Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-105 Set back averaging appeal December 4, 1996 Dave Smith 2590 Spring Lake Road Shakopee,~ 55379 Dear Dave, Enclosed please find a copy of a resolution passed by the City Council on December 2, 1996. The resolution is formal action denying your appeal. You can continue construction of your garage as approved under Building Permit #96-399. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Or;;Ji!:vt1OJq. /L- [r~ eV/IC- :Jenni Tovar Planner 16200 eo.~EP~k<e<k Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER - -- --- -- - -~--- ------- -_._-~ --- --- -- - RESOLUTION 96-110 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING, CASE NO. 96-105, AND DENYING THE USE OF SETBACK AVERAGING FOR DAVE SMITH ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD MOTION BY: KEDROWSKI SECOND BY: SCHENCK WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 18th day of November, 1996, to act on an appeal by Dave Smith of the Zoning Officer's denial of a request to use setback averaging for property legally described as Lot 27 & 28, Butternut Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appeal does not meet the standards for setback averaging set forth in Section 5-8-3 (D, 2) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Dave Smith appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the use of setback averaging as described in Section 9. D. of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a garage addition on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit; 2590 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lot 27 & 28, Butternut Beach 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case File #96-105, held hearings thereon on October 28, 1996, and recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on November 18, 1996. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic 16200 ~((!:W!~9\ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER " 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 appeal variances on the Comprehensive Plan. S. On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission granted the applicant an 18 foot variance, permitting a 67 foot setback from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. 6. The variance granted determined exactly what the setback would be on the applicant's property for the proposed addition. 7. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer allows construction of a permitted use, as proposed on this property, in the location approved by the granting of the variance on June 10, 1996. 8. The contents of Planning Case File #96-105 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denies the use of setback averaging to be used in determining the front yard setback for the proposed garage addition as proposed. Passed and adopted this 2nd day of December, 1996. YES Andren x Andren Greenfield x Greenfield Kedrowski x Kedrowski Mader absent Mader Schenck x Schenck NO {Seal} RES96110.00C AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION ACTION REQUIRED: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 40 \~ JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER,..\V\ CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION 96-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER TO DENY PERMIT THE USE OF SETBACK AVERAGING AS REQUESTED IN THE APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH DECEMBER 2, 1996 On November 18, 1996, the City Council considered an appeal by Dave Smith, of the decision of the Zoning Officer to deny the use of setback averaging for the construction of a garage addition located at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Council directed the staff to prepare the attached resolution, with findings of fact, upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer and denying the use of setback averaging as proposed. 1. The City Council may adopt Resolution 96-XX, upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission and decision of the Zoning Officer to deny this request. 2. The City Council may adopt Resolution 96-XX with amendments. Alternative 1. applcc2.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 8E JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER CONSIDER APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission granted Dave Smith an 18 foot setback variance permitting a front yard setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. At that time, the property to the east of his was vacant, which prohibited the use of setback averaging. On September 30, 1996, the applicant received a building permit for the garage addition, but has yet to start any construction. On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission granted a 22 foot variance from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the adjacent vacant parcel (Pavek's property) permitting a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. This is 4 feet closer to the centerline than Dave Smith's variance. On October 10, 1996 the Pavek's received a building permit for a single family dwelling. To date, the foundation, exterior walls, and roofing are complete. On October 21, 1996 staff received a request from the applicant to move his proposed garage addition closer to the street using setback averaging. Staff s interpretation is that the City cannot use setback averaging, because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no adjacent structure from which to measure the setback. Furthermore, the Planning Commission determined exactly what the setback would be by the granting of the variance. 16200 ~ggR?~Pg[K~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DISCUSSION: ISSUES: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: 96-105CC.DOC/JKT The staff report to the Planning Commission concluded that front yard setback averaging cannot be used because the structure on the adjacent lot was not existing when the applicant received a building permit. The Planning Commission also agreed that the granting of the variance determined what the setback would be and any changes to that would require another variance request. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council uphold the decision of the zoning officer. If the appeal is upheld by the City Council, the applicant will have to provide the City with a current survey, indicating the setback of both adjacent structures such that an average can be determined. Setback averaging may not result in the applicants garage being placed closer to the centerline. Any increase in Dave Smith's garage size, due to averaging, will result in a change in impervious surface, of which, it must be amended on the building permit application and cannot exceed 30 percent as per the Shore land Ordinance. If the applicant doesn't act on the variances granted within one year, then the variances granted become void. At that point, the applicant could apply for a building permit using setback averaging. See attached report. 1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer. 2. Uphold the position ofthe applicant. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council, Alternative 1. Motion affirming the decision of the ,zoning officer 2 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 6B CONSIDER APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING (Case File #96-0105) 2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES -X- NO-N/A OCTOBER 28, 1996 Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The attached letter dated October 22, 1996 was sent in response to an inquiry made by Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback his proposed garage addition. A letter of appeal was received October 22, 1996 and a copy is attached. DISCUSSION: Section 4. 1 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to lot and yard requirements states" Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the existing structures." On June 1 0, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). The granting of this variance established exactly what the setback would be On September 30, 1996 the applicant received a building permit for the garage addition. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER On September 9,1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). On October 10, 1996 the applicants received a building permit. As the Pavek's home is being built next door to Dave Smith, he notices that the new house is being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed garage addition. He has recently approached the Planning Department requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street (see attached letters). He wants to use setback averaging to achieve this. The Planning Department has affirmed that we cannot use setback averaging if one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Generally, future conditions are not and cannot be considered. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in calculating a setback average. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code, unless a variance is granted. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance. 2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that setback averaging using current construction/future development is in compliance with City Code provisions. 3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission. Page 2 96105pc.doc - - -- - - -- -- - - - -- --- - -- PAVEK VARIANCE 2610 SPRING LA'KE ROAD .111266 COLLEGE CITY HOMES PAGE 02 IIrI5B . . . . . ..... '~" . . . . ... . ..' .' . . . . . . OIfPfGnl ...,.,. ::cof,i. cUt .........', .: LOt.:29'.'''''~ BDeB, City of prior Lake, Scott County, Hinnesot& arid res.~vln~ easements of record. ;. POND _ . 115.) f'''. . Ill\. I -.,..., ~, ~\ ',' \. .. ql1.~ , t-- . ,r:..' .j -,j --'-, lit EJI.~I.. I ,II H... I' Af.~.~.~~ .. 10 ~ .. ~, 00.00 . q21Jiit ~ <W1 ' Co. ,ROAD ~ NO. 12 ------------ LOT SQ; FOOTAGE = 8.357~ b . , ":It ,-r. 2., Z-l 3. -" olL 2. (". I.i CJ o/o()f ::[/VI-f'E~\lIDl}O S", 'I,. 'FAc::.tS' MIl tOt Fl tile IE' ,if Q!I P~OSE9, El,.EYA T IOMS . JIlPGf F8UlUtitlon ~ 1:l"'~.5 I &It. Floor ,~~~3.G 4'8asHeiltFloor. '.qll...e. ~ A~rolC. . SeWer service (I.v. .' C. ~ ' Proposed EI n. . Ex ,Exlstll'll Elev. .- or Drall'l.;e DlrectlOfl!l .- DI Deliote!! effSet Stek. 0 BENCHMARK, .~ j llCAI.E: 1 'noli . 3D Flit MIN. SET8ACK REQUIREMENTS Front - House Side - Rear - Garap;Slde - - JoBttO: q~.!IP1 BOOK:' PAGE: ,- I'. .,....,;,. . '....,~,.,~" __.,,,, - .....1..._- _... 11__ tII.._....t_ I lEIDY CSlTIF"f TllAT TIllS IS A TlU _ C1II1ECT lIUlIIESEIfrATI\JM OF 11E IlUlMRIP llF TIE MOVE DESCRIIEII AlARY\' AS SUWEYEO SIlOII8Y lIE ..!..J!!!ll1IY DIRECT SlRIWIS IIIlIlllIlllO .., NlPlIlU TO 1_""""," fI/ ~ACl8TS. ElltEPT All -. Dat, 'i. f Z1 19L. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DAVE SMITH VARIANCE 2590 SPRING. LAKE ROAD /9I1J.01) \~~OD CD ~ <D CD blJO OflE Sf/J" Y rRAH.E I DW.Eu/Je; 'f" 25,/0 Df1cR. ,"\/LL l.9z-f z'Z) '1'10 " ti 10.5"5 101. 70 /'1/7 Zr I , ,,' ~: ", t DEC!ljS .17 " '" .. qAt<. " ~'~ N PRtJPOSW ,:" qAI<A'1'" ~ 10 \'< CD ~ .,\ ~ C:t"'~.N. ('!ZI 8,) '''LIP.O. :.~'~' , :~-~... . '! a ~ ,',' , ' . , ': ~ , \ .: , JOO.20' 13'7: 81TVHI QUa ~ ,;./0. El)(}'E QF f. .8/77 I n~;~' --L-~ COllNTY (SPRING PROP~RTY DESCRIPTION ~ ROAD NO. 12 LAKE ROAD) '!. /3'7; ./.5'zt.'s) A~ea of existing house & ga~age 1496 5'1 . ft. 474 sg. ft. 624 sq. ft. 2596 51. ft. i3648 sq. ft. 30% A~ea of conc~et~ d~ive afte~ ~emoval of 4 feet of width A~ea of p~oposed ga~age Total inlperviou5 arEa Lots 27 & 2R 'BUTTERNUT BEACH" According to the ~ecorded plat thereof Scott Countv, Mirloesota 'l'ota 1 lot ared Inlpervious areas 35 a percentage of +-.he lot area. Denotes icon monument set Denotes icon monument found " Denotes concrete slab Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes P~()pos('d e] (~Vdt ion ~ -N ~ o . { 92/.817.1 [ J B~:NCIlMARK Spike in power pole located in the northwest quad~ant of NorLhwood Road and SprIng Lake Road Elevation 922.45 N.G.V.D, SCALE I o 10 IN FEET I I/O BOERHA VE LAND SURVEYING, INC 14243 Mitoka Circle N.E. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 612.445.9114 -;:0 'rebv certify that this survey. plan or report rrepared by me or under my direct supervision that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor r the laws of the State of Minnesota. a~ri~~ Jamtp: EA Boerhave RLS DIlte' _PR/L /9, /9'16 Reg. No. 709'; Stamson: . Hillcrest owned both lots at the time of the demolition. . Albers explained the demolition permit and then the building permit process. . Tovar spoke on the ownership and lot split before the demolition. . Regrettable it happened but the ordinance is specific. This is variance criteria. . It is our obligation to enforce the ordinance as written. There was a short discussion on the interpretation of the ordinance. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL FINDING SETBACK AVERAGING WITH PREVIOUS EXISTING STRUCTURES IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE PROVISIONS. V ote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION PASSED. []) 00 ill ~ U B. Case #96-105 - Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision ofthe Zoning O~er relating to setback averaging. Jenni Tovar presented the staff report stating the following: On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). Dave Smith noticed Pavek's house being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed garage addition. He approached the Planning Department requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street. The Planning Department has affirmed setback averaging cannot be done if one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code, PAGES MNI02896.DOC unless a variance is granted. Recommendation to the City Council was to uphold staff s interpretation of the ordinance. Comments from the public: Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, distributed a survey showing his proposed change. Mr. Smith would like to have his garage line up with Pavek's house. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, has been working with Mr. Smith on his construction and improvements. He attended all the related hearings. Mr. Weninger feels Commissioners stated the setbacks should be consistent with Smith's house at the Pavek hearing. Tovar explained Mr. Smith's variance request. V onhof: . Cannot use future considerations. Commissioners made a decision with the criteria at the time. . Support staff. Kuykendall: . Technically and legally staff recommendation is appropriate. . Understands where applicant is coming from. Can come back and apply for a variance. Wuellner: . Questioned Pavek's variances. . Agrees with V onhof and supports staff. Stamson: . Concurs with City Staff. Criego: . Agrees with the rest of Commissioners. . Cannot accept appeal at the time the variance was granted none of this information was known. Jim Weninger felt it was appropriate Commissioners review the Pavek variance. His impression was the Pavek variance was consistent with Dave Smith's setback. Jane Kansier addressed Mr. Weninger's concern stating the setbacks were consistent with the neighborhood. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE. PAGE9 MN102896.DOC V ote taken signified ayes by V oOOof, Kuykendall, Starnson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Public Hearing Continued. D. CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-l AND R-2 DISTRICTS Criego read the Opening Statement for public hearing. There was no attendance by the public. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report. The amendment is to the Zoning Ordinance revising the required side yard setback for an addition to an existing dwelling. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced side yard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one side yard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. Rye commented on the City Council's feelings that an amendment be brought forward which would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staff approach was to allow one 5' setback to an existing structure. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . The original ordinance was written for substandard lots and tries to make an exception for them. It seems backwards to give people with larger lots the same 5 feet side yard setback. If the City wants it uniform it should have been left at 10 feet. Wuellner: . This recommendation came up before the Commissioners by a previous staff. It did not pass at that time. Commissioners felt in time, it would become the norm. . Crowding along the lakefront is getting worse. This will exacerbate the problem. . Keep as is. Not in favor. MNI02896.DOC PAGEIO October 22, 1996 Dave Smith 2590 Spring Lake Road Shakopee,~ 55379 Dear Mr. Smith, On October 21, 1996 you made a request to build your garage addition 63 feet from the centerline of North wood Road, rather than the 67 feet as approved. under Variance #96-040 (June 10, 1996). Your purpose for wanting your garage addition to be closer to the road is that the property to the east is currently under construction, and with approval of a variance (#96-082), this house will be setback 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. Your desire is to have your garage addition line up with this new house, 4 feet closer than what your variance was approved for. The Planning Department cannot approve of your addition to encroach upon the required setbacks any more than what your variance was approved for. The variance granted was for 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (34 feet from the property line). If you wish to . build your garage closer, then you must apply for a new variance. Section 4.1 F. states "Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the existing structures." At the time of your applications for a variance and a building permit, there was not a building on the property to the east of yours. Therefore, you could not and cannot use the setback averaging. You can appeal our decision to the Planning Commission by written request. Your appeal will be placed on the next available Planning Commission meeting. There is no fee for an appeal. If the appeal is over turned then you must submit a new survey and site plan to be approved by the Planning, Building and Engineering Department prior to issuance of a revised building permit. Please call the Planning Department if you have any questions on our decision or the process of appeals. Sincerely?,1 ~~/ Don Rye Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQuAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,/- ... ,)/} ", I U __ .'f' , ~ ~po;J ..-,- ---- f uU()0/.JI ~At1/1,'rlJ p:f'f '10 ~/J a//C}h/ L':t ke 'TO /1??eAL f4c /iyC tc'~' J /j .f"" /I ./ .1 /) /) y<f!!/i:. ' :,;>"(./ j C/ U e:-- ~ ~ /ht- 'Tb! r~ (}'/? f Ar-'1:fc::::, y;:::1 c.Loser-to 5?',~ ~ Nt, --rk/'L /S ;A ;--/n,,5'- ;JovJ g<,l~> 8.0.'L! /,~J,J ~qJ " PO/ r{) ;vtc-j),c,y:, s r S 7 q L Lo 5 e,-. ';0 ;2t?4J\ itJ g ~ C:-" 0 I~ r'sk"7+ t--V/;4 +/e /Y1 ;:r: ~r1-? pc ff'vs ,l':;77he SAP7c. S'cd- gALi: ,,AS 74e~ J5' 0 foc;7'-/-Iy IS 5;-J ~r(~~ , / y-/Jrk ------- . ,~ - i"~"",.",,,.\,,\,,\.,[l,.; @ ~ 0 \Y7 @ ~ ',\\(-- l \.)) \, ,\ \ OCT2 2 WI \ : uL .-.._'_._'---~ ,/ /'''' .~ (' " -:4'-~" .-' ....~. -'" ..~.-..-..."" ..-' --..^..--..- ","'''',' ,.- " . L.. 11/18/96 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES E. Consider Appeal of Dave Smith from a Decision of the Zoning Officer Dave Smith Relating to Setback Averaging. Appeal Setback Avg. . Planning Director Rye reported on this item. In June, the Planning Commission granted him an 18 foot set variance to allow a 67 foot yard on Spring Lake Road. At that time, the property to the east was vacant, which prohibited the use of setback averaging. On September 30th, the applicant received a building permit. The Planning Commission granted a 22 foot variance, 63 feet from center line of Spring Lake Road for the adjacent vacant parcel, which is owned by Paveks. The variance granted the Paveks is three feet closer than the variance granted Mr. Smith. In October, Paveks received a building permit for a single family dwelling. On October 21, we received a request from the applicant to move his proposed addition closer to the street using setback averaging provisions. The interpretation was that the City cannot use setback averaging because at time of application of the building permit, there was no structure with which to average, and the Planning Commission resolution stated exactly what the setback would be by granting a varIance. The Planning Commission agreed that granting the variance determined the specific setback, and changes would require the variance request, and voted to recommend that City Council uphold their decision. If the appeal is upheld by the Council, the applicant will have to provide the City with a current survey indicating setback of the adjacent structure so that an average can be determined. The averaging may not result in the applicant's garage closer to the center line. An increase in the garage size will result in a change in impervious surface, which cannot exceed 30%. If the applicant does not act on the variance that has been granted within one year, the variance becomes void. . Planning Director Rye said the applicant told the Planning Commission, he was looking for a setback like the one approved for the neighboring property. . Councilmember Greenfield said a variance should be unique to the property but the attitude here is "me too". . The applicant was not present. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY GREENFIELD TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER AND REQUEST THAT STAFF PREP ARE A RESOLUTION AND, FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ZONING OFFICER'S POSITION. Upon a vote, ayes by Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck, the motion carried. MN111896.DOC 11 ~ ~ 86.48 '--""" 'Q ~ l:::) '0 ~ 'b !'ti ~~ "3 ~ -R? \) \J) ~ ~ .. (') {~~ ),\ ~~ ~'" '" rrt ~~ ~~ :::0. )> 0 ~.. ~ - <3 " - (') l>. ~ ~ fTl ~ 0 " CJ) %~ c :::0 ~~ /..........., < ~~ ~ fT1 \l)~ "'50 ~ -< --~_.:.._--~ I.) .. <:' ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('\ \~ ~ ~ '\ ,~ ~ ~ t ~ (\ A- ~ ~ ~ M ~ () Wi g ~ . ~ ~ (Jl' , J t}J ... :-1 / ~r-. ,--..... tit"t -() ..... C) ...... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s~ /- ~ --3G:J-- 84.85 " .... ~ 't ..... ~- . -