HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B Side Yard setback
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREP ARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 20, 2002
8B
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
V ARIANCES TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF l'
TO A FRONT LOT LINE, A 1.3' SIDEYARD SETBACK, A
BUILDING SEPARATION LESS THAN 15', A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS LESS THAN 15', AN EAVE ENCROACHMENT INTO
A SIDE & FRONT YARD, A 63.8' BUILDING WALL SETBACK
TO SIDE YARD, AND A DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO THE SIDE
YARD (Case file #02-029PC)
History: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April
22, 2002, to consider an application for variances to allow construction
of an attached garage, entry and second story addition to an existing
single-family dwelling on a nonconforming platted lot of record
located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue. The applicants requested the
following variances:
1. A 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks
[Ordinance Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (3)].
2. A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of l1.42-feet on
a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required
15-feet [Ordinance Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space
(8)].
3. A 5.9- foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1- feet
between all structures on the nonconforming lot and on the
adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required l5-feet [Ordinance
Section 1101.502 Required Yards/Open Space (8)].
4. A 4.7- foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to
within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required
5-feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments
(1)].
162t!100~dg~~ffilffia~eSa~~aP~:'fd~.JE~,<M1nnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
._"",.,~.~.._----,_._."~-,-_.....>..-..~~....""
5. A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to
within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-
feet setback [Ordinance Section 1101.503 Yard encroachments
(1)].
6. A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be
setback 1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum
required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance
Section 1102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
7. A 2. I 8-foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be
setback 1 0.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the required
minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet [Ordinance
Section I 102.405 Dimensional Standards (6)].
8. A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather
than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; and,
9. A 4' variance to permit a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way
line rather than the maximum allowed 24' [Ordinance Section
1107.205 Driveways (1)].
The Planning Commission voted to deny the nine variances as
requested by the applicant. The Commission determined the requested
variances did not meet the 9 hardship criteria because of the proposed
structure's location from the front lot line, the potential impact the 1
foot garage setback would have if the road were ever moved from its
current location to the platted right-of-way, and the effect of the
proposed addition on neighboring properties.
A copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April
22, 2002 is attached to this report. On May 13, 2002, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 02-005PC denying the requested
variances (see attached).
Current Circumstances: On April 29, 2002, the applicant submitted
the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the above-described variances to the City Council. The appeal
was scheduled for hearing before the Council on May 20, 2002 in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended approval
of 4 ofthe requested variances (#1, 2, 5 & 7 as listed). This
recommendation was based on the fact that the lot is substandard, and
the Planning Commission has previously determined that a two-car
garage is a reasonable use of property. The staff also reasoned that
many of the requested variances could be eliminated by redesigning
the proposed addition. Staffs original recommendations are outlined
L:I02FILESI02appeal\moseyappeaIICCREPORT.doc 2
in the original staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 22,
2002. A copy of this report is attached.
The Planning Commission did not agree with staffs recommendation
and denied the requested variances. The findings of fact included in
this report reflect the Planning Commission's decision.
Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested variances.
Minnesota State Statutes and the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance
require the following hardship criteria be applied as a standard for
approval of variance requests. All nine hardship criteria must be met
regarding each variance request.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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 subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and an
existing condition over which the applicant has no control.
However, the applicant can control the design and size of the
proposed additions and eliminate the need for the variances
requested.
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 lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing
nonconforming structure without a garage. However, the requested
variances can be eliminated or reduced with a redesign of the
proposed addition.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The variances requested may be reduced or eliminated with a
revised building plan.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property,
L:\02FILES\02appeaJ\moseyappeaJ\CCREPORT.doc 3
....___.....__......,._~...~.."'_...._w~'_..._.~~_~_~
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the variances would impair these stated values, by
allowing a garage addition to be located within l' of the platted
roadway. This location would be detrimental to public safety
should the existing road be moved to the original platted location.
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 ofthe area.
The granting of the requested variances to permit a garage and 2nd
story addition will unreasonably impact the character of the
neighborhood, by permitting a noncompliant structure to expand
and affecting future additions to structures on adjoining properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The requested variances can be reduced or eliminated with a
redesigned building plan, and therefore, they are contrary to the
intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The variances as requested are not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to build a smaller garage.
addition to the existing structure. No hardship exists pertaining to
all variances as requested.
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 applicant can reduce the size of the proposed garage and room
additions to reduce or eliminate all eight requested variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The variance requests are not based on economic hardship.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined the requested
variances did not meet the 9 hardship criteria.
The variance requests could be eliminated or reduced by redesigning
the proposed structure. The staff continues to believe that all of the
variance hardship criteria have been met with respect to variance
L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCREPORT.doc 4
AL TERNA TIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
requests 1,2,5, & 7, but the criteria have not been met for requests 3,
4,6,8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist
on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the
existing structure, and the small size of the nonconforming platted lot
of record. However, staff feels the garage and room additions may be
redesigned and reduced in size, and the variance hardship criteria have
not been met with respect to Variance requests 3,4,6,8 & 9.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval
of any variances deemed appropriate by the City Council.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variances as requested by the applicant.
The attached Resolution is consistent with this action.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of
some or all of the variance requests.
3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons.
The staff recommends alternative # 2:
A motion and second to overturn the decision of the Planning
Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of
fact for approval of Variance requests 1,2,5, & 7, and denial of
variance requests ,4,6,8, & 9.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\moseyappeal\CCREPORT.doc 5
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 24-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A I-FOOT FRONT
SETBACK; A 3.S8-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE YARDS OF 1l.42-FEET; S.9-FOOT
VARIANCE TO BmLDING SEPARATION OF 9.1-FEET; A 4.7-FOOT AND S-FOOT VARIANCE TO
PERMIT AN EAVE/GUTTER ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT AND SIDE LOT LINES; A 6-FOOT AND
2.I8-FOOT VARIANCE FOR BmLDING WALLS OVER 50-FEET LONG; A 3.7-FOOT AND 4-FOOT
VARIANCES TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND SETBACK TO A FRONT AND SIDE LOT
LINES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14620 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal by
Steven & Patricia Mosey of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 24-foot
variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front property line, rather than 25-feet as
required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of 11.42-
feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required l5-feet; A 5.9-foot
variance to permit a building separation of 9.l-feet between all structures on the
nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required l5-feet; A 4.7-
foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line
rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A 5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter
encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback;
A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback 1.3-feet from a side
lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.l8-foot
variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather
than the required minimum l2.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 3.7-foot variance to
permit a driveway setback of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; A 4'
variance to permit a 28' driveway width at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum
allowed 24', for the property legally described as follows:
Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting
variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth
adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the
requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
1:\02files\02appeal\moseyappeal\ccres.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Steven & Patricia Mosey applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and
1107.205 of the City Code in order to permit construction of an attached garage, entry, and 2nd story
addition, and room addition to an existing principal structure as shown in Attachment 1 on property
located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14620 Oakland Beach
Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 14, "Oakland Beach", Scott County, Minnesota.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-029, and
held hearings thereon April 22, 2002, and May 13, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
d. Steven & Patricia Mosey appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on April 29, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-029 and Case File #02-062, and held a hearing thereon on May 20, 2002.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances
on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. The City Council has determined the requests do not meet the hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the
applicant through the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics
to the property that would constitute a hardship.
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-029 and Planning Case File #02-062 are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission denying variances to permit a 24-foot variance to permit a I-foot structure setback to a front
property line, rather than 25-feet as required for front yard setbacks; A 3.58-foot variance to permit a sum of
side yards of 11.42-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required IS-feet; A 5.9-
foot variance to permit a building separation of 9.1-feet between all structures on the nonconforming lot and
on the adjoining lot, rather than the minimum required l5-feet; A 4.7-foot variance to permit an eave and
gutter encroachment to within .3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 5-feet setback; A
5-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 0' of the front lot line rather than the
minimum required 5-feet setback; A 6-foot variance to permit a building wall 63.8-feet in length to be setback
1.3-feet from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 2.18-
foot variance to permit a 63.8-foot building wall to be setback 10.12-foot to a side lot line rather than the
1 :\02files\02appeal\mosey appeal\ccres.doc
Page 2
required minimum 12.3-feet for building walls over 50-feet; A 3.7-foot variance to permit a driveway setback
of 1.3-feet, rather than the minimum required setback of 5-feet; A 4' variance to permit a 28' driveway width
at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum allowed 24' for applicants Steven & Patricia Mosey.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of May, 2002.
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
Lemair Lemair
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
YES NO
{Seal} City Manager
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\moseyappeal\ccres.doc Page 3
TO:
PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
STEVE and PATRICIA MOSEY
RE:
PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL
DATE:
04-27-02
I am writing this letter to inform you that I would like to appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny my variances for my proposed
addition of a two-car garage to my existing home.
~,~
L-1 jfy:
f
y
r.... '.'-" ~ r~ n'f.vr-:-.- --,
;1"'\15~LSu\!Ji1 >!
ilY jJ~.!
I~I ~ 2 g!W i~1
"
#
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
. Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply.
. It ~uld not interfere with the quality of the lake. r
. QueSti~ned t~e .ze~o. lot line. Kansier explained the measur, e ent from the bluff.
They were mmImIzmg the effect as best as they could.
. Good application. In favor. II
/
Lemke: /
/
. Questioned staff what would happen if the surveY9t was off a few inches. Kansier
explained private use of public property. It has p:appened before and that is how it is
addressed. '
. McDermott said property boundaries are marked clearly and will make every effort to
make sure it does not happen.
. Agreed with Criego, it is a good application.
. Clarified he had been to the site.
Atwood:
. It is a good use ofthe property: 'Approve.
Ringstad:
. It meets all 9 hardships. Approve.
Stamson: /
. This lot is clearly vnbuildable without variances.
. Support the variances as proposed.
/
MOTION BY GRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
007PC APPR()VING THE REQUESTED V ARlANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT
THE OHW,/THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE
DRIVEWAY WIDTH.'
I \
/
I
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
KLer explained the appeal process.
'"
\
D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to
permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line;
less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave
encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall
setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to
side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22,
2002, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single-
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 8
The applicant submitted an impervious surface worksheet which identifies an
existing 2,789 square foot of impervious surface for 41.8% ot the total lot area,
including the common area between the rear lot line and the 904' OHWM. The
proposed garage/room addition would be built over existing driveway and would
not add to the impervious surface area. In addition, the applicant is proposing to
remove 200 square feet of existing driveway for a proposed impervious surface
coverage area of 2,589 square feet or 38.8% of total area. The proposed
reduction of impervious surface area is allowed under the City code, as an
existing site that is being altered, remodeled or expanded without expanding the
existing impervious surface (Attachment 3 - Existing Impervious surface
Area).
The applicant submitted a narrative describing their reasons for the requested
variances (Attachment 4 - Applicant Narrative).
In addition, staff received a letter from the adjoining Lot 13 property owner
expressing support for the applicant's variance request (Attachment 5 - Letter
Dated 3-21-02).
The City Engineering Department noted the existing gravel road is on the
property ea~t of the platted R-O-W, along with the sanitary and water utilities. It
the road were to be moved to its platted location as depicted on the survey, the
R-O-W would be l' trom the proposed structure.
The Department of Natural Resources responded that as long as the impervious
surface area is OK, the DNR is not opposed to the side and front yard setbacks.
They alone will not have measurable negative impact to the lake.
Staffs recommendation is to reduce the garage width trom 28' to 22'. This would
add 6' to the south side setback, and would eliminate tour of the variance
requests (3, 4, 6, 8). The proposed garage/room addition will only allow a l'
driveway depth from the 20' platted private road access, and staff has concerns
regarding vehicle parking in the right-ot-way, should the existing road be moved
to the platted R-O-W. However, under the current conditions, with some ot the
existing garages built in the platted R-O-W, the road may not be moved.
In addition, staff suggests redesigning the garage/room to 22' x 19' to reduce the
impervious surface area by an additional 114 square teet, and remove the
existing paved driveway in this area tor reduction of an additional 132 square
feet ot impervious surface area (6' x 22'). This variance request could be
reduced or possibly eliminated by resizing the garage width to 22', and recessing
the garage wall 6' away from the south lot for a 7.3' setback.
If Lots 10 and 14 were under single ownership, the garage on Lot 10 would be a
. permitted use under Zoning Ordinance 1101.501 Lot Provisions (3, d), Two or
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-o29\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 4
more nonconforming lots of record under single ownership separated by a
private road or driveway may be combined and used as a single buildable lot
under the following conditions (reads in part). However, Lot 10 is owned by the
applicants father, and therefore this condition does not apply
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
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 subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and an existing
condition over which the applicant has no control. Some variances will be
needed to build a garage addition. However, the applicant can control the
design and size of the proposed additions and eliminate the need for half of
the variances requested.
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 lot is a legal nonconforming lot of record and has an existing
nonconforming structure without a garage. Plats of this era (1926)
subdivided lots with smaller dimensions (50 I wide) and are peculiar to the lot
and adjoining properties of the Oakland Beach subdivision. In addition,
because of the structure's location and proximity to the front lot line, this
precludes the ability to build a garage without some form of front setback
variance. However, four of the requested variances can be eliminated or
reduced with a redesign of the proposed addition.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
A front setback variance appears necessary for a garage addition of
reasonable size and to preserve a substantial property right of the owner.
However, the variances requested for the setbacks to the side, sum of side
yards, eave encroachment, driveway and building wall, may be reduced or
eliminated with a revised building plan.
..
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 5
I I
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase
the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety.
The granting of the variances should not impair these stated values, unless
the road were moved to the platted right of way, and within l' of the proposed
garage.
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 requested variances to permit a garage and 2nd story
addition will not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood, or
diminish property values or impair health, safety and comfort of the area.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Since this is a platted lot of record, and no garage exists, the granting of 4 of
the requested variances is not contrary to the intent of the Ordinances or the
Comprehensive plan. However, Variance #'s 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9, can be reduced
or eliminated with a redesigned garage/room addition plan, and therefore,
they are contrary to the intent of these Ordinances and the Comprehensive
Plan.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
With respect to variance requests 1, 2, 5, & 7, a hardship exists and a
variance is required to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty to
build a smaller garage and second story room addition to the existing
structure. However, no hardship exists pertaining to all variances as
requested.
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.
A hardship results from the provisions of the Ordinance with regards to four
variances to construct a garage and second story addition to the existing
structure. However, the applicant can reduce the size of the proposed
L:\02FILES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 6
garage and room additions to reduce or eliminate all eight requested
variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of variances.
In this case financial considerations are in addition to the other 8 hardship
criteria half of the variances requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff believes that all of the Variance hardship criteria have been met with
respect to variance requests 1. 2, 5, & 7, but the criteria is not met for requests
3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot
to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure on
the nonconforming platted lot of record.
In addition, staff feels the garage and room additions may be redesigned and
reduce9 in size to eliminate Variance requests 3, 4. 6. 8 & 9. Therefore, the
variance hardship criteria have not been met with respect to 4 of the variances
as proposed by the applicant and staff recommends denial of these requested
variances.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included with approval of any
variances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1. The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County within 60 days of adoption, and 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 applicant shall submit a revised certificate of survey depicting the
approved additions location, and the subject site shall be developed as
shown on the survey to ensure additional variances are not required.
3. The building permit is subject to all other city ordinances and applicable
county and state agency regulations.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any
variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the
circumstances, in this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff
to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance requests.
-
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029\ Var02-029PC.doc
Page 7
2. Approve variances #1,2, 5 & 7, with findings and deny variances 3, 4, 6,
8 & 9. This action will require the applicant to submit a revised survey and
plan.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
4. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The staff recommends alternative # 2:
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-005PC approving variances 1,
2,5 & 7.
2. Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-006PC denying the variances
3, 4, 6, 8 & 9, as requested by the applicant.
L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-029\Var02-029PC.doc
Page 8
>
w
~ \o~
~~
...~€. .
\.. .01
,...
::) \.... .' ,C
CIJ_ -- .
LL
0
w
ti
(J
-
LL
-
~
W
U
I
,...
I-
Z
W
~
J:
~
~
~
o
I
........,.,
,
~"~ ~ "14
-'-4 ..:
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
STEVE MOS EY
14524 GLENDALE AVENUE S.E
PRIOR LAKE. MH. 55372
__70,)1"0
-----
...
-....--
'. --:..::,~..
30 60
SCALE
IH FEET
o 0--.. IrcWl ~, lief
.0r0tM~~,~
". .'
Valley Surveying Co., P A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
PRIOR LAKE. MH. 55372
(952) 447-2570
!
- - -------'~ !-
......
........,
Ill.... _ .1... 10, .Hod " O".u.....O 81AG1"
rlTr5TIOfI ,..-\1".'W
H _.::::.......
. .
:--"
- _I~.. '.
-.. :..
---..".y -,
- -:"0:':,;-. t 1 "
.....~a'. ~ J
~ s"",.. 10... .f __'4. r-~.I,.a~t _ . at....
;~
. !
tal Sf""'"
. I .-.' ,&) ..~.
r=i" eo'"'' p'''' '. ""
~ ". "..;. \~ '~(~C...IOI'~" .oDln
~ILI...MO
..--.
"
.....5_'..._..
.".,:
..~\'!>'
\ ~
~/.~ ,
- ._.~ I.~/;
$, of
~;'~..."
"': .
PMClP~':")' DC.A:nlPrI:J~ '_~. M:N U.:.
Lot 14. 0IUa...A:'C1 i-!CAl:It. ~t ~~. ,"tirneeoc.". 'T'or-fPt1W"t'" \:lCh kot I.., P.lcr.< 1.
o~,,"~:"'~~1 ~: 1:-::' .\...'T.:-;..7., ~'" :;n.,,:,.., "Hnr"!!'lOC.A. .oI.~:r to'.II'':..''W'::' vith All :,,{::
fU-~ o~ ~:. ~ eo ......:lar. .". ~"hi... U" I'<ll":""l. i:""" I.':' ~:. 5c::7':.:
("D.I:'l':.~', .11~..30:'1 ltl1CA:.... ~t_l ~......h..... ~C:, a.,")' ~<i~ r-o.::t\ 1st '-deit.l:r.
~:"ciin..- -:'0 :no. ~l,,~ ~. .:iJ.. I~ tl'I: ot:iel~ a! ;'''\1' f\..b:<< o~ ~. .5.:0':.:
~t1' 1'\1:'fte.30tn in ..c::.r ..uo OOl.nt.~ aB:. :!'t..a:'~. nes::rl.:lllO ~ {ollow=:
-:.1,n:"IilV; 01i':. ., pci.'1: 0'lI ::hr ,....:;': li.~' o~ :.n: 1":'. IH7':'oI, L C&klimd ?e::'l 1=",':.
'''.-X:l':..ia;, So1Ii.d pol:'l: tJo-ol." 1..... i~:. :DJ:'!"K'.J,;: 01. ~ ~"""""'::l:' ~ :): ..1=
!,..'X, l':; u.n...-e VIl':!t.t!'r-~.. '2l J.j.t".c Vlt,.'1 ~. SQl..l;J\ li:'k' at 1.0:. l~. ow.anc ~-,
pr:'Otiu~ N:ft'tt'ly II di~ o~ ;"':'.f" l.e: ~ t.P'If! fIe"'t"!'t'i.y lirwo ot . A1 too: r'DA.i
in OrJ.JI".!."")r. n..-:sc~: :n-~ :lCUt~.,~t"l.,. alDn'. t."\.- ~":e:"J1' :.irM' o. JMoi<": r. ;no,:
C'06o.o a dist.&.,cw ot 4.;...; :.wt; u.-~ M.St.~1', on li..aco Vl:h tJ"lP. .0.II;.n lint'" :).l l.O:
.1<. :")u'1.anc' ~O"I ~ M~te~Jy II ch:\t.ant.-v 01 ~0.7 t..,: to:. . ;:oi:'!: m'1 trK.
ves':. hn... c.:. 1..0: 1'::', ~ 1. 0It,...1.."ld a..:.cn 1:"t. M.-:i.:.icn. ..it: pcu.nt ~h_ ~7.r,
tee: noc-tner1l at ttw ~o: ~t" o! sai.~ J..oc l~'; ~ !)O:""'JMtrly ....l~ UK>
~:. lirw o! toot 1:;:1, ftloa L ce~lr.:c ~cn 1~:. Acidi .100, ,. d.ist.an::. 0: ..0.:....1 :..:.
~ th.~ ?lftCO! ot Dl9UWUA.
Snowl.nr, at: vi.:lio1c ~:: anC .-.c:':Mo~""It"'"I';':- c:nto ....: 0;":: fro- :yjr;
pt'QIX't"t/ it .",.,
~~l 0: en- WInY"! <:cn:.ai.::lu-. l4..;.'\)~ sc,. ::..
..
N:7TCS _a.- 913.17WIOe..-oI__(\.al'"
o:!l' o-.._poolo_
.
Oonoleo ~ _ ...........
o.-~_ol__..._
s.....~__._
ILl
Ill: \
1
IIJ'
:> \
z
~
W
..I
c1
0
Z
.. W
..J
c::>
_('\0 I/.fOl '1'OC.-a( ~'SUl""A"'~
Silt TC 19-. 2S .ITo. "IIIl)t,D .'."50[tIlAC.
"Iv -"'2110' T;. s-.... ~.._S(['IC."'''4....l ..
seTAl':,. ..,~ .tUIol~ ZI Ji(,,&:' p(.. ...~,
"[\I "'19/97 fQ )MC* H[w ~oPOSl:
Dl.c;" I.,l"ICATlO'"
"[v !l/ll /.7 TO ~ ""Cl"CSfO a.c.o<
1 ~ .".,., .... _JUr~7
.os ~ .,. ... ", ...... ""
.1WC1'~IIDnMCII""'11IWl
. ...,..- ~ s..r...,o.
1Ir'ICIiw......IIIt..... Stotwtll
-.
Oom
~ NO 0.83
"'LE HO~ eoc*..!2.L "II CO'
.....---.
""
u
w
Q
\
"
\63
; GLENDALE AVENUE S.E.
l LAKE, MN. 55372
,
""-------
7 ~
r----.",---- -----7- 4_ --.- ----'--_,_ ___.__ ~
,/
GoroyE:
HOL:S E
"
~.
/
.J<
U
(J
G
.'
" . .":-_.-L-.._~
.'
y
/
""):: ......
912.E.
919 I
~
\ S
\ s"q (L
~~..,'O
~~~. r-~~~
\'1J\
(,~
2'~ ~
1
...-,......
HOUSE
--- 70 .3 t___
909 l... ~ _
,.'
,I
11'1
,..;
I'"
II
I.
North line of 101 14
I' OAKLAND BEACH
.':'1
-:, 589050' 24"W
;;,
" 100 plot
':---100.07 meos---
Q. ..J
~ -
d~;____ 87 ~ 2 ,~ :
--'a--- 0
. " -;-0
~ .S 'f C
o - . 'f
U - "'" t
_- : Ill',
;: ,
91~_1
"',
-, I
::1
.. ;:
o .
: - ,...
,... '- O' 'It
'3"0 Co
-CD ~ c:::r '3"
'f=O~
~inO:z
Z~
44,8
1,,1
I r
HouSE
WIO tL
913.17
, /"
'I~O.
III
'"
...
Sla801' ,~~;... ..:.\;(~..
\)0'_, r lanf' It~. ~,.e ~-.__-y-__ ,#'
'- ---100.18 meos.--r 1 .~
lrjc riel. ~.: ... 'O,L
S89Q~6'13-W~ I ;
~ South line of I oiL. 14-; j9A~Lt. ~D alE ACH
F."e. 0 !" Sou tn
- - . 78.S t --
___. .,. _-, "-:o.___~~.."
/i,
.~ -1r
" . !
r'-' .---.--- - h -.-..- _.~ L. :-1
HOUSE.
I
L_.__ ..._.,_,__ ______.--1
'.
i
..J'"
~~.~.. ~~
\ IJ SO~ :
0: . \I "1-
W $89,050' 24':W
0... r:P ' r',
,. -30.50 meos-
. 30.6 deed
:\ 918.~
4.6 -
".
.~ g "'r
E1;zu -.
-Ql-~ 0\
N'O~a: ":'
00: ~ I
<;to:tm
.; 30.7 deed
0_...._
'1"1' 0
I III ~
en
QI
;:
D.
L
L..L..
SW corn
101 10
?ROPSr:'~'Y D:':::;ClU?TIO:~ .,,~-; ??,OVIDCD:
Lot 14 I
O.A_'<.LAND
O.~KLAND 3EACH I Scott County I i'linr
'i~A('}1 1 ~'7"' ~r")T"'IT"t"Tr'.'.'\' ::--.... .....,-----.....
[ ~'o' j
1''-'0' r lII'''~.'''~.
II
0
T
+! 'I ,~i
~ Ii
.' I'
6: I 1ft
~
f
,. I
i
I
U\ I I~
6.- I
(> I 3. ~
('1\ !2 .It
f 6: ~
<::t
CI (l
~j
6,
f
I
I
I
---
ITI
g Il
of-
~ e,'.cr l
~ II 1 1'2.'.0" I t.w.....~O J.....c.
~}- ] "
(1) I
I I
" 0 !
p/ II
...;.... ~
6, I
I i
--
I ----t
I ~
I I I
\.:> I
I
r:" I
~ I I
I
I I f
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
----_____..J
...,
~
- ~~
0
'1!' ~
-q~
~
~
o
:E:
s:
m
Z
-I
N
I
aJ
c:
-
r-
C
-
Z
C)
-c
r-
)>
z
en
RPR-17-213132 139:49
VRLLEY SURVEYING CO.. P.R
P.01
,. w.&-n I CIA '.\oIU::
IWI I
.'
... .'. ..... ".CITY OF PRIOR LAKE .
.. .. . . .. Imperviou's Surface .Calculations
. ,...... . . ..". .': . (To be Submitted with Building Penn it Application). .
" '..,.. .. !'otAll- Prope~iesLocatedinthe Shoreland Distrlct(S
.~e Mixinjum Impervious Surlace Coverage Permitted in 31
To
Fax'
-
:3:
."
m
~.
6
c:
tn.
en
c:
....J]
.!n
..~
'0
m
1'L1e'LJ .....~
.\ ie'l I.~
Date ~ \.\ -\ \n:~ 07-
. . ..,
.PropertyAddr~ss . \ t\.l.io. . O~\L\ ~~c'8~~~. .. ~~~e~
. . .' .' ~. .'. .
. '.,'. . . .
LotArea.. ..: 6lQulP .a.~~ e~.qc>~OSq. Feet' x 30% .~......:....... Lr:oO
.**~*!*~~*~.+*.~!*..~~.*.~****+..++~..********...***~..**.***~******..**
.' . .f'" -" .. .. LENGTH... WIDTIt. SQ. FEET. .
.. HOUSE. . ", :.. . . ' '4~ x. 7.9\: VJ = \ '2..B \ . .
x
.', ",
.A IT ACffi:D:oAAAoE.
.,.. ... :.1. .;..' .
. .
.X
=
TOTAVPRlNCIPLE S1'RUCTURE........~...n......... \'"l..e> l
.." .
.DETACHED~L.DGS .
.. ((jarctgelS~!=ci)...
.. x
x
. .
. ','
...,..TOT ALDET A~HEriBUILDINGS......_.n.......'~~,~,: .. .
. .
D~EWAY~AVEDAREAS
. ~...x '11.>.
.Q,~'2i
(Drive.~~~y~pnyed o~ ~ot)
(SicfewallclPuking Areu)
.:<
x
=
. TOTAL P A YED AREAS.-.~.....;........~.....~................
'5':.8
, :H",'
S\a.\:' .. '..' .
PA TIOStP.ORCHESro~C~S'.
" ,'.',. .... .', . . ,'" .
(Open Cc~ks.,~.~ mill:. opening ber.....ccn ..,
bauds. wllhllpct:Yious si.n1'ace b~low... .
. are not c~~s.idcrC:cf to bi:.iini;~r:ia~) :
'":." .'
=
\..II ~\
.OJ
.. .. '"?O.~ x '''Z.:l
:\., .X \.2-
=
. X......
=
, . . .
. .
TOTAL DE CKS..-......... ....-............. ............. .............
loGo
OTHER. . .
x . .
"'"
. ',~ .' .
'== .
x.
~ "
'j,', ,
. . TOTAL OTlmR......:................................................
"":.' .' ..
T.OT4 ;~MPERYIOUSStiRF A'CE.
UND~~:..." ......
Prepar~.d BY:.~"~ ~~~
. .' .. . . . \ . .
'..comp~y.~.:\\. . .
~.,N&Y\-e..'\1M, .~"-l~~~
~+. ~\ \\.\o~.:\O,A\.~' o.~~f. -e1-'~
. . .
. ... . .... .. . Phone #~--i...'SiO
,\\. 'V\6~ \.~~~~~ \ .~"'.,gw. ~~rqJ~
',--\-~ ~V\Ou,> ~!"'('- .. .. . .
TOTRL P.01
..
~
ii
(1
:r:
s:
m
z
.....
.w
. I.
~N
/ ATTACHMENT 4 - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
TO:
STEVE HORSMAN
FROM:
STEVE AND PATRICIA MOSEY
RE:
BUILDING V ARlANCE
DATE:
03-21-02
My family and I are attempting to make improvements to our home. We
currently live at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave S.E. We have been living here
for approximately five and one half years. We are a growing family with
two kids, ages 14 and 10 years old. We love living here, but our home does
not have a garage. Weare a two-car family along with many other property
owner items, such as; lawn mower, snow blower, bikes, tools etc. We have
very limited storage space. We would like to build an attached garage onto
our existing home. We would also like to add a room above the garage to
give us more room for our family. We have put a great amount of time and
research into our project and feel we are in need for the addition. We will
be asking for variances consisting of; Front and Side Setback, Combined
Side Yards, Building Separation, A Building Wall Over 50 feet, Eave and
Gutter Setback, and A Driveway Setback. These will be needed to build our
proposed garage on our irregular lot. Weare hoping that after you see our
plans, and the survey, and give us some time to explain our need that you
will grant us the variances we need to build our addition. If you have any
questions please feel free to call us.
Steve and Patricia Mosey
Home; 440-6611
Steve work; 612 673-5704
Patricia work; 952 707-3367
r;:-----. .
l ~-""~ i. "':", It... .
;; :;60L5U\2;. L-
..' I II ,.
i,l'
. \ .~?R' - 2 :?JJ2
. ~ ,
. ,
---,
I
; ~ ~ - -.--..
L_...______ __'_. .__ .
./
09/04/1997 19:21
5072774631
DAVID FELDSHUH
PAGE Ell
ATTACHMENT 5 - LETTER DATED 3-21-02
April 16,2002
Prior Lake Planning Commission
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Dear Planning Commission:
We are writing in support of Steven W. and Patricia J. Mosey's application for a variance
at 14620 Oakland Beach Ave. SE., lot 14. This addition will not adversely affect the lake
and will be an improvement to the property.
Sincerely,
~
David Feldshuh
o er of 146 2 Oakland Beach Ave SE.
an Martha Frommelt
308 Elmwood Avenue
Ithaca, NY 14850