HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Variance Appeal Hines
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DECEMBER 1, 2003
7B
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(Case File #03-135)
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
Historv: On October 27,2003, the Planning Commission denied
Phillip Hines' request for a front yard setback Variance for the
construction of a single family dwelling on property located at 2719
Spring Lake Road SW (legally described as p/o of Lot 3, Lot 4, and
p/o of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite).
The Commission found that there was no hardship, because Mr.
Hines could redesign the dwelling to comply with the setback
requirement. The Commission further remarked that they did not
support the encroachment on CSAH 12.
Backaround: Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance permits any
owner of affected property within 350 feet of the subject property to
appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment (Planning
Commission) to the City Council. On October 30,2003, Dean Gavin,
attorney for Mr. Hines, appealed the Planning Commission's decision.
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R-
UMD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) in the 2020
Comprehensive Plan. The property was platted as part of Spring
Lake Townsite in the 1850s, and is a 12,811 square foot riparian lot
on Spring Lake. Access is gained via Spring Lake Road or CSAH 12.
A 220 square foot house maintains a nonconforming shoreland
setback, which is not to be altered with this application. If removed, it
must meet setbacks.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc rupotv."of}:t'iorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
The survey indicates the roadway surface is 56 feet from the property
line. However, portions of CSAH 12 were not constructed in the
dedicated right-of-way. CSAH 12 is scheduled for reconstruction in
the upcoming years. Scott County is currently in the design phase of
the project. Further comment concerning CSAH 12 right-of-way is
presented under the Issues section of this report.
On October 3, 2003, the City issued a demolition permit to remove the
house from the property. On September 15, 2003, the appellant's
contractor applied for a building permit to construct the same single
family dwelling that is proposed with this request on the property,
without the porch. The proposed dwelling complies with all required
setbacks, so the planning department approved the building permit
application, and it is ready to be issued.
Issues: In order to construct the 4,532 square foot single family
dwelling on the property, the appellant is requesting 6.4 foot front yard
setback Variance. The proposed dwelling is a walkout rambler style
with a 3-stall garage. Table 1 details the required and proposed
setbacks noted on the survey for the dwelling.
TABLE 1
REQUIRED AND PROPOSED SETBACKS
FOR 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW
Setback Required Proposed
Front 20' 13.6'
Side - West 10' 21'
Side - East 10' 11'
Shoreland 50' 50.1 +/_1
Section 1102.405 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot front
yard setback for properties in the R-1 use district. However, Section
1102.405 (4) provides that a front yard setback may be the average
setback of those buildings within 150 feet of the subject site on the
same block front. The setback cannot be less than 20 feet. The
average setback in this instance is 18.23 feet, so 20 feet would be
required. The appellant is proposing a 13.6 foot front yard setback
from the front property line abutting CSAH 12/Spring lake Road.
The proposed side yard setbacks comply with minimum ordinance
requirements. The survey submitted with the Variance application
indicates the shoreland setback is 50.1 +/- feet, however, it scales at
49 feet. And as Table 1 notes, the required setback is 50 feet. The
Shoreland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback, however, those
buildings within 150 feet of the property determine the average
setback. But the average setback cannot be less than 50 feet.
Impervious surface is proposed to be 27.5 percent. For residential
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc
2
uses, the Shoreland Ordinance permits impervious surface to be a
maximum of 30 percent. The dwelling measures 17 feet in height on
the front elevation, and the ordinance permits structures to be up to
35 feet in height.
The buildable area for this property measures 80 feet in width by 56
teet in depth. The proposed dwelling is 68 teet in width and 64.33 teet
in depth, at its deepest point, including the porch, so the proposed
house is deeper than the buildable area.
As noted in the previous section, the property abuts CSAH 12, which
is scheduled tor an upgrade in 2006. Prior to the Variance
application, the appellant and his contractor expressed concern about
the width of the right-of-way. They believe that it is unreasonable to
require a 20 foot tront yard setback when, based upon the survey, the
right-of-way appears to be wider than a typical 60 foot right-of-way.
(Note: The Spring Lake Townsite plat dedicated a 60 toot right-of-
way.) However, the existing roadway is not in the dedicated right-of-
way, so there is not "excess" right-at-way. Since the front yard
setback is measured from the property line, not the road surface, the
location at the existing roadway surface is irrelevant.
Scott County was noticed on this Appeal and commented that the
preliminary design for the upgrade of CSAH 12 shifts the road to the
south, but no additional right-at-way will likely be acquired at the
subject property. The County does not have plans to vacate any
existing right-ot-way adjacent to this property.
Variance Hardship Findinas: Section 1108.400 of the Zoning
Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a
Variance from the strict application of the provisions of the
zoning ordinance, provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot,
or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of
such lot, the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or
using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The buildable area is 80 teet in width by 56 teet in depth, so the
physical conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties
or an undue hardship. The planning department has approved a
building permit to construct a dwelling, so it is evident that the
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc 3
_ c____,_~~'._'~n__....^.'_~___._.....",,___...._..~._..,_, < ,_"'__~_..___" " ......,....".._.. _"'''_,''_' """_"~._.____..."..,_~.._.~,__~_._...,,.,_,_.,.~..,_."_.~.,______.~_.,...._,_.._~___________~_~
conditions of the property do not preclude a reasonable use from
being constructed on the property without a Variance.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and
do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use
District in which the land is located.
The conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this
property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to
maintain front, side, and shoreland setbacks.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The granting of the front yard setback Variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner. The planning department has approved a building permit for
the construction of a single family dwelling on the property meeting all
required setbacks.
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.
It appears as though the Variance will negatively impact public safety.
There is a public safety concern about accommodating a setback less
than that required by the Zoning Ordinance with the future
reconstruction of CSAH 12. Off-street parking may be an issue.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in
the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the Variance may unreasonably impact the character
of the neighborhood. It is presumed the adjacent structures with the
nonconforming setbacks will be demolished and new dwellings will be
constructed in the future, since both are riparian lots with houses
constructed in the mid-1960s. New dwellings must comply with
required front, side and shoreland setbacks. From this perspective,
the granting of the Variance would impact the development of the
neighborhood. It would create a "new" average front yard setback for
the adjacent properties when they are rebuilt. This may not be an
ideal situation, since the properties are adjacent to CSAH 12, which is
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc
4
designated an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan and is
scheduled to be upgraded to an urban section in 2006. The ideal
situation would be a 25 foot front yard setback so adequate off-street
parking area is available.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of
land and undue concentration of structures and population by
regulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in
relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented
through required minimum yard setbacks. A Variance to reduce the
required minimum front yard setback is inconsistent with the purpose
of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the appellant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The Variance will serve as a convenience to the property owner
because there is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the
property owner to locate the house 13.6 feet from the front property
line. This is not the only location for the house. The planning
department has approved a plan for the appellant to construct the
same dwelling within the required setbacks.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from
actions of the owners of the property.
The alleged hardship results directly from the actions of the property
owner. The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The
appellant made the decision to design and locate a dwelling that
encroached into the front yard setback.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staft does not believe that increased development or construction
costs or economic hardship are the basis of this request.
CONCLUSION:
The appellant would like to construct a single family dwelling on
property zoned R-1 and SD. In order to do such, the appellant
believes a front yard setback Variance is required.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report.doc
5
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
The strict application of required front yard setback does not preclude
the property owner from enjoying a substantial property right. The
planning department has approved plans for a single family dwelling
to be constructed on the property. Moreover, the property abuts
CSAH 12, which is scheduled for reconstruction in 2006. Since the
roadway has not been designed, exact right-of-way needs have yet to
be determined, so it would not be wise to grant a front yard setback
Variance for a dwelling that can be constructed within the required
setbacks.
There is absolutely no undue hardship if the property owner can build
a single family dwelling that complies with all required setbacks.
Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommends
denial. The Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation
and denied the Variance request.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
appeal.
2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and grant the
appeal. If this is the case, the Council should direct staff to
prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the Variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This alternative requires a motion
and second adopting a resolution upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the requested Variance.
1. Resolution 03-XX
2. Appeal letter
3. Location map
4. Survey
5. October 27, 03, Planning Commission meeting minutes
6. L tter m cott County dated November 19,2003
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc report. doc
6
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 03-XX
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO DENY A 6.4 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Dean Gavin, on behalf of Phillip Hines, has appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to deny a front yard setback Variance for the
construction of single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) at the following location, to
wit;
2719 Spring Lake Road SW,
plo of Lot 3, Lot 4, and plo of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite,
Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has reviewed the application for the Variances as contained
in Case #03-135PC, held a public hearing, and upheld the Board of
Adjustment's decision hereon on December 1, 2003.
3. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health" safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The buildable area is 80 feet in width by 56 feet in depth, so the physical
conditions of the property in conjunction with the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance do not create practical difficulties or an undue hardship.
The applicant has recently been issued a building permit to construct a
dwelling, so it is evident that the conditions of the property do not preclude a
reasonable use from being constructed on the property without a Variance.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
5. The conditions applying to the land in question are not peculiar to this
property. All riparian lots that abut a public street are required to maintain
front, side, and shoreland setbacks.
6. The granting of the front yard setback Variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. A
building permit has recently been issued for the construction of a single family
dwelling on the property.
7. It appears as though the Variance will negatively impact public safety. There
is a public safety concern about accommodating a setback less than that
required by the Zoning Ordinance with the future reconstruction of CSAH 12.
Off-street parking may be an issue.
8. The granting of the Variance may unreasonably impact the character of the
neighborhood. It is presumed the adjacent structures with the nonconforming
setbacks will be demolished and new dwellings will be constructed in the
future, since both are riparian lots with houses constructed in the mid-1960s.
New dwellings must comply with required front, side and shoreland setbacks.
From this perspective, the granting of the Variance would impact the
development of the neighborhood. It would create a "new" average front yard
setback for the adjacent properties when they are rebuilt. This may not be an
ideal situation, since the properties abut CSAH 12, which is designated an
arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan and is scheduled to be upgraded
to an urban section in 2006. The ideal situation would be a 25 foot front yard
setback so adequate off-street parking area is available.
9. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and
undue concentration of structures and population be regulating the use of
land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding
them." This purpose is implemented through required minimum yard
setbacks. A Variance to reduce the required minimum front yard setback is
inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
10. The Variance will serve as convenience to the property owner because there
is no undue hardship. It is a preference for the property owner to locate the
house 13.6 feet from the front property line. This is not the only location for
the house as a the planning department has approved a plan for the
applicant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks.
11. The alleged hardship results directly from the actions of the property owner.
The buildable area of the lot is over 5,000 square feet. The applicant made
the decision to design and locate a dwelling that encroached into the front
yard setback.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc
2
12. The contents of Planning Case #03-135PC are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the
decision of the Planning Commission denying the following Variance, as shown
on Exhibit A- Certificate of Survey:
1. A 6.4 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback required in the R-1
(Low Density Residential) use district. (Section 1102.405 (4).)
Passed and adopted this 151 day of December, 2003.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution.doc
3
. _..."",,_,____..._'._._._.,.~___________,._..,..+_.,_._.,,__'O.....,.,...._ ...".~._,__~,~"~~____~._.__~.._*~_~._,..__,,__..___..'~;n',..='''.."~",.... ..._ _'_~~. '"'"*~"'_'~_'...__.d_.."_..._...._",.. ""._ ... _~ ,_..........~_,_~,_.""._.._,,__. ._.-. .,." ..."..__~._"." .____.,~_____._._..__"'_~~,.._..,__--~___._.______".__.~."_,_'.
~
ll.:
III ~
al ~R
'" ~",l:l
~~...~.!.
~!;!~11~
~~il~~
R I~
~~
~
~
I
~ I ~~
I !~
! II ~~
~ Rei
II ~t
I ,
1---
I
/
t>.;",~;
/
r-_
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
(>.
/
.i;:.........
...... "'?"'j. ,
., ~o.' Ii'
... ................... 1J
I ...... ....,... ,
, ",.z....::...:p /'
, '~.'
,
~
" ~
~ "-
"
'\ ~
~ ~
---
---
---
!tJ
---
---
---
---
C)
~i& "'"
---
!tJ
~
m
=
~
.."
t3
o
.,
<:>
"
.,
2 ~'ii I~ ~
~::~ i ~
.~ ~s'^ ~
!! ii?~ ,; ~
" to.... ,- ti ""l
~ Q. ~ 0 ~ t,,~
r ill ~llJ ~ 1
o ~~~ '" ~ ~
~ \. ~ ~ \1 ~ ~ ~
" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
<t ...:n~ l\~~g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~E ~ I ~ ~ 0"1 "6
~~ ~~~ ~I~ ~ :~
.. "~~ ~ \ ~'" ~ ~ ~
~ ti il ~~~ \, 11' 'b t 'b 0
~ ~ ; ~~;/; i ;
~&. _Q.o~ ~ QQ
'\
1
I
.~
I
J
~l
~-;.",-
~
I:l -.
~
~
",.
~
~t~..
!~~ i i
-t. bI
~ ~I i ~~
"- ~..
. t, ~~.
~t. ,,'
}llf~l ~ ~
t" h 1 ~ ~ ~
CHI.. =l' f1
tLJJ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.. ~ :! :! . II
U_~h : 1 ~ ~ I!
t it~~~ ~ I i h I
l!t!U ~. ~ : ~ I
..~ ~. I . ~ 4 ~
.&_; ~ ~ t , ~
~ H!~t h ~ H = ~
~ ~ i'i l;.. f'" II I ~
~ ,rh~ ~j
~ ':~H~ ri I" i
~ l)!<!..~ ~ tt t t ~ I!
~ ht..i~ ~ ..; a a .. Q ~
h~g~t I ~ ~
"~ifl ~
.... r tit ere to" ft
g ..l!t~~
l ~! ~;:>
~ !i~ii
~ :il~~
~ "
"l 0 0Q)<!) "
-
I:l
~
tJ
i
~ I
~ ~ a
~ cil ~
~~ ~L.~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ g i I I I
~I D,@I
I
~I ~:a
~ ~~
i. !II
EXHIBIT A
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC .." ,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ...:.:1 ~ lS tJ '\:.1 ~_
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL ./, I U
P.O. BOX 67 ~. i I
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 '. i i\\ I ll:f 3 I. III Iii
(952) 447-2131 :U lit l!t i
Fax: (952) 447-5628 i I
Writer's email address:idb\a?priorlakelaw.com
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
October 30, 2003
Mr. Donald R. Rye
Prior Lake Planning Director
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Re: Phillip Hines - Application For Variance
Case File 03-114
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the October 27,
2003, action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Hines' variance application for
construction of a single family dwelling on their property.
Please forward me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and any further
staff reports prepared for the City Council meeting as they become available. Thank you
for your assistance.
Ve~fY. truly yours,
~ ". :a 1/'._____"
'- /t!J ,'# -- ._-
Dean G. Gavin
DGG:dm
cc: Phillip Hines
.
Location Map for
Hines Variance
1~--JI . I T
Spring Lake
< I
I
I
I
I
I
j
200
I
o
200
400 Feet
I
+
~
Cl;
b! ~
a~ ~R
\)I!!~~lq
~~..::'i.t
!t!~~~~
~~~:S~
R ;~
~;
~ I I
~
I
~ I ~~
h'i;
! " ~~
__ R~
" ~ll:
i ~~ R ll!
.S t, ~ i ~
,~~~~ ..
.; ""~ :Ii !
"i ~&: ~ E ...
E "~. ~~~
~ '~r · ~
! M I u~ i
; l~~ \ ;) ~ ~
~ ~!~ r-. \ ~ ~ }
C). ,-;)1) 1\~~~
~ ~o~ -Ii' = I 'f
!~ tn ~"'~ ~ "'11
. " "l'~ l! \ .. j! :: ~
e: f ~a ' a ~ ~
~ 0' ~ t~ \ \. ~ ~ ~
:d. ::~.~ . ~ ~~
II
!
i.." " /
I
I
I
I
'''''' / /
.: ,/'
.. $'
'~~..{ I
r-_
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
(>,
/
,,-=-........
. I
........ "?.... ~ ...
..... .:> 0..." /t..
I ....... ......:<7.,. ........ -.
, ... ,<Io":~~f> I'
" '-:,-'
,
..
~
" <:I
\
~ ...
,
~ ~
~ ~
---
---
---
It:
---
---
1---
---
I
I
l>-';<~'
---
---
/
---
ii; ....
()
It)
:'ll
octJ
~
~ ..
<:I
" \
..
~ <:I
\
'II
<:I
..
<:I
...
..
~
~
\j
~
~
i
i!H)
~ ~-i' i ~~
ii~t~l
ilif~i A A
&~. P I ~ I ~
tlH~t ~ ~ ~ R
'hl~~ ~ ~ I R
iil~~l a f jilt
It!!1J J l! l ~ I
~la ~ ~) . ~ I
i!f.n ; 'a. P
I . ~ it; t i _ R ~
~ ~ It!}~ i~ 1- II ~ ~
~ ':~t.~ ;t II ~
~ l)!~f~ ~ 11 ! ! R
~ i;it~f i .;: a a .l i ~
~ I:~!!~ I
S .lUHf
\j
I
tl
i
"' ~ ~~
l",",!j~ ~~ ~J~A
~ !:~ii ~~ ~~t5
~ : i I I I I ! ! _~ i I I I
8oo0\!' t .1 D', ! IS\ I
~ III" '--T~
I
~ ~l:!
:1 i Ii
o · ~ ~i
I I~
. . 0
-
:~~.,;,::,',~i?1.,~~ " ~.~.
":. ;tt,~, ;,,<.~;i.~,:i~~:Jf
~. . ~. ..
,~;. .....t..-
.-
.
.; "
'~,~:
.[{if!
'It:~:.
.,.,: I' !II:
"~"::,'._,',::: !/i.~
: {~~~~~~.
-..., .
. ,.. ~.
'!. .."'~-:.:' '. . .
.. . '" :;, ~ .;~ ..
,. -.~",,:,. . '. .
~:~)~-iti:~~.!.: .~{'
'~., :{':.::........::~; '."
';...S.'r~i.;;;' .~;
,.-.";;'
. r..,
'.; ,t; i-t,J..
L',..
~ .:. - .. # .
.
HOUSE PLANS
, /;.~~,21'~{f'
. "'<
,~"~~:~
',_OJ
:~"'/1
"
.1._...._('.
'~.. \ '.
SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
lSCott
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST. JORDAN. MN 55352-9339
(952) 496-8346' Fax: (952) 496-8365' www.co.scott.mn.us
LEZLlE A. VERMILLION
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BRADLEY J. LARSON
COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER
November 19,2003
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Request
2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Dear Cynthia:
We have reviewed the variance request and offer the following comments:
. As you are aware, CSAH 12 is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2006. At this time the County does not have
any plans to vacate any existing right-of-way in this area of the variance request. Our consultant for the project
has informed us that the preliminary design shifts the road to the south. However, it also indicates no need for
additional right-of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
~%
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
..
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK61F 1 \PL2719splkroad.doc
.,
OWNER:
SITE ADDRESS:
APPEAL OF:
CASE FILE:
DATE:
Phillip Hines
2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW
RESOLUTION 03-011PC
03-114
November 26,2003
PROCEDURE/HISTORY
Phillip Hines (owner) requested a variance from the front yard set back on the
above referenced case. The variance request was heard at the Planning Commission
Meeting on October 27, 2003. After hearing, the request was denied per Resolution 03-
011PC. Mr. Hines now appeals that decision.
FACTS
In the Planning Report (hereinafter "Report") Section II. BACKGROUND,
paragraph two (2) states "The building permit will be issued prior to the Board of
Adjustment taking action on the request." Also, at the hearing Ms. Kirchoff advised the
Planning Commission (hereinafter Commission) that "-- the applicant has already applied
for a building permit and it will be issued shortly." See attached as Exhibit A a true and
correct transcript of the October 27, 2003 meeting, page 6 Lines 9-10. To date the City
has not issued a building permit.
In the Report section III. DISCUSSION paragraph D. indicates that the "[s]taff
encouraged the applicant to request Scott County vacate a portion of the right-of-way."
There was discussion of this at the hearing where Ms. Atwood asked "... that you ask the
county to vacate part of the right-or-way. Did you meet with them at all or did you
consider that option?" See Exhibit A page 12, Line 25 and page 13, Lines 1-2.
Mr. Hines answered "Yes, I did. And of course their answer was well, until we
formalize our plans we're not going to do anything with the land." See Exhibit A page
13, Lines 3-5.
What was not made part of the Report or the hearing was the fact that Gregory
Ilkka, Assistance Scott County Highway Engineer, E-mailed Ms. Kirchoff on October 21,
2003 and stated that "What would seem to make sense is that the variance is considered
from the property line, as platted, and not from the existing County Highway. In the
context of doing that, look at the other properties in the vicinity, and as long as the
variance doesn't put the structure closer to the property line than any existing structures
in the area, then it probably won't create a hardship for the County Highway
reconstruction." See Attached as Exhibit B a true and correct copy of the E-mail
transmission received from Greg Ilkka.
Mr. Hines believes that this information should have been given to the
Commission in light of the testimony at the hearing by Mr. Monnens who stated, "You
know, the neighbor next door on the left side of this house is like 6.6 from the garage
door to the property line. And the neighbor on the right is 9 foot 3. I mean, we're sitting
back now at 20 feet, we'd like to go to 13.4. I mean, we're back less than what they are
on the two sides right now." See Exhibit A page 16, Lines 20-25 and Page 17, Line 1.
The County has clarified its position as to this variances impact on the CSAH 12
project in subsequent communications to the City. Ms. Kirchoff received an E-mail from
Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner on the CSAH 12 project. See attached a true and
correct copy as Exhibit C. This letter states that there is "... no need for additional right-
of-way beyond the existing right-of-way at this address."
Mr. Hines also received an E-mail message of November 19, 2003 from Greg
Ilkka stating "... Another point, we have evaluated the situation enough to feel
comfortable in saying the CSAH 12 reconstruction project would not be impacted by the
granting of your variance. I don't fully understand the City's reasons for not granting the
variance, but I want to be sure they don't claim it's due to the impending reconstruction
of CSAH 12." See attached a true and correct copy as Exhibit D.
This indicates that the Commission was not fully informed of the contact with the
County and the Counties position on granting a variance to Mr. Hines.
Section IV. ANALYSIS.
Section A. 1. In a conclusive manner, finds that no undue hardship exists because
"The applicant has recently been issued a building permit ..." However, as indicated
before, no building permit has been issued to date.
Section A. 2. The conditions are peculiar here in that this area is scheduled for a
highway improvement project. The road light-of-way is larger than necessary thereby
encroaching further onto Mr. Hines property than necessary. If the right-of-way was
established, Mr. Hines is confident that he would gain property on his front yard and
most likely would not need a variance. However, at this time the County is unwilling to
vacate said property. Thereby creating a peculiar condition to Mr. Hines property
establishing a hardship.
Section A. 3. Once again states that a building permit has been issued. This is not
correct.
Section A. 4. The report states that granting the variance "will negatively impact
public safety." And that "off-street parking may be an issue." However, neither one of
these issues is supported by any fact. There is no evidence on the record, in the Report,
or anywhere else to support these findings.
Section A. 5. Of the Report states that "The granting of the Variance may
unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood. II This is contrary to the
testimony of the neighbor Randy Nelson. See Exhibit A page 16, Lines 6-15. The
testimony of Mr. Monnens, as indicated previously herein and the testimony of Mr.
Hines. Once again there is no evidence presented by the City to substantiate this claim.
Also, the city speculates that the houses on either side "with non-conforming
setbacks will be demolished and new buildings will be constructed in the future, ..." This
is completely speculative. There is no evidence that this will happen. A blanket statement
not supported by any fact(s) cannot be used to support the Commission's action.
Once again, off-street parking is eluded to without stating what the current status
of off-street parking is? How it would be effected if the variance was granted? Or how
granting the variance negatively impacts off-street parking. The report determines,
without factual support, that "the ideal situation would be a 25 foot front yard setback so
adequate off-street parking area is available." Once again the contentions in the Report
are not supported by any facts.
Section A. 7. This paragraph states that a building permit has been issued thereby
summarily finding that "no undue hardship" exits.
RESOLUTION 03-011PC
FINDINGS:
1. Mr. Hines does not contest the findings in paragraph 1.
2. Mr. Hines does not contest the findings in paragraph 2.
3. Mr. Hines believes that if these criteria were considered by the Commission, that
there were NO facts presented in either the Report or at the hearing to support
such a finding.
4. This finding is not accurate in that per the transcript of the hearing Exhibit A
page 4, Lines 12-13 Ms. Kirchoff admits that the Building Permit has not been
issued. Mr. Hines has not been issued a building permit to date. Also, Mr. Hines
believes that the fact that his property adjoins CSAH 12 and thereby creating a
unique and artificial shallowness to his property, does create a particular and
practical difficulty and an undue hardship at this time.
5. This finding does not set forth the correct facts in this situation. Mr. Hines
variance request denial seems to be predicated upon the fact that the City does
not want to grant a variance since there is a project scheduled for improvements
to CSAH 12 in 2006. His inability to use his property is peculiar due to the
uncertainty of the highway project. However, communications from the County to
6.
the City were left out of the Report and record, as well as, subsequent
communications to the City that the granting of the variance will not effect the
CSAH 12 project. See attached Exhibits B, C, and D.
Once again this finding is incorrect in that no building permit has been issued. ~
Since Mr. Hines is unable to build a home that was in the design stage for two (2)
years a substantial right for enjoyment is effected by the denial of the valiance.
7.
This paragraph is not supported by ANY EVIDENCE either in the Report or
record. The statements made in the Report are completely unfounded nor
supported by any evidence. The future reconstruction of CSAH 12 has been
addressed previously herein. See Exhibits B, C, and D.
8.
This finding is not supported by any evidence. It is pure speculation by the City
about the neighboring houses being torn down in the future. This is unsupported
by any facts. This is the City's attempt to down play the fact that Mr. Hines house
would be set back further than the houses on either side of his even if the
variance were granted. See Exhibit A page 11, Lines 23-25, Page 16, Lines 20-25,
and Page 17, Line 1. The City was informed by the County on October 21, 2003
that if Mr. Hines house was situated behind the neighboring properties, the
granting of Mr. Hines variance would not effect the CSAH 12 project. See
attached Exhibit B. This information was never given to the Commission.
There were no facts in either the Report or the hearing describing the off-street
parking currently at this location. The finding is only that granting the variance
will possibly effect off-street parking due to the CSAH 12 project. However, as
pointed out above, the information in Exhibit B refuting this proposition was
never presented to the Commission. Therefore, the findings under this paragraph
are completely speculative and not supported by any facts.
9. This finding is inconsistent with the fact that the Ordinance relied upon allows the
City the power to grant a variance. The testimony by Mr. Hines, Mr. Monnens,
and the neighbor Mr. Nelson was unrefuted. All of these parties testified that
granting the variance will not negatively effect the character of the neighborhood
or be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
10. Once again the finding is incorrect in that a building permit has not been issued.
With the circumstances of the impending CSAH 12 project Mr. Hines has lost the
ability to utilize his property in the way that he chooses which is a reasonable use
i.e. building a single family dwelling.
11. The City seems to rely upon the CSAH 12 project for denial of the variance. The
request is not for a convenience to Mr. Hines. The complexity of the CSAH 12
project and its limitation and artificial shallowing of Mr. Hines property is not a
creation of Mr. Hines. In light of the substantial property values in this area it is
incumbent upon the land owner to build a home that will enhance the property
-----'---r-
and be in harmony with the neighborhood and community as a whole. This has
been Mr. Hines goal from the outset.
12. Mr. Hines does not dispute this paragraph, however, MI:. Hines believes that not
all of the pertinent information, especially that contained in Exhibit B was
presented.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Mr. Hines variance request was submitted under and denied based upon Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinance Section 1108.400 which is quoted in the Staff Report as such:
"Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application
of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the Use District in which said lot is located."
The Commission made its' findings that there was no undue hardship to Mr.
Hines and denied his variance request by adopting Resolution 03-011PC.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals set forth the standard for reviewing such a
decision stating that "[w]e examine the action to determine whether it was arbitrary or
capricious, or whether the reasons articulated by the municipality do not have the
slightest validity or bearing on the general welfare, or whether the reasons were legally
sufficient and had a factual basis." Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, et aI, 610 N.W.2d 697,
701 (Minn.App. 2000).
The Court Of Appeals has also interpreted the undue hardship standard stating
"Rowell makes it clear that the three statutory requirements for granting a variance
under the undue hardship standard are (1) reasonableness, (2) unique circumstances and
(3) essential character of the locality." Id.
.-'-.-------r-- r
"The first requirement is that the property cannot be put to reasonable use
without the variance." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn.App.
1989). "Thus, we read the first part of the definition of undue hardship as requiling a
showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner
that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id.
"An exemption from a setback requirement is an area variance." Id.
Here Mr. Hines is requesting a reasonable use of his area. This use is to construct
a single family dwelling. Strict enforcement of the Ordinance would not allow Mr. Hines
said use.
"The second requirement is that the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner." Id.
Here the CSAH 12 project and road right-of-way have caused Mr. Hines to be
unable to utilize his entire property in a manner consistent with the Ordinance.
The Ordinance states by "reason of shallowness" undue hardship can be found.
Based upon the evidence and testimony in this matter, it is clear that the lot is artificially
shallow because of th arbitrary nature of the road right-of-wa This condition was not
created or caused by Mr. Hines.
Also, the houses on either side of Mr. Hines are closer to CSAH 12 than Mr.
Hines house will be even if he is granted the variance. This circumstance was once again
not created by Mr. Hines. If Mr. Hines is required to build per the setback of 20 feet his
.
view and use of light and air will be effected negatively by the neighboring houses.
"The third requirement for undue hardship is that the variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality." Id. If the variance were granted herein, Mr.
Hines home would be set back further than either of the homes next to his. Mr. Hines
home will be built per the specifications and requirements of any building permit that
may be issued and with the intent of having a nice family home that is consistent within
the neighborhood and community.
Also, per the testimony at the hearing, there is a new home that was buifve
doors down from the Hines property that is closer to CSAH 12 even without a variance.
This suggests that CSAH 12 imparts a unique character to Mr. Hines property precluding
UvltLu ~ ~.
him the reasonable use of his property.
CONCLUSION
~ Mr. Hines contends that he has meet the legal standard, as set forth above, by the
~ ~innesota Court of Appeals for the City to grant his variance request. Mr. Hines is
~ requesting a reasonable use of his property not allowed by the Ordinance. The condition
of Mr. Hines property is effected by its proximity to CSAH 12 which uniquely and
artificially renders this lot shallow. This does cause Mr. Hines an undue hardship which
was not created by Mr. Hines. The Hines home, when built, will conform to the essential
character of the location.
~ As well, the findings and the record supporting the Resolution which denied Mr.
~ Hines variance, are replete with either factual inaccuracies or are not supported by any
<< facts at all. This wonld lead to a determination, npon review, that the decision was
~. arbitrary and caplicious.
The Commission was not given all of the information that the City had received
from the County. See Exhibit B. As well, there are new communications from the County
clarifying that granting Mr. Hines variance will not affect the CSAH 12 project, which
1
seemed to be the greatest concern of the Commission members.
Mr. Hines would respectfully request that in light of the circumstance outlined
above that the Council reconsider his variance request and grant the same.
Dated:
/ I j-z-r;
I
,2003
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
~~"~
Dean G. Gavin, #0246803
Attorneys for Mr. Hines
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 447-2131
< 1
_-.:- ~~.W ..L
2
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27; 2003
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~ ~13
!
'. -
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The following is the transcript of a
tape of the Planning Commission Meeting transcribed
by Sara Jane Wyckoff, Notary Public, Court Reporter,
.on November 21, 2003. The meeting was held on
14 October 27, 2003.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
CfO)wJWj
EXH~BIT .A
Page 1
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
, I
I
,
r.
I
i
I
!
l.
,
!
!
T
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES AS LISTED ON MINUTES:
2 Commissioners:
3 Atwood
Criego
4 Lemke
Ringstad
5 Starnson
6 Also Present:
7 Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner
8 Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
'Connie Carlson, Recording Secretary
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
----.--'-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1:1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
---
***
MS. KIRCHOFF:
single family
dwelling on property located at 2719 Spring Lake
Road Southwest. Specifically the applicant is
requesting a 6.4 foot variance from the required 20
foot front yard setback in the R-l district.
As the survey indicates the property
was platted as part of the Spring Lake town site in
the 1850s. Access to the site is gained via ~pring
Lake Road or County_ Road 12. The survey indicates
that the road surface is 56 feet from their property
line as you can note from the overhead. However,
portions of this county road were not actually
constructed in the dedicated right-of-way. Just to
note, this roadway is scheduled for reconstruction
in 2006, and Scott County is currently in the design
phase of that construction.
The site is currently void of
structu'res, of t;:he existing -- or the prevlous home
was demolished from the site. There is a 220 square
on the property. It lS
owever, the applicant is not
-")
or remove it as part of this
-
application. As long as it remains there it's a
legal nonconforming structure.
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
Page 3
Page 4
As noted the applicant was issued a
demolition permit and did demolish the house on the
'applicant, did apply for a building permit to
~-~
~??
~~
construct a dwelling on this property. The Planning
Department did approve the building permit ~ ~
application because the house did meet all the ~\~
site.
And on September 15 of this year the
...
'7
s~tbacks.--The applicant subsequently applied for ~\
this ~ariance to allow front yard setback to be 13.6
feet. The staff report noted the building permit
would be issued prior to the Planning Commission
taking action on this request. It's not been issued
at this time. There is -- the staff's understanding
that there is an issue with the utility connection,
but the building permit will be issued' shortly.
In order to construct the 4,500 square
-
,-
foot single family dwelling on the property the
-
~ -
applicant is requesting a 6.4 foot front yard
setback variance. The zoning ordinance does require
a 25 foot front yard setback~ However, there is a
provision In the ordinance that does allow the front
yard setback to be averaged, and that average is
those -- taken from those buildings that are within
150 feet of the subject site. The setback cannot be
anything less -than 20 feet. However, the average
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
Page 5
setback in this instance is ,just over 18 feet so the
required front yard setback would be 20 feet.
The buildable area for this property lS
80 feet in width by 56 feet in depth and the
proposed dwelling is 68 feet in width and just over
64 feet in depth at its deepest point including the
porch that's noted right there.
Prior to the varlance application the
9 applicant had spoken with staff along with a builder
10 and expressed concern about the width of the
11 right-of-way. It has noted the actual roadway
12 surface is not constructed within the platted
13 right-of-way of County Road 12 s6 there "is not an
I
14 excess of right-of-way. The front yard setback's
15 measured from the property line not from the roadway
16 so that existing roadway location is really
17 irrelevant.
18 As noted Scott County is in a design
19 phase of County Road 12, and the right-of-way needs
20 have yet to be determined, but it's the City's
21 understanding that the design calls for an urban
22 section which would include curb and gutter as well
23 as a trail.
24 The terms of the varlance hardship'
25 findings as noted the buildable area is substantial
1
i~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
1
\-------c-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i
\
, "
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so the physical conditions of the property in
conjunction with the strict application of the front
yard setback do not create a hardship for the
applicant and the applicant will be issued a
building permit to construct this home on this site.
The granting of the front yard setback
varlance lS not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the property rights of the owner being
that their -- the applicant has al~eady applied for
a building permit and it will be issued shortly.
The applicant's request merely serves
as a convenience. There is no undue hardship. It's
merely a preference to locate the house 13.6 feet
from the property line, not -- it's not necessary to
allow a home to be constructed on the site. The
alleged hardship does result from the actions of the
property owner. There lS a substantial buildable
area and the applicant made a decision to design and
locate the dwelling that encroaches into the front
yard setback.
In conclusion, the applicant would like
to construct a single family home on the property
that's zoned to R-l and 3D. In order to do such the
applicant believes a front yard setback variance lS
required. The strict application of the required
Page 6
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722)
1
~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Page 7
setback does not preclude the property owner from
making a reasonable use of the property. Therefore,
staff does recommend denial of the application.
The Planning Commission does have three
alternatives with this request. The first is to
approve the variance, the second is to table, the
third is to deny the application. And as noted,
s~aff does recommend alternative three In the action
that's required this evening is a motion and a
second to adopt the resolution denying the variance
request.
Thank YOUj and I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
14 MR. STAMSON: I'm still slightly
15 confused about the building permit versus needing
16 the variance. The house can be located on the
17 property. Isn't it 30 feet from the water line?
18 How does he get the 13 feet back?
19 MS. KIRCHOFF: This porch lS not --
20 there is a deck on the house rather than a porch.
21 So the house has just been shifted to the 20 foot
22 setback, and I believe the deck was not actually
23 included with the building permit, but it shows a
24 future deck on the survey and that is I believe 6
25 feet in depth. But the house that's- proposed on
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722)
----..-.--..-. T
/1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(
\ ,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this survey can be accommodated on the lot without
any varlances.
MR. STAMSON: So it's the deck that's
causlng the
MS. KIRCHOFF: Well, it's the porch
that's shown right here.
MR. STAMSON: Porch In this case.
MS. KIRCHOFF: Yep.
MR. STAMSON: Really they couldn't
build a deck there either because it would be closer
to the 50 foot walk. They'd be closer than 50 feet;
correct?
MS. KIRCHOFF: Well, it's shown on the
survey that was submitted with the building permit.
I don't know if there was a change of design but I
believe it's the same plan.
MS. KANSIER: They could do an
excuse me. They could do a platform deck. They
couldn't do a --
MR. STAMSON: Oh, because it's not a
,
walkout.
MS. KIRCHOFF: And I don't know if it's
a second story deck or just
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
We don't have
Page 8
an (inaudible) foundation.
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
.
1
Page 9
MS. KIRCHOFF: Mr. Chair
~
2
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I missed the
3 depth of the property. Could you share that with me
4 again?
5
MS. KIRCHOFF: The depth of the
6 property. The survey shows that the property lS 130
7 feet in depth on this property line and 129 feet on
8 this property line.
9
10
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
MS. KIRCHOFF: And Mr. Chair, if staff
11 could just reiterate, the house is just shifted back
12 6 feet so the proposed por~h is reduced to a 6 foot
13 depth so it does meet the required setbacks. It's
14 just a 6 foot difference.
15
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
16 (Inaudible) .
17
18
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sure.
MR. RINGSTAD: The bank that I work at
19 has a mortgage on this property, so for that reason
20 I'm-not going to be participating in any discussion
21
22
23
or voting. So please take note of that.
MR. STAMSON: Okay.
MR. RINGSTAD: Thanks.
MR. STAMSON: Thanks, Torn. With that
I'll invite the applicant up to --
24
25
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
1
L-.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
\
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10
MR. HINES: Good evening. My name is
Phil Hines. I live at 2719 Spring Lake Road. I'm
the owner of the property in question. I'd like to
add a little clarity to some of the points here. In
fact, we -- we applied for the variance at the same
time, that we applied for the building permit. As
we're getting late into the season and with the
discussion with the builder, to expedite the process
we took off the deck essentially, modified the deck
so that it would conform so we could get through
that part of the process as we went along.
Essentially I'm here to avoid the situation that the
previous couple got into in doing this. Again, we
applied for the building permit so that we could get
that part of it gOlng so should you decide In our
favor on this we wouldn't have to wait another 60
days and then miss the building season. And we do
-- would like to intend to do this yet this year.
As Cindy had mentioned, we're looking
for the additional 6 feet that's required to put a
deck up agalnst the lakeside setback and still build
the house as designed. I think it's pretty common
knowledge and if you look on the survey you'll see
the houses In all directions have decks on the
lakeside. And in fact, if you built a house that
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA(722)
.
1
,
\-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Page 11
wouldn't -- on the lake that wouldn't allow a deck
you would see some diminished value and some issue
to that.
The question about the road setback was
not that they had more right-of-way than they were
entitled to, it just happens to be offset and so
what happens lS it pushes our lot line closer to us.
And I'd like to have you take a look at another
house here. This is a new home that lS constructed
five doors down from where I'm proposing to build.
The distance from the ordinary hot water line to the
road is approximately the same, it's a couple of
feet. If you'll note, their road setback or their
14 property line lS considerably closer to the road
15 than ours lS, and therefore this point didn't
16 require a variance. ~ But in fact, their front
17 structure, their bui10ing is going to be 17 feet
18 closer to the road than ours, than our proposed is
19 going to be.
20 So regardless of what the county does
21 with the road, whether they move it this way or that
22 way or off center they're always going to be 17 feet
23 closer. In addition to that, the neighbors on
24 either side of us will sit closer to the road than
25 what is proposed here. And I mentioned that in
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722)
1
.
1
\------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
addressing some of the concerns of the Planning
Commission.
Let's see if there is anything else I
needed to -- there was a note in the letter that we.
were looking for in addition to the setback from the
road, there was a .3 foot variance additional side
setback, and I don't think that's required. I think
we've already relocated the house to address that.
Can you put back up the survey? As
Cindy had mentioned, it's 56 feet from the road to
the front of the property line there. And as you
can see, all the neighbors and anyone else too, if
owr fence is built out into the right-of-way the
water -- the water shutoffs are out into the
right-of-way.
Again, we're not asking to go beyond
the property line itself but just to encroach on the
setback 6 feet when we have an additional 56 feet to
the road.
With that I guess if you have any
questions I'd be happy to answer them.
MS. ATWOOD: I do.
MR. STAMSON: Yes, Margaret.
MS. ATWOOD: Somewhere In my reading'it
was suggested by-staff that you ask the county to
Page 12
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
'T
i
i
\--
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,22
23
24
25
Page 13
vacate part ot the right-ot-way. Did you meet with
them at all or did you consider that an option?
MR. HINES: Yes, I did. And of course
their answer was well, until we formalize- our plans
we're not going to do anything with the land. What
they did tell me lS that they would expand the road
to create the least impact on the existing
structures. And given that, they couldn't come very
far toward my property without cutting off both my
neighbors. And as you go farther to the west, if
they came a full 10 feet toward us we would have
people who would~'~ have a full car's parking spot
in their driveway. So it's unlikely that they'll do
that. And the property lines runs of course
straight across and the road arches out around. For
them to get anywhere close to us they'd have to arch
around and then go straight across our property line
and then continue arching around the lake which I
also think is not a likely scenarlO.
I did discuss the possibility of
vacating that and he said no way to tell you whether
we'll do that at this point, but the fact that it's
there and we're unable to use that space creates
this lssue. If in fact they didn't use it and would
give us 6 feet we wouldn't even be having this
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
-'-_._._'~-'-'
Page 14
conversation because we're far enorigh away from the
road structure and everything on that side of the
property.
I guess as far as I know there is no
objections of any of my neighbors to it. In fact,
one of my neighbors is here tonight to I believe
to indicate that he's in support of it and he is
directly across the road from us. So he would be
9 the most impacted by this.
10 MR. CRIEGO: Mr. Chair?
11 MR. STAMSON: Sure.
12 MR. CRIEGO: One question. Why didn't
13 you build a house smaller? Take 6 feet off of it?
14 MR. HINES: Well, there are several
15 reasons.
16 MR. CRIEGO: Pretty big home.
17 MR. HINES:' It's a fairly large home.
18 But at the same time, it is essentially the same
19 footprint as the one I showed you in the depth
20 direction. It's fairly common now to build a 28
21 foot deep house. That's pretty much the standard.
22 And if you put a 12 foot deck on it and then add a
23 garage to it this is how wide you get to. If you
24 try to skinny down it, you know, you're impacting
25 value. One of the issues that we ran up against
Pat Car~ & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
._----~
11
~'
2
3
4
5
Page 15
here was that the lot values are such that you have
to build a pretty good house on it to keep the home
value to the lot value within the ratios that are
normally implied to mortgages.
MR. CRIEGO: Seems to me you could
6 build your garage a little differently In
7 relationship to your main home.
8
MR. HINES: I respectfully disagree
9 with you. We've got through this process. We've
10 been in the design process for going on two years
11 trying to get a house that meets the Slze
12 requirements and still fits together with the layout
.13 of the additional -- the neighbors and . . .
14
MR. CRIEGO: What's the square footage
15 of the home itself without the garages?
16
MR. HINES: I don't know exactly.
17 Mark, do you know what .that is?
18
19.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:. 1,800.
MR. HINES: 1,800 square feet,
20 something like that.
21
MR. CRIEGO: The first level lS 1,800.
-22 It's got a second story?
23
24
MR. HINES: It's a walkout rambler.
MR. CRIEGO: Walkout. So it's 18 and
25 18, huh. Thank you.
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
---'---r'-
Page 16
MR. HINES: Uh-huh.
MR. STAMSON: Any further comments or
questions? I'll open the floor to public comment
then. Thanks. Anybody here to speak please step
forward and state your name and address~
MR. NELSON: Good evening. My name lS
Randy Nelson. I live at 2738 Spring Lake Road
directly across the street that the Hines residence.
'And I don't think there would be any neighbor more
impacted by whatever he does on that property than
I. When I look out my front window what I see is
Phil's house, the house that used to be there and
now the new house. And I'd just like to make it
perfectly clear that I have absolutely no objection
to his request for a variance. Thanks.
MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MONNENS: My name is Mark Monnens.
I live at 4070 Eau Claire Circle in Prior Lake. I'm
the builder on this thing here. Just a couple
questions on -- that I have on here. You know, the
neighbor next door on the left side of this house is
like 6.6 from its garage door to the property line.
And the neighbor on the right lS 9 foot 3. I mean,
we're sitting back now at 20 feet, we'd like to go
to 13.4. I mean, -we're back less than what they are
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
1
L--
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
\
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25-
.'
Page 17
on the two sides right now. And what we'd like to
do is put a porch on here. If we can't put a porch
on here now and a year and a half from now we get a
variance not a variance but we get, you know, the
property In front, the 40 feet In front taken back
to the homeowner it's not going to help us much to
put a porch on at that time. We can only put on a 6
foot deck. There is a lot of room on this property
it's just it's gotta get vacated back to the
homeowner. It's been sitting-like this for probably
15 years or so. So we're trying to get it now so we
can have a porch on it at this time now, otherwise
we're limited to what we can do. Thank you.
MR. STAMSON: Anybody else care to
speak? Being the case I'll close the public hearing
and move to commissioner comments. Commissioner
Atwood, care to start?
MS. ATWOOD: Thank you. I have to
support staff on this. I agree, I saw the property
and I agree that there lS, you know, the feeling and
visual ~pace that would should allow this and
because of the road and the right-of-way. However,
the two neighbors on either side as staff suggested
in their report, it is presumed that they -- there
will probably be new dwellings on those properties
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 59l-9PCA (722)
11
,,---
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at some point. And I guess I'm just saying that
just to address Mr. Monnens' comment. I just can't
find a proven hardship and think that back at the
drawing board you could shave 6 feet off. So I
support staff.
MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Lemke.
MR. LEMKE:- Thank you. You know, I
think the gentleman should be able to build this
house given the room,. but I don't think this 1S the
forum for it. I too can't find the hardship or
practical difficulty considering the size. It's not
an unreasonable size, but what's unreasonable here
to me is the amount of land that is being -- that is
being taken in an essence by this right-of-way when
I don't think the road in any practical sense 1S
ever gonna impact his lot. But like I say, I. don't
think this body is going to be able to correct that.
I wish I could somehow, but I'm going to have to
support staff.
MR. STAMSON: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Criego.
MR. CRIEGO: I agree with the other
commlSS1oners. The lot I believe is large enough to
put a nice home on. My take is if they redo some of
Page 18
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
Page 19
the garage where the garage is versus where it is
now they could probably shave off 6 feet and still
have their porch, their deck. I don't see any
hardship here.
MR. STAMSON: Thank you. I have to
agree. I think this is another -- the hardship here
is created by the design. There is plenty of
building pad there to put a house in. And I just
don't see, you know, as the ordinance applies a
hardship. I think the applicant's right that the
county road being placed where it is is somewhat
unusual. And as Vaughan mentioned I think probably
the forum for that addressing that is with the
county. They've got the right-of-way. If they want
to vacate some to allow this and depending on their
design that's probably not unreasonable, but I don't
think that's for us to do and I really don't think
-- we have looked at some smaller front yard
setbacks, but generally they're on fairly small
streets along the lake, small residential streets
and here we're talking about a county road. And I
guess without, you know, some input from the county
or, you know, the design process being complete I'm
just not comfortable imposing on the county
right-of-way that way. I think the appFopriate
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
- ._.."._---_.,~-_.._.-~..__.._,~"~~
I
Page 20
forum for this is that if you want to use that space
up front is to get a vacation from the county. And
as Commissioner Atwood me'ntioned, you know, the
houses next door are closer but w~re built quite
awhile ago and they'll be facing the same situation
at some point if it's going to be
if they're
going to be redeveloped. I think that's probably
something that, you know, especially since the
county is in design review right now of that project
it's probably a good time to approach them, you
know, as, you know, pretty much all the property
owners down that whole stretch. Maybe you can solve
the whole thing right in one fail swoop. But I
don't think this a variance is appropriate or the
correct forum for (inaudible). So I will not
support this as well.
With that open it to any further
comments. Anybody have any other comments? No.
That being the case I'll support a motion. Does
somebody care to make a motion?
MR. CRIEGO: I'll make that motion
adopting resolution 03011PC deny{ng the 6.5 front
yard setback variance for the construction of a
single family dwelling.
MR. STAMSON: Okay. I have a motion by
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
1
'1
, -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 -
Page 21
Commissioner Criego. Do I have a second?
MR. ATWOOD: I'll second.
MR. STAMSON: A second by Commissioner
Atwood. Any further discussion? All those in favor
vote aye.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Aye.
MR. STAMSON: All those opposed. And
the resolution passes 4 to 0 with Commissioner
Ringstad abstaining.
And agaln, this can be appealed to the
City Council and by any effective party within five
calendar days.
MS. KIRCHOFF: Mr. Chair, just as an
FYI, Mr. Hines, I know he may probably already be
aware there is an open house on the County Road 12
project tomorrow night at Bipox (phonetic)
Elementary School from just a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible. )
MS. KIRCHOFF: Be a good opportunity
for you to talk to them.
***
MR. STAMSON:
Then we'll move to
agenda item 5C.
MS. KIRCHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Planning Commission. Tim and Jane McCoy are
Pat Carl & Associates (763) 591-0535 or (800) 591-9PCA (722)
Page 1 of2
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek
From:
To:
Cc:
"lIkka, Gregory" <Gllkka@co.scott.mn.us>
<ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com>
"Jenson, Craig" <CJenson@co.scott.mn.us>; "McDermott, Sue"
<smcdermott@cityofpriorlake.com>; "Osmundson, Bud" <bosmundson@cityofpriorlake.com>
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11 :04 AM
RE: CSAH 12
Sent:
Subject:
Cynthia -
I reviewed the fax you sent Craig and the right-of-way information that our
consultant has put together for the CSAH 12 project. This address is in an
area where the existing road is not within the platted right-of-way, and
unfortunately, at this point in time we have no idea where the reconstructed
roadway might be. I am not sure what the front yard variance is pertaining
to, whether they are taking down the existing structure and building a new
house, or if it pertains to something different.
What would seem to make sense is that the variance is considered from the
property line, as platted, and not from the existing County Highway. In the
context of doing that, look at other properties in the vicinity, and as long
as the variance doesn't put the structure closer to the property line than
any existing structures in the area, then it probably won't create a
hardship for the County Highway reconstruction.
I did leave Sue McDermott a message late last week to touch base with you on
this as she has all the information about the 12 reconstruction as the city
project manager, and as the City Engineer would probably want to weigh in on
this variance request.
Hope this gives you what you need.
THANKS for giving us the opportunity to review this.
Greg IIkka, P.E.
Assistant Scott County Engineer
(952)496-8356
-----Original Message-----
From: Jenson, Craig
Sent: Friday, October 17, 20039:19 AM
To: 'ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com'
Cc: IIkka, Gregory
Subject: CSAH 12
I will be on vacation next week and I am swamped today, so I forwarded your
voice mail message to Greg IIkka, Assistant County Engineer. Greg is
B
EVJ q?:PT
/' 'i'''"'l' ," ';~ .
~ i.. u.... t: i
11/19/2003
November 19,2003
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Request
2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Dear Cynthia:
We have reviewed the variance request and offer the following comments:
. As you are aware, CSAH 12 is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2006. At this time the
County does not have any plans to vacate any existing right-of-way in this area of the
variance request. Our consultant for the proj ect has informed us that the preliminary design
shifts the road to the south. However, it also indicates no need for additional right-of-way
beyond the existing right-of-way at this address.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
~
Craig Jenson
Transportation Planner
EXH~BiT C
.--""-----r--
Page 1 of3
~ Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek
From:
To:
Sent:
Attach:
Subject:
"Phil Hines" <PhiI.Hines@genmills.com>
<hbg@priorlakelaw.com>
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1 :52 PM
ATT00005.eml
FW: Status of vacation/easment
Dean, here is the follow up letter from the county. Phil Hines
-----Original Message-----
From: Ilkka, Gregory [mailto:GIlkka@co.scott.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:14 PM
To: Phil Hines
Subject: RE: Status ofvacation/easment
Hi Phil - I got your voicemail, attached is the letter that is being
sent to
the City.
The essence is, timing is everything. Unfortunately, we cannot determine
if
we will vacate right-of-way in the future. The timing for the question
would
be after we complete reconstruction of CSAH 12. Another point, we have
evaluated the situation enough to feel comfortable in saying the CSAH 12
reconstruction project would not be impacted by the granting of your
variance. I don't claim to fully understand the City's reasons for not
granting the variance, but I want to be sure they don't claim it's due
to
the impending reconstruction ofCSAH 12.
Unfortunately, while I commend your creative thinking, your request to
basically exchange fee interest right-of-way for highway easement in
order
to expedite building is a precedent the Highway Department staff is not
willing to set, I hope you can understand this.
If I can provide any further information don't hesitate to contact me.
Greg Ilkka, P .E.
Assistant Scott County Engineer
(952)496-8356
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Hines [mailto:Phi1.Hines@genmills.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:08 PM
To: Ilkka, Gregory
Cc: Phil Hines
Subject: RE: Status ofvacation/easment
EXH. .t~:iT ])
,th -
11/19/2003