Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Variance Appeal (Kinney) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: JANUARY 6, 2003 7A CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 46 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK (Case file #02.138) INTRODUCTION: Marge Kinney has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shore land setback for the construction of a living space addition. DISCUSSION: Historv: This agenda item concerns an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a variance from the required 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a three season porch addition on property located at 14458 Shady Beach Road (see Attachment 3). The subject property is a riparian lot located on Prior Lake. According to the survey, the existing dwelling is set back approximately 64 feet from the 904' MSL of Prior Lake, and thus maintains a nonconforming setback. Two decks on the lakeside of dwelling are not depicted on the survey. Staff estimates that the existing deck above the proposed addition extends 4 to 6 feet from the dwelling, so the existing lakeshore setback is likely 58 to 60 feet. The deck over the patio appears to be 10 to 12 feet from the dwelling. The shoreland ordinance requires all principal structures to maintain a 75 foot shoreland setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. On November 25, 2002, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, held a public hearing to consider the item and denied the variance for the addition by approving Resolution 02-020PC. The Commission determined that the variance request failed to meet all 9 of the hardship criteria. In its discussion, the Commission cited concern about further encroachment into the shoreland setback and lack of a hardship as the justifications for denying the variance (Attachment 4). On December 2, 2002, Marge Kinney submitted a letter appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the setback variance (Attachment 2). 162e~E'a~~~K"J'liV@~'!l>'l!'P.e~6~\&,OMinnesota !i5372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNlTY EMPLOYER Current Circumstances: The appellant would like to construct a 288 square foot (16 feet by 18 feet) three-season porch addition to the lakeside of an existing single family dwelling. As previously noted, the dwelling maintains a nonconforming shoreland setback and the proposed living space addition would encroach into or expand the nonconforming shoreland setback. The zoning ordinance permits construction on a legal, nonconforming structure provided that it does not "extend, expand, or intensify the nonconformity." The proposed addition seeks to expand an existing nonconformity by encroaching an additional 18 feet into the required shoreland setback. At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant expressed concern with how staff interpreted the term "hardship." State law authorizes municipalities to regulate land use and to grant variances from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance in instances "where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique to the individual properly under consideration." Specifically, Minnesota Statute 462.357 Sub. 6 (2) states" 'Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the properly in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the properly exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems." Essentially, if a property owner can construct a use that is legally permissible in the use district in which the property is located within the buildable area, a hardship is not present to warrant the granting of a variance from the zoning ordinance. Applicant's Perceived Hardship: The applicant believes that the shoreland setback variance is warranted because "our home no longer meets our needs. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together for a Sunday, birthday, or holiday dinner. Because our family is so important to us, we are very distressed by our lack of dining space...The only location to accomplish more dining space would be to expand our existing dining room on the lakeside. We are proposing a glassed-in three season porch with French doors. When our whole family is together and we need to seat more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, turn the table, and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance our enjoyment of our home and property." Also, "our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our east side, as does the shoreline for each of the lots immediately to our east." Issue: The City Council must determine whether it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested 29 foot variance. L\02FILES\02appea]\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 2 Variance Hardship Standards: In reviewing this appeal, the City Council 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 perrnissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance, and is not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the R-1 use district. A reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists on the property. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or imrnediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The condition (i.e., shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to other land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not peculiar to the subject property. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A shoreland setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property. 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. The granting of the proposed variance may affect the perceived supply of light and air to adjacent property. Requested relief will allow a structure to encroach further into the required shoreland setback and expand a nonconforming setback. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably dirninish L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 3 or irnpair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way irnpair the health, safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the shoreland setback variance may impact the character of the immediate vicinity by affecting the perceived health, safety, and comfort of the area. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community." Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland setback, which intends to protect the water quality of Prior Lake, is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities or prohibit their expansion. Allowing the addition would expand a nonconforming setback. 7. The granting of the Variance will not rnerely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship. 8. The hardship results frorn 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 alleged hardship for the shoreland setback results from the actions of the property owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling. The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the difficulty, not the area, width, shape or topography of the lot. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Staff does not believe that economics plays a role in this variance request. Conclusion: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 and SD. A corner of the dwelling encroaches into the required 75 foot shoreland setback. The proposed three-season porch addition seeks to encroach further into the required shoreland setback. The staff recommends denial of the 29 foot variance from the required 75 foot shoreland setback to allow a 46 foot setback for the construction of a three- season porch. This recommendation is based on the following: L\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeaJ\CC Report.doc 4 1. A hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant the granting of the variance. 2. A reasonable use is present on the site. 3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the shoreland setback. The hardship is created by the design of the addition. It would be possible to add onto the existing house at a different location as there is ample buildable area on the lot. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance as requested by the applicant. The attached Resolution is consistent with this action. 2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the requested variance. 3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The staff recommends alternative # 1: A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested 29 foot variance from the 75 foot front yard setback to allow a 46 foot set ack for a living space addition by adopting Resolution 03- XX REVIEWED BY: A IT ACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 03-XX 2. Location map 3. Appeal letter 4. Survey 5. Addition plans 6. November 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes L:\02FILES\02appeal\Kinney appeal\CC Report.doc 5 01 RESOLUTION O~ RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION MOTION BY: Jb SECOND BY: (L WHEREAS, On January 6, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Marge Kinney to construct a 288 square foot garage three-season porch addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2 WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variance should be upheld. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Marge Kinney has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a thee season porch addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Shady Beach No.2 b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 75 shoreland setback as contained in Case #0-124 and held a hearing thereon on November 25, 2002. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 1:\02flles\02appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc A~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1 c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request. d. Marge Kinney appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on December 2, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-124 and Case File #02-138, and held a hearing thereon on January 6, 2003. f. The City Council 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. g. The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance, and is not unique in its shape or topography. Thus, the strict application of the shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an undue hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the R-1 use district. A reasonable use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area exists on the property. h. The condition (i.e., shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to other land within the R-1 use district and SD overlay district, and is not peculiar to the subject property. 1. A shoreland setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property. J. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community." Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland setback, which intends to protect the water quality of Prior Lake, is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities or prohibit their expansion. Allowing the addition would expand a nonconforming setback. k. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant because it is not necessary to alleviate an undue hardship. 1. The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback results from the actions of the property owner. The applicant is the original owner of the dwelling. The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the difficulty, not the area, width, shape or topography of the lot. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02.124 and #02-138 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. 1:\02files\02appeat\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 2 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the following requested variance: a) A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shore1and setback. Passed and adopted this 6rn day of January 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blomberg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager 1:\02fiJes\02appeal\kinney appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 3 Location Map for Kinney Appeal I 1/ I I I I I.---lj.\ I I' .~. ~~........ Ii I). '.~'.". ". /-~'.. --i---l-II~' ; '-Ii 1\\__/-1 I !' f-..... / / c-l.- i 01 I 8 i---- /~.~ I ~,. , iff;- j ( '# I r~~~J}i.~~ i ~ . 11'--1~1 1...llI '~I I, ~ \( ~~~' '0(~'__1 ~ '. I ('1 'ii., +"" I I Xi -----.---.--, "'___---'. /.J< ~~. ' '\/ / i?/ " I _ /~\ \ //', ~! 'I~-T'-. /\ \, /\ \~'J' "1/\// -ti- v2~~ '--,~_/ Prior Lake I ---.J N A Marge Kinney m !: ffi ~ :::1'; .,I/i 'll\ I IV I U' 1 4458 Shady 8each Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 '1)-e..Le...-m '0 ~\ 2.; 2002.. f'''\ ,. r'(().x~ ~ b O'j \ ~.S ~ \ -\- ~ t'v\ t\.:\'\ 0.. "j ~" l.'\t~ oJS qJT',C'f l&..R~ \<0200 E~\€.. ~'f"<t.<::.~ ~'i~ SE:.. ~'\O'r lG-l\<a.. \Y\ N. .5~ 2:>'12- \ '1 \ L\ ]) "€.D-Y \'-'\ '\'", 1jo~ \ ~s : W"- W(~:"t {c "f\'''-,,:- \ +'n,,- d~\sio" ~ -\-~. , 'I' \ "''' n \ "''1 Q.c, '" '" , 9> C'n -tc "",) ,,-d "'"' 'c "'f\' \ \ "'" {. \ Of) ~ 0, (L "'" Y i "- ,,": "-. 0 '^ Y ~ f' \ \ "-'>- ~ \ ;, '" \.U,,-->. n =d oJ, i-\'.. 'V \..." " '''.''I C'.o"" ",', SS\ "''' s '<"5 LL \ <>. ~ 'me..<;>_t, Y\Cj 0'11 t-\ C\( €...Yv\ b~~ 2.5") 2002. . '? \ ""--""- I' ,J, 0 LL< 1'\ ~ f''''' \ "" -\-1,,,, Q ;t~ Cl..oUS\":; l' s t\ ') €.-Y\ J. 0- 03-,- :\0 lA.. Ie ~_c..'\ \ ~ ~'S + ~ Y'\ v ;;>_ y\ ", e_ V\ c..~, -~\Q-'I"\ lz l:) 0 \)... . S, r'\r.:..~_'\ €...\ j \" 91(;.? ~-U I\~ ().'f~ e_ +< i y\ VI <:- J APPEAL LETTER y TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Layton and Marge Klnney DATE: October 25, 2002 RE: Request for a Variance ";:--:- ;c; r;:'::' r~ 0 '\1/7 :;;' . .. ir\\L5~L5 \:.J L::.J. ' 'I II - ": "v I 'I ..."J\< i OCT 2 5 2002 J ;i~1 l~ I We built our home in 1967, and have lived at this address in Prior Lake for the past 35 years. Because our family has grown, our home no longer meets our needs_ We are requesting a Variance based on our need for a larger dining area. We bought our lot-in January, 1967, and hired a local builder, Harold Gustafson, to build our home. He carefully followed all zoning and building codes. No variances were requested or received. When we moved into our new home, we were a family of four; we had two small sons, ages 5 and 1. Our daughter was born in 1970. Our home has been a wonderful place to live and raise our family. Now, however, our home no longer meets our needs. Both sons are married, and we have five grandchildren. Our fat:l1ily now numbers twelve, and we look forward to a son-in-law and more grandchildren when our daughter marries. It is no longer possible to seat everyone together fora Sunday, birthday, or holiday dinner. Because our family is so important to us, we are very distressed by our lack of dining space. The only location to accomplish more dining space would be to expand our existing dining room on the lake side. We are proposing a glassed-in three-season porch with French doors. When our whole family is together and we need to seat more than our dining room can hold, we will open the doors, turn the table, and expand into the porch. This would solve our need for more space, and would also greatly enhance our enjoyment of our home and property. We are both retired senior citizens now, so we spend much more time at home than we did when we were younger and busy working and raising our family. We are both in good health, and plan to stay in our home for many years to come. We wish to address each of the criteria for granting a Variance: 1. Our lot has an irregular shape. The shoreline drops back into a bay on our East side, as does the shoreline for each of tile lots immediately to our East The main portion of our home is 104 feet from the 904 high water level. Because the shoreline curves, the lake gets closer to our home on the southeast side, where the addition is proposed. The southeast comer of our house (where the dining room is located) is 78 feet from the shoreline. Our proposed addition is 18 feet by 16 feet If we were given a pemtit to build the addition per our plans, the distance from the southeast comer of the new room straight south to the shore wonld be 60 feet, and the distance to the southeast comer of our lot would be 46 feet We understand that any Variance granted would require a minimum of 50 feet from the addition to the comer of our lot at tile 904 foot level. We can redesign our proposed addition to comply with the 50 foot requirement To build our addition in any other location would be impractical and would not fulfill our needs. Therefore, we do believe strict application of the Code would result in undue hardship to us. Weare aware of the averaging method of determining setback. A few years ago, tlIat method would have easily allowed a 50 foot setback for our proposed addition. The house to the East of us sits 29 feet from tile water's edge. When we built our home, tile house on tile lot to our West was a completely different building, and sat approximately 50 feet from the lakeshore. When om neighbors sold their home, the new owner had the old house moved off the lot, and he built his new house further away from the lake. The distance from the southeast comer of the new house to the 904 level is 125 feet. The average, then, becomes 77.25 feet, which is not helpful to us. Therefore, we must request a Variance in order to solve our need. 2. The irregular shape of our lot and the sharp curve of the shoreline are unique, and would apply, generally, only to other lots on the back side of a point, as we are. Another unique characteristic of om lot is the topography, which, we think, is favorable for our proposed addition. When we bought our lot it had never had a building on it It was a natural hill, sloping up from the road to a height of 918.5 feet, and tllen sloping gently down to the lake, which today is around the 903 foot level. It had a moderate number of matme trees---oak, elm, maple, basswood, and ash. We designed our home to fit the lot, instead of grading the lot to fit the house. We had two goals: 1) to preserve the natural terrain and 2) to preserve as many trees as possible. The south side of our house is at the 913.4 to 914.8 foot level. The area where we want to put our addition is level. Therefore, there is a gentle vertical drop of 9-10 feet down to the 904 foot high water level. That great difference in the height of the land precludes any flooding problems. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for us to fully enjoy and use our property to the benefit of our family. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent property on either side of us. Our proposed addition will not interfere with our neighbors' enjoyment of their property in any way. It will not increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. 5. The granting of the Variance and the building of our addition can only improve the character, development, and property value of our neighborhood. It could not possibly impair the health, safety, or comfort of our area. 6. We don't know what aU of the intents of the Code and Comprehensive Plan are. However, we believe that the 75 foot setback from the lake requirement (the one for which we are requesting a Variance) intends to protect both the lake and the land adjoining the lake. If there is a concern that building to within 50 feet of the lakeshore might lessen the area and time for adequate settling of run-off before it enters the lake, we would be happy to recreate adequate area and time through landscaping. We could do that by the use of either a swale or plants, or both. We are not opposed to having such landscaping being made a condition of granting the Variance. With that in mind, we believe that the granting of the Variance and subsequent building of our proposed addition would not have any adverse effect on either the lake or the property. They will, in fact, improve the property. 7. We do not request this Variance merely for our convenience. We have a real need. Our family is vitally important to us. We are both retired, and our family is our highest priority. We have both the time and the energy to devote to our children and grandchildren. We place a high value on family gatherings and dinners as a way to help develop character and values. They also provide great family fun and build lasting memories. It is very difficult for us to no longer have the space to seat the whole family for a family dinner. This difficulty could be solved by the granting of the requested Variance and our building our proposed addition. 8. The hardship to us as property owners does not result from our own actions. When we built the house, we followed every requirement of the code that was in effect in 1967. We have cared for and improved the property throughout our 35 years in our home. Rather, the hardship to us results from the application of the Code setback requirement to our unique property. 9. Construction costs and/or economic hardship have no bearing on our request for a Variance. In summary: The requested 50 foot setback has no adverse effect on the neighboring property owners on either side of our property. It would solve our difficult situation of not having enough space to accommodate our growing family. We, therefore, respectfully request this Variance be granted. you. ""J~~~ ~~. ~-~/ Laytort-Kmney ~ Marge Kinn~) -- ---0 FRANK R. CARDARELLE -0L :612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <lt~ttifitatt @f i>Util~1? Survey For Layton Kinney 14458 Shady Beach Trail Prior lake, ~IN 55372 Book_ Page_ FileMLf SHADY BEACH TRAIL /\ PROPOSED ADDITION 'Q-~-:Q , '" -;. a. w -I>. '" ',I I -' (\ \ -' , , v ~' v,'i I '1 _loD -;- , "\/' ----' 1,; -- Scale. 1":401 Iron Mon.Found .- .;Y1'I'Ij,4 -,',:' \\ ,-" , \ \ ,}~:,~ 1~lrn:~;~L<lr~ ~D17j .:! I /t>'~-:-~ Land Area: 19,170 sq.ft. \ 11'''''''' House Area: 2195 sq.ft. / ,// . Flagstone Walk: 560 sq.ft. ,\~ Concrete Driveway: 1140 sq.ft ,...~ Patio Area: 510 sq.ft. ~t. zn,,'" ?~ ./ /' Exist.Hard ~over 't7~- ,y' ~1'l/"QQ~ Area: 4405 sq.ft. _ ~ \ ~ 23% land Cover Existing t teG Proposed Addn.to House: Q\lo ,y, ,0, 6~ c~ 288 sq. ft. ?'il-\ qC:i'~' \,\1" Total Hard Cover After ~,e" ,IIe6 Q Addn.: 4693 sq. ft. ~~te"( 24.5% New Land Cover ., Lot 2, Shady Bea S"""',....b,m........ 17th 1t-...,~......lta"""__.all_.._MDrlat....-y.,..._.at Scott Nr'" "pptpmhpr . 2illlZ.. C--'\l,..........lo.on.lI>o~~'" Frank R. CardarelJe Slate Reg. No. 6508 SURVEY "'" , ." .S -1 -<~ El II = - ~ 1 ~ ,-, , I I I :1 I I I ----+ I~l lii-' ,I -- ,-~ 'I Ii. II ,~- - - --i - ...., - -;- I 1J..~ ........9,~ 71': 9': , , . ..z . .z ,s.~ -"".L.~ ',. I I - I '11 ~. 9." I I ' I l----t I I , ~'i~ , s..,- ~. ',~ i:I ~r-~ ~I~. ~ @ g [!!:'J ~ o I ...... II :::t ...... ~ .. . -. ~rS .0 . 0 i~ : . ~'" ~ 0 ; ~ g "ca';: DO" -i~~ !!!! a c ~" P- . " U> N 0 . , . ~ N -. N c -. , 0 0 0 0 0. ~ :;; 15 > . 0: . ~ ~ o . i~ >. CIl c: c: i: CIl Cl ... ClI :!: oll c: o - >. j . . " . ~ U> . . z '0 ,,18 o~ ~ - ~~ ~ . o " 00::0 @ ~ . o . 0. ~ ~ c ro <:: '" 0 o :;::: 0. '6 e "'C ll.. . <( ~ " . "l . Planning Commission Meeting November 25.2002 Lemke: . Questioned staff if they would vacate the right-of-way. Poppler said the City would not be in favor of it - do not know how much future traffic would be on this road. It is not a policy. More than one lot would have to be vacated. . Agreed with Criego, that reasonable use of the property is warranted. . It is not a site line issue. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREP ARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood, nays by Stamson and Ringstad. MOTION CARRIED. ~ C. Case #02-124 Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot average Shoreland setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail NE. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office ofthe City Planning Department. Layton and Marge Kinney are requesting a variance from the 75 foot Shoreland setback for the construction of a living space addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-I (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 14458 Shady Beach Trail. The subject property is a riparian lot. A single family dwelling, constructed in 1968, currently occupies the site. In order to construct the proposed addition to the dwelling the following variance is required: A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot Shoreland setback to allow a 46foot setbackfrom the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Prior Lake. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was noticed about the variance request and commented if the addition were moved to the west side of the home, the Shoreland setback would increase. Furthermore, if the applicant can successfully argue or demonstrate a hardship, the DNR would not oppose a setback variance of some sort. However, the DNR believes the proposed variance can be reduced. The fact the applicant wants to construct an addition for dining room space does not create a hardship. The addition is a convenience. Furthermore, the proposed addition would expand the nonconformity of the Shoreland setback. Staff believed the Shoreland setback variance was not warranted because the applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship and a reasonable use is currently present on the site. Comments from the public: Applicant Marge Kinney, 14458 Shady Beach Trail, her husband, Layton and Doug Nelson the builder, were present. Kinney stated they would like to add a 3 season porch L:\02FILES\02pJanning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 to gather their family together in one place for birthday and holiday dinners. The home was built in 1967. Their family has grown and the home no longer meets their needs. They have 5 grandchildren and it is important to have the entire family together. It is no longer possible to seat the family together for a dinner. Kinney stated the family is so important to them they are very distressed by the lack of dining space. The home is no longer functional for the families' needs. The addition would solve the problem for more space. Kinney said they were terribly disappointed by staff's recommendation and strongly disagree with staff's findings. Kinney said she understood the minimum variance the Commission will grant is 25 feet to allow a 50 foot setback. She stated she told staff they would be willing to redesign the porch to comply with a 50 foot setback. Staff felt the home was setback 64 feet and was already nonconforming. Kinney felt they exceeded the setbacks in 1967 when they built their home and the area was Eagle Creek Township. The lake has risen over the 35 years, and they have lost 24 feet of shoreline. She felt it is not their fault the lake has risen creating a hardship. The Shady Beach area is unique as it is a peninsula and fits the hardship criteria. Kinney disagreed with staff's 9 hardship criteria responses and disputed each. She said it was obvious to them that hardship is very much like beauty - it is "in the eye of the beholder." They strongly believe it would be unreasonable to deny their request. Kinney stated the variances should be granted in the name of justice. They were law abiding, taxpaying citizens of Prior Lake for 35 years. She served on the Prior Lake school board for 25 years, learning about establishing and enforcing policy. She learned rules should be fair and consistent believing the City's rules are fair and consistent. One should not make or enforce a rule simply because one has the power to do so. She strongly questioned staff's recommendation to deny the variance. This addition will do no harm to the neighbors or to the water quality of Prior Lake. She wants her home functional to carry on family traditions and continue to be positive influence on their children and grandchildren's lives. The hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Would like to pass as the applicants are neighbors. Atwood: . For the very reason the applicant stated the loss oflakeshore, does not see how further encroachment to the lake could be allowed. . Questioned the applicant's second proposal. Kirchoff explained the second proposal, but it was not shown on the survey. Ringstad: . Did not agree with Mrs. Kinney's hardship assessment. L:\02FILES\02pJanning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 2002 . Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. Has never supported encroachment. . The applicant has reasonable use of the property. . Hardship #5 - is to maintain the character of the lot. . Will not support the request. Stamson: . Agreed with Ringstad. It all comes back to hardship. . Traditionally, a 3-season porch or a lack of one does not create a hardship. There is reasonable use of the property. . Denial of this request does not create a hardship. . The guidelines are State Statutes. It is not a convenience for the owners. Hardship goes far beyond the dictionary definition. . There is no clear hardship. Will not support. Lemke: . Has no doubt the Kinneys believe there is a hardship. . Believes in supporting the protection of the lake. State Statute is a 50 foot setback; the City's is 75 feet. . Cannot see how this fits into the current ordinance. Criego: . Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface. . Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50 foot setback, but it is 75 feet. . The applicant is a 64 feet now, which is not an issue. . The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for lake setbacks. If this was voted in, there would be a flood of requests and why would their requests be any different than the applicants? . The Commission feels strongly on these issues, they are somewhat lenient on some issues, such as side yard setbacks. This is a fairly large size home. . Believe strongly on the 75 foot setback. For that reason the Commission must stick to the requirement. Stamson: . Appreciated Mrs. Kinney's rulemaking opinion. . The Commission has to stay consistent with the ordinances. They have taken a very defined approach on lake setbacks. . The tradeoff with the 75 foot setback is the 30% impervious surface. In order to justify that, the Commission has to be consistent in the lakeshore lot variance procedures. . This variance has to be denied. It does not meet the criteria. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI12502.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting November 25. 2002 MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02- 020PC DENYING A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: A. Case #01-079 Kenneth & Carol Boyles as asking to consider an approval of an amended survey for the approved variance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 25, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On March 25, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-0IPC, approving a 14.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 10.5 feet to the rear property line rather than the minimum required 25-foot setback for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 15358 Breezy Point Road. In November, 2002, the applicant submitted an application for a grading permit for the construction of the single family dwelling. The survey submitted with the grading permit differs from the approved survey in that the style and location of the house have changed. On the new survey, the house is located further back from the road than the original plan. The house is also located closer to the side lot line (10' as opposed to 25') than the approved survey. The house is still located 10' from the rear lot line and at least 50' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The setbacks shown on the revised survey are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and with the approved variance. Staffs comments were ifthe Commission felt the survey was consistent with the original intent, a Motion should be made to amend Resolution 02-01 to include the revised survey. Ken Boyles presented an overlay of the proposed change. It will not affect any of the variances. The house is actually smaller and the impervious surface is less. The applicant never solved the utilities problem to the lake. Now there is no need for the extra fill required with the original proposal. The only difference is that it is a different smaller home. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . Questioned the closest distance from the 904 OHWM. Kirchoffresponded it was 50.6 feet. . No problem with the changes. Approve. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl12502.doc 11 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Marge and Layton Kinney 11"/03,--" Itt-. 7 fl. ( I)' KiK-r I/~";-----~ 4rr-UI . I. Introduction II. Why we are appealing the Planning Commission's rUling A. Disagree with the Planning Commission's denial of our request. B. Opportunity to respond to some of the Commissioners' comments. C. Support from friends and neighbors D. Whole process has been very difflcult.....not "user-friendly." III. Corrections A. 25 foot variance requested, not 29 B. Size, shape of porch open - C. Misstatements within staff's findings D. Corrections to "Location Map for Kinney Appeal" E. Staff Conclusion (pg. 4-5) IV. History V. 9 Criteria VI. Response to comments of Commissioners A. Commissioner Atwood 1. "For the very reason the applicant stated the loss of lakeshore, does not see how further encroachment to the lake could be allowed." (page 9) 2. "QueStioned the applicant's second proposal. KirchOff explained the second proposal, but it was nrot shown on the survey." JIA ,..\.-L.". 004l f~?"\" I o.~C eY~\(l />V'I.,. sl~"ldl MLvtv ha.ve M.-o'" -Il)v",N iv!P 'f.{f';f,c rIM. B. Commissioner Ringstad 1. "Cannot support further nonconforming encroachment to the lake. Has never supported encroachment." 2. "Hardship #5 is to maintain the character of the lot." C. Commissioner Stamson 1. Hardship (_0 2. "The gUidelines are State Statutes." .....130v\~.Q '"\'''''' \k~ ~k~k, ~14 _ h'cl""'-~ .sk~\~. M.l'~- D. Commissioner Lemke.-.\It'v ,\ I~ h, .ec..,.,~. 1> ieL ~ +d( ~ w~ E. Commissioner Crieg~ 1. "Has empathy for the Kinneys, but the Commissioners are very strong on protection of the lake which includes setbacks and impervious surface." 2. "Mrs. Kinney mentioned a 50' setback, but it is 75'." 3. "The Commission cannot allow this one to pass. Most of the lake requests are for lake setbacks. If this was voted In, there would be a flood of requests and Why would their requests be any differentthan the applicants?" 4. "This is a fairly large size home." ~J) F. Chairman Stamson....Closlng remarks 1. "The tradeoff with the 75 foot setback Is the 30% impervious surface. In order to justify that. the Commission has to be consistent In the lakeshore lot variance procedures." VII. An "Alternative." ~ D.(! s i;'-- (tU" p[:~ /: s:- , tJ 1 r / St 'd~ ^~ d hJpt>~ _ I i/Ci ('. ,wf (1;/J-l~C l~~ f.;') ~ ~1Pf. ~ (JI Md/ ., (l 01/ ,;J' h;c{/t1/ t;t/ II ~el U JJr /n"j 'tit!!. # VIII. CIOSlngfPlea CD JI(,/n ~.t!. . Y\>..(.<.h) ; f.eo- 7 A. ,.t _~ J K1V\'"""t V.".,----- 'f"f~ 14464 Shady Beach Trail Prior Lake, Mn Prior Lake City Council Re: Variance for 14458 Shady Beach Trail, Mr. and Mrs. Latyon Kinney Dear Council Members, Our house is immediately to the east side of the Kinney's, the side where the remodeling will be added on. Our concern about the variance is that water drainage from rain water runoff may become a problem for our property. The Kinney house sits higher then our property and during heavy rain water runoff from the front (street side)moves through the side yard (the east side of Kinneys yard) and across our lake side yard (south). We are concerned that if the new addition roof line is to close to the grade down to our yard we will experience even more water runoff. We did not express our concern at the 1st hearing on this variance because we were told by Mr. Kinney that the variance had been declined. Sincerely, " i" .,7 " .',. l.. r "0//- t/~{f , David and Janet Linde ? ~p 7 I" _ J" '--..:;...;. , , ,~<.-.,-- 1(-,--- '" "'~~ ! . -.. ---~ .-- / ~ ,,'" 'J ui I ,,"i iL/ \ .