HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C - Variance Appeal Van Pelt
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
7C
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 DECK ADDITION
(Case File #03-134)
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
History: On October 27,2003, the Planning Commission denied
Tom and Dina Van Pelt's request for a rear yard setback Variance for
the construction of a deck addition on property located at 14624
Oakland Beach Avenue SE (Lot 16, Oakland Beach).
The Commission held the house was not designed for a deck, and the
lack of a deck is not considered a hardship. Furthermore, the
Commission remembered the builder stating, during the public
hearing for lot area and width Variances, that a deck would not be
added to the house.
BackQround: 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 31,2003, the Van Pelts
appealed the Planning Commission's decision.
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1 SD and guided
Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan. The property was platted as Lot 16, Oakland Beach in 1926.
The property is a non-riparian lot because a platted "Reserve" area is
located between the subject lot and the ordinary high water level of
Prior Lake. Due to the type of lot and its location from the lake, the 75
foot shoreland setback and 25 foot rear yard setback both apply.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\~~Jtiorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
There is considerable history on this property. Table 1 provides an
overview.
TABLE 1
VARIANCE HISTORY OF 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
DATE APPLICANT REQUEST ACTION
9/25/00 Eagle Creek Lot area and width Approved*
Villas variances to construct
dwellinq
12/21/00 Jane Crosson 12' Rear yard setback Denied
variance for deck
1/21/01 Jane Crosson Appeal PC's decision to Upheld
deny rear yard setback
variance for deck
*No additional variances permitted
In 2000, a building permit was issued to Eagle Creek Villas for the
construction of the existing single family dwelling. Two decks were
shown on the building permit plans, one on the upper level and one
on the main level. Upon review, the building department staff crossed
off the decks and noted "No Deck with this Permit," however, the patio
doors shown on the plans were allowed to be installed on the main
floor. A ledger board was also constructed beneath the patio door.
The decks were not shown on the survey submitted with the building
permit.
View from Prior Lake
Issues: The applicant would like to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot
(288 square feet) deck addition to the rear of the existing dwelling as
shown to the right. A platted "Reserve" area is located between the
ordinary high water level of Prior Lake and the subject property.
(Note: All property owners within the subdivision own a private platted
reserve area. It intends to provide lake access to all lot owners,
regardless if it is riparian or non-riparian.) Since the property is not
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc
2
technically a riparian lot and has a rear property line, the principal
structure must maintain the required rear yard setback. Section
1102.405 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard
setback. The deck is proposed to encroach 12 feet into the required
25 foot rear yard setback, and maintain a 13 foot rear yard setback.
According to the survey, the proposed deck is 97 feet from the
ordinary high water level (904'). The required setback is 75 feet.
The deck plan and the survey are inconsistent. The deck plan
submitted with the Variance application indicates a deck 12 feet in
depth with a curved staircase that encroaches further into the setback,
but the survey shows a rectangular-shaped deck. This report is
based upon the deck shown on the survey. (Note: Staff permitted the
applicant to utilize an existing survey for this Variance application.) At
the time of original building permit, impervious surface coverage was
proposed to be 29.6 percent. A portion of the platted reserve area
was utilized in the calculation. The Shoreland Ordinance limits
impervious surface to 30 percent of the lot area.
As mentioned above, this is the third time that a Variance has been
requested for this property in as many years. In 2001, when the same
rear yard setback Variance was requested, the Planning Commission,
acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied the request because the
deck was considered an "afterthought," and if a deck was originally
intended the builder would have included it in the design. That
applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, who upheld the
Planning Commission's decision, finding that the setback Variance did
not met the nine hardship criteria.
Also of note, on August 18, 2003, the City Council denied an
ordinance amendment that would permit a 10 foot rear yard setback
on lots separated from the ordinary high water level with a platted
reserve area.
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.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc
3
Lot area and width Variances were granted in 2000 to allow for the
construction of a reasonable use on the property. A reasonable use
in this case is a single family dwelling, because the property is zoned
R-1. The strict application of the rear yard setback does not create a
practical difficulty, because access to the rear yard can be gained via
the lower level patio door, and a balcony can be built on the second
story. The inability to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot deck does not
constitute a hardship. In the past, the City has not considered the
inability to build a deck, even when a patio door is present, an undue
hardship or practical difficulty.
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 rear yard setback applies to all properties in the R-1 use district.
Since this a relatively new construction, a deck should have been
designed in conjunction with the dwelling that meets all required
setbacks. If that was impossible, the contractor should have sought
relief from required setbacks when the Variances were granted for lot
area and width.
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 rear yard setback Variance is not necessary for
the enjoyment of the property, because a single family dwelling is
present on the property. If a deck was necessary, it should have been
incorporated into the design of the dwelling. Moreover, the site
currently has rear yard access with the lower floor platform deck.
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 does not appear as though the Variance will impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property or negatively impact public
safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report. doc
4
the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the rear yard setback Variance will impact the
character and development of the neighborhood because it will create
a new rear yard setback when an undue hardship has not been
demonstrated.
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 rear 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 serves as convenience to the property owner. It is not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty. If relief were
necessary, a setback Variance would have been requested with the
lot area and width Variances.
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.
Although the applicant did not construct the dwelling, they designed a
deck that encroaches into the required rear yard setback. The builder
did not make a provision for a deck on the original Variance request,
so the hardship results from the action of the applicant.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does not believe that increased development or construction
costs or economic hardship are the basis of this request.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report.doc
5
CONCLUSION:
AL lERNA liVES:
RECOMMENDA liON:
The applicant would like to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot (288 square
feet) deck addition on property zoned R-1 and SO. In order to do as
they request, a rear yard setback variance is required.
The strict application of required rear yard setback does not pose
undue difficulties on the development of the property. An existing
single family dwelling complies with required setbacks, and a balcony
can be constructed on the main floor. (Note: A balcony cannot have
ground support.) The current application is the second request for a
12 foot Variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback. In 2001,
the Variance request was denied because that applicant did not
demonstrate a hardship. The situation has not changed for staff to
support the request for relief. Based upon the findings set forth in this
report, staff recommends denial of the Variance. The Planning
Commission concurred with staffs findings 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. In this 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 requires a motion and second
to adopt a motion and second to adopt a resolution upholding the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested Variance.
However, should the City Council overrule the decision of the
Planning Commission, the following conditions shall apply:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City
Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county,
and state agency regulations.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report.doc
6
3. A revised survey shall be submitted with the building permit
application indicating the location of the existing dwelling and
proposed deck. An impervious surface worksheet shall also be
submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 03-XX
2. Appeal letter
3. Location map
4. Survey
5. October , 03, Planning Commission meeting minutes
REVIEWED BY:
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc report.doc 7
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 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Tom and Dina Van Pelt have appealed the Planning Commission's decision
to deny a rear yard setback Variance for the construction of a deck addition
on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District) at the following location, to wit;
14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has reviewed the application for the Variances as contained
in Case #03-134PC, 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. Lot area and width Variances were granted in 2000 to allow for the
construction of a reasonable use on the property. A reasonable use in this
case is a single family dwelling, because the property is zoned R-1. The
strict application of the rear yard setback does not create a practical difficulty,
because access to the rear yard can be gained via the lower level patio door.
The inability to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot deck does not constitute a
hardship. In the past, the Board of Adjustment has not considered the
inability to build a deck, when a patio door is present, an undue hardship or
practical difficulty.
5. The rear yard setback applies to all properties in the R-1 use district. Since
this a relatively new construction, a deck should have been designed in
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
conjunction with the dwelling that meets all required setbacks. If that was
impossible, the contractor should have sought relief from required setbacks
when the Variances were granted for lot area and width.
6. The granting of the rear yard setback Variance is not necessary for the
enjoyment of the property, because a single family dwelling is present on the
property. If a deck was necessary, it should have been incorporated into the
design of the dwelling. Moreover, the site currently has rear yard access with
the lower floor patio door and platform deck.
7. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and
undue concentration of structures and population by re~ulating 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 rear yard setback is
inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Variance serves as convenience to the property owner. It is not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty. If relief were
necessary, a setback Variance would have been requested with the lot area
and width Variances.
9. Although the applicant did not construct the dwelling, they designed a deck
that encroaches into the required rear yard setback. The builder did not
make a provision for a deck on the original Variance request, so the hardship
results from the action of the applicant.
10. The contents of Planning Case #03-134PC 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 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear setback (Section
1102.405 (3)).
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc
2
Passed and adopted this 1st 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\03-134 van pelt\uphold resolution.doc
3
PLA T OF SURVEY
I' ,
~
rollP
I
o
30
60
I
90
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
Scale
in
feet
~--
,,:-
r...
'--'
n-:
lL
{:t:
, 1 '
~-~j'
_<r'
\/<~
.-
I
I
I
I
,I
I '
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\"
NOTE:
THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT
THIS TIME.
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVA nONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o IRON MONUMEI\llT
~ POWER POLE
rn TELEPHONE BOX
mJ GAS METER
'rf HYDRANT
l><l WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
I I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
* 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00
......--- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
I I
I hereby certify lhal this survey
was prepared by me or under my
supervision and that I om 0 duly
reglslered land surveyor under
Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02
to 326.16 4r
~~/r
Reg, No18-t z...l Dole: / Z. -l~o 0
L1 ~ Hansen Thorp
, I Pellinen Olson Inc.
"f' u Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Archllec
EXHIBIT A
Dole
7510 Market Ploce Drive
Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644
(612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806
/o/s;/n
~r .tJif
Gt; 1 /A4~ ~
/JI!GA ~ r _
p~ a~ Lvc1 /L-;' cn~ ~a/
r #1 dLu~ oj-d /1V=U~ vtR~
{Ne )110~ f:> {d/ I~! ~~ ~
()~ rJ771f. I!J~ ~ & ~ f1Ytn~
10 ~d ---&:~:,.. -jc; 7/i ~(; id-
e{ {~ t~~ pa~ /~
o;fjCJ7z--q,
liD ~@rnDW[g fR\j
!II. I OCT 3 I 3m JiUi,
iU~1 1& /
~ycpAr .'
/ I / j} ~0.
. I tJJ~ {fl", /ttf- ~~
/-/fr;J-Lf (}J~t/ i-ft2~ 4~ \
It(; iJe-
.
-
-
Location Map for
Van Pelt Variance
---,
I
,
y--;-~-=\,---- i
r (("-, ~ 1\ - ....... I -T-r
! I I~I I ! I
~ 'I II I ! \
i I
I I
i RUS ICRo1-_1- J ~
~ ---,----ri-- -- 1--
ffi \- -~~ J- - - - t-\-- - 1\
-- \- 1/1 \/
Prior
Lake
200
L
o
200
400 Feet
,
+
PLAT OF SURVEY
FOR: MESSINBRINK CONSTRUCTION
LOT 16, OAKLAND BEACH
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
.' ,
~
,
L____________
I
\
I
I
I
I-------'i~
\
11.lKl
\
I
I
I
-----\
I
fDIP
\
I
I
\
\
I
"I
';( I
,."
~/
Scale
in
feet
I
o
30
60
I
90
~--
,--
r"
'-/
r~':
d_
el'":
f I L I
,J i \/~~j
) :::
I
/.' ),
I ( /.1
PATIO)'LOCKS-, ,/ I}I
I >-SANO "llE
, I,
~
is
.,!.~
';'8
\
\
~
I
\
\
\
NOTE:
THE HOUSE IS NOT STAKED AT
THIS TIME.
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELEVA nONS
LOWEST FLOOR 909.9 FT
GARAGE FLOOR 922.0 FT
o IRON MONUMEI<l'T
-0- POWER POLE
rn TELEPHONE BOX
1m GAS METER
'd HYDRANT
l><I WATER VALVE
~ OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
I I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
Ii 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16. ELEVATION - 928.00
...--- DIREcnON OF DRAINAGE
I I
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared by me or under my
supervision ond that I am a duly
registered land surveyor under
Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02
to 326.16 dr
c:>Y -t7.,/ C-
Reg. N')'8~~I_Dat":.lZ -/4:-:00
1:1 ~ Hansen Thorp
. I Pellinen Olson Inc.
~. ':"\l Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Architects 00-047
L} Dole
Drown Checked
LEI
DBO
o.
7510 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644
(612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806
107
VEY
._..-_,-".~~.~..~h'_t....~_~,..~_____..__.,_
-
......
II
\0
......M
.......0
M~
11)......
-.......
C':S\C
u
(/)
~
C'j
-
~
~
C)
Q)
Q
C9
i::
o
.-
-
u
B
~
=
o
U
~
t:)....
~
::E
..
I-
I
9
N
~
tI)
:::l
o
::I:
00
-3
tI)
'><
w
.., ...
12/a1/2aa~ 16:26
612-571-1252
L.J. MILLER
PAGE 82
Lawrence J. Miller
1095 Polk Circle - Minneapolis, MiMesota 55421
763-571-7087
December 1, 2003
Mayor Jack Haugen
Councilmember Chad LeMair
Council member Andrea Bloomberg
Councilmember Jim Peterson
Council member Joseph Zieska
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave se
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Mayor Haugen and Councilmembers,
J am writing to express my thoughts about an item on the agenda for the City Council Meeting on
Oecember 1, 2003. I would like to encourage the Council to overturn the Planning Commission's
denial of a variance request by Tom and Dina VanPelt for their property at 14624 Oakland Beach
Avenue SE. Please grant the necessary variances to allow a deck to be built onto their home.
My family owns the property at 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue, immediately South of the
VanPelt's property (shown on their survey as unplatted). We have owned the tots for 50 years,
and this was the site of our summer home for 30 years. I am very familiar with this neighborhood
and the unique land problems of this area.
Granting the variance to allow a deck to be built will be a win-win situation for all involved, without
any negative effects to anyone. The home was designed for a deck, and it needs a deck to
complete the home. This lot is very small, but it includes a common waterfront area on the plat,
that adds about another 100 feet to the waters edge. Granting this variance will not adversely
affect the setback from the lake.
The proposed deck will not look out of place in the area. When homes are built on our property,
the structures and/or decks will most likely extend further to the west, toward the lake, than the
proposed deck for the Van Pelts. A home !wo lots North of the subject property has been
remodeled every direction, and has an existing deck and raised patio area extending at least as
far as the VanPelts proposed deck.
The council has recently granted variance requests far exceeding the nature of this request In
May of 2002, the council granted several variances for the home Just two lots away, at 14620
Oakland Beach Avenue, which allowed an addition to be buill within inches of the property line. It
would be rather inconsistent to not allow this deck to be built.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
~'~
,-/) ~~ ~M
V Lawren J. Miller
"
November 24, 2003
Prior Lake City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 -1714
Re: Tom and Dina Van Pelt appeal
Dear City Council Members:
We are writing regarding the appeal of Tom and Dina Van Pelt at 14624 Oakland Beach
Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN.
Tom and Dina are friendly and respectful neighbors. Their relatively new home is
incomplete without this deck.
Sincerely,
~C~ t- b4//jd~/, d
Martha Frommelt and David Feldshuh g--~
owners of 14612 Oakland Beach Ave. SE.
308 Elmwood Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850
i
7C-(jI~ PL Ii
Nor.... '. ifII ". L*e........... ,m .
, ,.,- "CO"" "--', "....
, ,:' j
PUBLIC HEARING
~:
Please register below if you wish to address the Council
as part of the following public meeting. THANK YOU!
PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
DECK AT 14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE (VAN PELT)
***
DECEMBER 1, 2003 (7pm)
/Lff,2L( Oc_k (c" \.-{J iE?-"clCl
{4~G2. G Cf/JI.::::A <,.[ ;Jue "5 f
q s.~ ;. 2..(., ,- (c C, 3:-
9sz -4t~-'7S5'2-