in 1949, and the lot does not have any unusual
topography or other physical features.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the landowner by their desire to have additional
driveway area.
1.D. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variance would alter the essential character of the locality in the fact that the
reduction of the setback is/would be noticeable, it would impact adjacent properties, and there are
not unique physical lot characteristics that create a need for a variance.Staff believe that the three
(3)foot standard is a reasonable requirement for the Old Shakopee (R-1 C)Residential Zone. Prior
to March 30, 2006, the Code requirement in the R-1C Zone was five (5) feet. In staff's and
Council's review of this text amendment, it was determined that three (3)feet was an appropriate
setback and staff have reviewed and approved a significant number of permits for garages and
driveways in the R-1 C Zone that have met that three (3)foot setback.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations
alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Finding I.E. The request is not based on economic considerations.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variance as requested is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 2
The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning),
since the R-IC Zone recently was amended to reduce the required setback—prior to March 30,
2006, the setback requirement was five (5)feet. There is no evidence that the three foot setback
requirement is inappropriate.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3
The request for a reduced driveway setback is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals must be directly related to
and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the Variance.
Finding 4
(Not applicable since no conditions are proposed)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5
(Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone)
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 5'h day
of November,2015.
Chair of the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals
ATTEST:
Senior Planner
Prepared by:
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee,MN 55379
To: Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
From: Mark& Dorothy Raines, 912 Lewis Ave. S, Property Owner
Date: August 10, 2015
Subject: Variance Request to Side Yard Setback For Driveway
Introduction and Action Requested:
Our name is Mark and Dorothy Raines we live at 912 Lewis St.S in Shakopee, MN. We are asking for a
variance to allow a zero (0)foot driveway side setback off a rear yard alley driveway.
Considerations
Because of a drainage problem in the alley adjacent to my property (Which the city admits to)we have
been having a problem with water running into our driveway from the alley flooding our yard,driveway
and garage every spring,and every rain. We are unable to use our garage at all because of the flooding
problem. According to the city Engineer Bruce Loney the removal of Concrete will in no way make any
difference in the drainage problem and in fact will cause additional drainage into the yard and driveway
because there is a swale built in the cement area so half of the water runs back into the alley. If the city
forces us to remove the 6 feet setback it will in fact cause additional damage as all of the water would
then drain into the yard, driveway and garage causing further damage and we would have not access to
our driveway or garage.
Findings
Granting of the variance is needed to keep property from further damage and additional flooding. All
criterion will be met.
Criterion 1
When the application for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the official control. Practical difficulties means the following:
1.A The area where the set back is the area that we can access the driveway as this area contains a
swale so the water runs back into the alley. The Alley would flood into my property on the south corner
where the property owner at 914 Lewis St had a cement driveway that ended at the corner so when it
rained the run off would drain from that corner into our yard flooding the whole driveway area making
the driveway completely unusable for our vehicles to park or to even drive into our garage because of all
the water. We were unable to use our garage because of the flooding, not to mention the damage
being done to our garage we had sheet rocked and finished not knowing about this problem till after the
first flooding.
1.B The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property:
Finding 1.B
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Because of the drainage
issues unique to this alley drainage problems. The City(Bruce Loney)admits there is a drainage issue
unique in this alley and because of funding there is no fix at this time and the city does not see this issue
being fixed in the very near future.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner:
After talking with city engineer, Bruce Loney,we were informed that the removal of cement set back will
not be to any advantage but in fact because of the swale in cement we are averting half of the amount
of water runoff from entering driveway area. When we put in the cement driveway we had talked to a
licensed professional cement layer and asked his advice in how we would be able to correct this
drainage problem from the alley. We were told to put in a cement driveway and put a swale in the
driveway to have the water runoff into the ally instead of having it all run directly from the ally into our
yard to help alleviate this problem. So in fact we have improved the water drainage.
1.D.The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality;and
The area of where the set back is located is behind our house not in view from the street and does not
impact the character of the property and it's physical appearance is neat and professionally done and
because the water runs back into the alley keeps from having to constantly fix the yard and grass killed
by continual flooding on our property and the adjacent property 914 Lewis.
1.E The problems extend beyond economic consideration:
The request is extended beyond economic consideration as there will be additional damage to grass,
driveway and garage causing us to have to replace grass, dirt,and additional monies to fix additional
damage to garage from additional water being run into our yard and driveway.
Criterion 2
It had been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance and when the variance as requested will be consistent with the Character of
the property
Findings 2
The propose variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of zoning in showing of good will by
the City of Shakopee to help with further damage because of a drainage issue in the alley that the city is
unable to fix at this time. In 2000 I went to the City of Shakopee asking them if a permit was needed to
put in a concrete driveways. At that time I was told no permit was needed and I was never given any
information or informed of any rules or or required set back at that time of what I was supposed to do.
The prep work was being done and our neighbor, (Joe Sands,914 Lewis, Propery adjacent to our
property to the south)asked if we could please Pour the driveway to abutt his driveway to also alleviate
Water run off into his yard from the area in question.
Criterion 3
The request is for a use variance
Finding 3
The area in the reduced set back is the only part of the driveway that can be utilized by our vehicles as
this area is not under water from the drainage from the alley.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Apeals must be directly related to and
must bear a rough proportionality to the impackt create by the Variance.
Finding 4
If we are forced to remove the set back this will indeed cause additional flooding and water damage as
acknowleged by the City(Bruce Loney).
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5
(Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone)
Property Owner Recommendation:
We recommend that the board allows for the variance as all criteria has been complied with and to
allow a 0 feet driveway set back from the property line and to alleviate further additional damage and
hardship to said property.
Action Requested:
Approval of variance to allow a driveway set back 0 feet from the side property line.
�£ E.+
60
4 5 '
Li
V
y f . o
o,0" Ay
I
r
Scott County, MN
4 44 ,t Jr
'- -_
- ti...
Ir
ir , 1
$' f
IC
v z
i LI
Wititpite ..
r •
# NIL ' J
„. c, ` .,
• 1 Y.. a
i
e _
• � c -
4
I
; .
4
j
,, wkifeetr
a..
r"t {
w
r
Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scale
legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or for zoning verification. 1 inch = 31 feet
9/3/2014
4V.."6 1t4ES D4zes..RWA/
7-11- 71 K . -. - \ J l Rola. .. l , (• v` ,
1 1
1071,
` � ' 7 1LL r. y
• ) I, . nt dry
a ,gfF1',...N. I ,
I. a -4-14'::-. ,r y
in l''\---'''',Ii
VN{ 1u' 9A V':' _ s
bk +
1 t 11 -. -. I�..111
11 '
4:11,?--..S1 cwE.no�—T
t
:40- 4 �
- !4—^.. im+ r_-^ -! � '_�T
-L.
_ is
_
_ Y
1
I
-
i
w..
AC `
rs
__ J—__ __.__ .___ _ ..... ___ .___._ ____ _J
-• . *
*i
. \ .
,
...
' . vieri •
,-;
' 1 /
,.
\ IIIIiI yii1j111 .-
1 • ' 0;111 .11 • '
,,...
.., .. .„.
• , -• .. , . .
! ,
• ..
I •
I k 11111111i ; 1 Ii ..:
• 1 :
, .. „ .
. ,. .
_. .
, .. ., .. . .
1 .,..,...„
. .
. . .
.. .
, I,
.., ,
•
,
, ., .
. ._
J 4., • p
; 0
. • , -
. ..
•
., . ... ..
•
, • .
0.' - •
• - .•
4 .
s 4 t
s. .
' 4
• . . •
. . .,. ,
A r .
. ,
. , . ....
•
. 4
. — .. .
•
•
•
- ' I • •
. -
.
,
.
•• •
.
-
•
• • '
.4_ . .:. ,. ., ... . ... .. . . : . _ . . .__. . _ . : . ..
, ... . , ,.,. .. . . . _. . ...
....
• •.o ._ . .... . : . . ....... .•
.
•
• x- ..
.., _
t :
. ---.0 •
.... . . . . . .
. , ...
• -
___ . ... . . .
. . . ...
„.. ...
. •
. . ..
. ,..
".:*-. . .
f.- . • . , , ,
•
r7. -.
. .
....._
....,.:,_ : . ..-.,.- ., .... . .
.
. ,
. . -
. . . ..
, :: .,i''.4....,: ,..',-r:::.:
. . . ,
--, . -.. •- ... ' ' ....'
' _... ,.._. ---
•
- •.
.,.
• ..: ..,.. ,•-
_. . . . -•, -. - ,
.......:_-..........-,,...,,,tr.......1.,
......... , -- • -. • .. . . ..
• - . .
. , . .
•
.. . • .
..•
. .. . ,
. . . • •, . , ,
. . .
. . 4
..,,.., . • ,. . . .
,...-
L.... ....
. ..., „,.. .. .
, ,,....
,..i, .., : • ••
. .
... , .......
,..,
r-----
„.,..
. . . ..
. _..,,,..., ,•, , .. . : .
.. . ,
-
. .. .,
. .. , ..
.
. . ,. . , .,
.. _
• - a. . .
„ .
'- A •
.•
. .
. ,.-.
, . . ,
. . I, . -r • --
. ,
• - - . , ,, •-... - -
. . ,
•
..-
,-,
• .• . . - .• - t. - -
-k.
„„,..,.....„. ,
. . . • . -
, .
. --.... - 4.
; .
. . .
. - -..
_.,
•
=
- .
i
.„. ,,
.;.;
•
rl. 1.4.4 •;.,r;r.;•'-;;;t.;..;;;, -;
• .
. .,
;1,
C; . ' 1
.. .
,
S.
.
., •'
.-;''-'. ' ' • '1 "--i:' ' — ; z '' 41.
' ' ' *1 ' -
1;.
- ; ;
; /.._-.. „1.
,i : .
5... ,
i' ^ '
t e, ,•'-
-
.., . , .
..,
f '
rot:
•
*, '-•
, . .1,
., . _.,. .,.:., _ ,
. ......
„,..
z y $ p ¢
qsT ',i-v,„
rte _ yZ'�Kx 4�drr k C IDY • J'` � 4
• t • f' "• s-N `9 9 YQs -,rf L I
� � • L� � t att-cep' a w i � - Q>�
¢�Y�rar A' µ - r .061
? ,1 r ! ! a', } �• y'aY * �$
` ��.J ? -cam X !�- __
t v c _ .
t 1, \( �l4,t,.',�' �"s T - _ �: i z -
—
R""� 3 � - diA - _ • l ; -' Y
'`'te ,- -1 s t �Y'
•
NP,
Y1
�1_y I. 1' 1 c,'. 1 ! Iifm )
1. L.
. •+
t Y A 7, �i= iir� _ -ate 6 3 .t4
1
- a
,_ 6
__ -..:4-4-'44. 4,-'
I •
r s:‘
� - ' .. r
irk .. .��y ` - 'z '''':i ,. 3 -
t.
.I),
�,. t:•471,,„....,..:-...., &;. r — - is
• r �� 'Ar Z i, . ; t -
11
i. .I. i 4 '1
:..:::....;1::: ' .: IPS ‘ 1
,,,..:.1. x
'�'
,1 t h..fi 444: .2. $"'� 6 iI
�' � -4 �- � e .
/� ....0 '!�"
1
s
,,--:' y - �� �,
i , ,;. p��p_ 11v ) �.` 1 -i,
. * i t 1y
(F r x, .. a♦,_ ,, d -
x r fw 444=- {
i tb '441 4 Y Y' , ,' 3. t•# i
y' r
:_ '4 4 4
. 1iii - ,44 I. '' e
x. : ;I 04
.pt '� t.
om �u= "
ym t.
� +. " "=`nam",. • yt 0.'''. . t•
b i f k tca ^' i F 5r .fe 7t
ANY t a't �
1 -
" s4¢ ,` , _.
•
t "tti. , ,
f: '
t
sr ` '4 x r. ffi t q! $ ban ..\!--1 �Fk8Ytq ,,,'4,,,' r
4t4 4 ' 14 ' 4' --: - '''';
11,
sr ^ $ k ' + 8i.` e6)`
•
- -:11''''''';' 10.- /441111111"°41:
%
r.
s+
�
, {y ri
It
•
1.
'74
%
i Aa • 3 .wx ti . t �/ � S' ` it tiey. 4-7'ti b,�m' x , Ex 5 t y" � s4 • !t :_ i .i. 'f �^ ' !4 s f , ± q r P Y a c q �i { y
fti, I ti .tif ii,
i
Pi 1 '004
rd c • i a t e' �i
�� ` 5 a ri Jif T f . ' i
x
R Y `{{ d Y L
zdy 40 •
11' ' i `
. f