The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5G1 - Hines Variance CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: DECEMBER 15, 2003 5G1 CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR . CONSIDER A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (Case file #03.135PC.HINES) Historv: The City Council held a public hearing on December 1, 2003, to consider an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 6.4 foot Variance from the required 20 foot front yard setback for the construction of new single family dwelling as requested by Phillip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW. The City Council supported the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance request because the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, A single family dwelling can be constructed within the required setbacks, Moreover, because of the averaging provisions in the Zoning Ordinance - the 20 foot front yard setback and the 50 foot lakeshore setback - Mr. Hines has already been given relief from the ordinances. The City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution articulating their additional findings. Specifically, the City Council directed that findings #7 and #8 be struck from the resolution . prepared by staff, Conclusion: The attached resolution is consistent with the City Council's direction for denial of the 6.4 foot front yard setback Variance for the construction of a new single family dwelling, The City Council has two alternatives: 1. Adopt attached the attached resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission with modifications the Council directed. 2. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motion is required: L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc consent re~&ityofpriorlake.com . Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution 03-XX upholding the ecision of the Planning Commission. REVIEWED BY: L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-135 Hines\cc consent report.doc 2 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 03-XX RESOLUTION OF THE-PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL 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 ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, Phillip Hines applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code to allow a 13.6 foot front yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland) Districts and located at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: plo of Lot 3, Lot 4, and plo of Lot 5, Block 46, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in Case File 03-114, and held a hearing thereon October 27,2003; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the Variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, and held a hearing thereon on December 1, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2) The City Council finds that the requested Variance does not meet the criteria for granting Variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code. 3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested Variance should be upheld, and said Variance should be denied. 4) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Phillip Hines appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 30,2003. 1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc . f . I k WWW.cltyopnorae.com Page 1 Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File 03-114 and Case File 03-135, and held a hearing thereon on December 1 , 2003. c. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. d. 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 planning department has approved 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. e. 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. f. 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. g. 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. h. 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 the planning department has approved a plan for the applicant to construct the same dwelling within the required setbacks. i. 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. j. The average setback provisions in the Zoning Ordinance allowing a 20 foot front yard setback and 50 foot shoreland setback have already given relief to the applicant. k. The City Council finds there is a legal alternative for the placement of a new dwelling meeting all Zoning Ordinance requirements on this site without the need for any variances. I. The City Council disagrees with Mr. Hines' testimony that the variance is necessary in order to "have the right proportion of building cost to land cost." Section 1108.406 of the City Zoning Ordinance states "[i]ncreased construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a variance." \:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 2 m. The City Council rejects the appellant's argument that a Variance must be granted if the proposed variance allows the property owner to define the reasonable use of the property. Reasonableness is a decision for the City Council to make based on evidence in the record relating to the specific property for which a variance is being sought. 5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-114 and Planning Case File 03-135 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003. YES NO Haugen Haugen Blomberg Blomberg LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska {Seal} City Manager ]:\03 files\03 appeals\03-135 hines\uphold resolution2.doc Page 3 "'l! II.: ai ~R !~~~~ ~~~~~ ~; I~ :s ~ I ! ~ ~a ~ I!~ ! 'lI ~~ . R~ 'lI ~ll: f', I I I I I I I I /..::........ / .or..... :::, ....... "'.,~.. ' ....... "0""" frio .... .....-to..... .... I ..... .,.7.. ... , "...."'..:..:p I' I '~."" --- --- --- It: --- - ;--- I I r:..~i<;.. --- --- / - "1;; .... C) It: ~~ ~ll ~ \ II t; o I J j " ~ ~ ., <:> \ .., <:> \ 'II <:> ., <:> .. .. ~ <:> , " , :.. r" .. ... ~ ~ -' ~ .S ~~~ II ~ .~ ~~~ '" ~ :! 1&~ ~ .. ~ ~.... II; i ~ ~ t :~ : ~ ~"~ "H~ I l! 1 ~ ! 4 :~ II = I i ! m \I:~ i 1 ~~. ~ ~ 'I ~ ~} ~:>" 1\ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ -: ~ = I-~ :11' ~~~ ~~ii.~ o,l ~! ~~~ 1t.,...,.Ql ~. ~l~~ \ 0(; ~ ~ H H~5 \/~ i l : :d. ~ ~o~ . IJ ~ ~ ~ II I ( I I I I / ~ .... ~ ~t., J~Ht .t.~~ '~n~~ ;i~&~li ~!. 't i&lf~i ~ ~ Ol' h 1 ~!l ~ Ii Uh ! II II N I!! ~ t lit' ! ~ . :i ~ a .!hl~li : i ~ j I! .i'~~: ~ - j r ~ ~ ~ .th- I" i ~ t li!~iJ j ~ ~ ; ~ I ~l~lll ~ lid i ~ H!!i. h i q ~ ~ ! ~U!fA !i II ~ ~ ~ ~ }i!h~ ~ !~ ~ ~ h I! ~ ~~it~;' i u ~ ~ .,1 ~ ~ Ut! I i ~ ... I:.c~..~ ~ g Ei!~&~ ~ ~!~i ~ i!~!'" ~ i~~~~ ~ ~i~~~ ~ 0oo0tt- "l ~ i i I:l ~ ~ I ~ ! a ~ I:l a:n Ii i~t~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t I Dr@1 I . 'i' to! ~ ~i! ~a ! i ii · . I I~ · t! t!~ EXHIBIT A - City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. HauQen: Asked the City Manager to clarify the rationale for removing the signs. Bovles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and the process involved in making the change, indicating that a request had been made to remove the No Parking signs since the high school moved. Residents were notified and no one opposed the proposal. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND ~Y BLOMBERG, APPROVING RESOLUTION 03.198 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FROM HURON STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing for Proposed 2004 City Budgets Bovles: Reviewed the proposed 2004 budgets and its impacts upon the taxpayer in 2004 in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. No persons were present to address the Council. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMair: Pleased with the budget that is proposed in that the City has recovered from the cuts in state aid, that there are no reduction in City services, and that the City will continue to move toward its 2020 Vision. BlomberQ: Commented that in a time when money is tight for many people, it is important to hold the City property taxes in line when possible. This budget allows the addition of an economic development position which is very important in planning for the future of Prior Lake. Councilmembers agreed with the comments of LeMair and Blomberg. No further formal action was required. Consideration of the final budget will take place at the December 15,2003 regular meeting. ,-- Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Construction of a Single- Family Dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road (Hines). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, advising of the Planning Commission's recommendation that a reasonable use is available for the property without relief from ordinances and the granting of the variance is a convenience. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 BlomberQ: Asked if the required shoreland setback is 75 feet, and if averaging has been used to reach the conclusion that a 50 foot shoreland setback is acceptable, which already provides the applicant some relief, Kirchoff: Confirmed. Petersen: Commented that with the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 12, he was hesitant about providing any lesser setback given the circumstances. on the front yard. At this point, supported the Planning Commission recommendation, unless other information is presented during the public hearing. LeMair: Asked the front yard setback. Also asked if the rear porch is within the 50 foot shoreland setback. Kirchoff: Advised that the required front yard setback in an R-1 zoning district is 25 feet, unless the averaging provision of the ordinance is applied. In that case the front yard setback can be an average of those setbacks within 150 feet of the property, but not less than 20 feet. In this case, averaging is used and the minimum front yard setback would be 20 feet. Advised that the survey shows that the porch is proposed to be 50.1 feet from the OHW of Spring Lake. Zieska: Commented that averaging can also be used on the rear yard, but cannot be less than 50 feet. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open, Dean Gavin (attorney for Mr. Hines): Submitted a position paper in reference to the appeal dated November 26, 2003. In reference to the reconstruction of CSAH 12 indicated that the County Engineer has advised in writing that granting the variance would not adversely impact the road reconstruction project. (Referenced Exhibits B, C & 0 of the position paper). Also noted that neighboring houses are approximately 9 feet and 6 feet from their respective lot lines, Clarified that the variance requested is to allow the house to be 13.6 feet from the lot line. Believed that the artificial shallowness of the ordinance creates an undue hardship upon Mr. Hines. Did not believe there is a factual basis in the record to support the findings in the proposed resolution paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8, referencing off-street parking, impacts upon the CSAH 12 reconstruction project, public safety, and unreasonable impact upon the character of the neighborhood. Commented that the building permit was approved, but has not been issued. The plan approved required the house to be moved 11 feet to the west in order to have a side loading garage. The issue of the garage has apparently no been fully resolved and thus the permit has not been issued. Based upon this set of circumstances, believed granting the variance was appropriate. Phil Hines (2719 Spring Lake Road): With respect to the off-street parking and the garage, advised that the Planning Department and Building Dept. have advised that his vehicles will not be able to make the turn into the garage area for the side loading garage. LeMair: Asked if the architect and builder were aware that they designed a building that won't fit within the setback requirements. Hines: Advised that many of the features were reduced in size in order to minimize the impacts the structure would have on the lot. Having a lakeside deck or porch is essential for lakeshore properties, and standard depth of a house is 28 feet which we meet. A 24 foot garage does not fit on the lot, which is the reason for the 19 foot garage. The rear porch is 12' x 12'. Advised that he lived in the property prior to demolition. The comparison being made with the other new construction in the neighborhood is that in measuring from the OHW mark to the center of the road are the same depth from the lake. The 3 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 road right-of-way abutting his property is greater than that property. That property is also a non-conforming lot and did not have the same constraints. Zieska: Asked why the variance request isn't for a lesser lakeshore / rear yard setback. Hines: Advised that he was told that the City would not grant a variance from the lake setback so it seemed more likely that a front yard variance would be granted. In order to have the right proportion from building cost to land cost, it makes more financial sense to move the structure toward the road rather than closer to the lake. Also believed that a front yard setback is less invasive that a rear yard setback. Blomberq: Asked where the garage will be. Hines: Advised that the garage is in the same location and that the whole house has been shifted to the west. Instead of entering from the front, the garage loads from the side. Neither of the vehicles currently owned can pull into the driveway and make the turn into the garage. With the 6 foot variance, the garage could be re-designed to be front-loading. LeMair: Asked why a rambler style home was chosen, given that they take up a larger footprint. Hines: Commented that this style was the most cost-effective per square foot given the walk-out lot. A two story structure poses other issues. . Hauqen: Asked the interior living space of the structure. Hines: Believed it to be approximately 3600 square feet plus the garage. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Asked the square footage of the building. Kirchoff: Corrected testimony given by advising that including the garage, the square footage of the building is 4500 square feet. The transcript indicates that the footprint of the building is 1800 square feet. Also advised that this lot is just over 12,000 square feet. If created today, it would need to be 15,000 square feet to be conforming. Blomberq: Commented that in an attempt to accommodate the needs of the applicant, front yard and rear yard setback averaging has been applied. Believed there is not a hardship in requiring a slightly smaller structure. The house used as a comparison was on a non-conforming lot and thus under a different set of circumstances. Did not believe a variance is appropriate in this case. Petersen: Asked why the garage 9an't be entered from the front. Kirchoff: Clarified that the building permit submitted in September that has been approved but not picked up has a front loading garage, but no rear porch. The plans showing the end-loading garage and rear porch was a second submittal and has not been approved. Without the deck, the structure can be moved back 12 feet and then accommodate the front loading garage. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 LeMair: Agreed with the comments of Councilmember Blomberg in that minimum setbacks have been applied. Believed that a property owner giving his architect parameters to design an acceptable home within the ordinance guidelines should be something that can be accomplished. Did not believe there is hardship. HauQen: Commented that he is having difficult seeing any hardship given these circumstances. Hines: Advised that a preliminary plan was submitted with the variance request without the deck on it in order to facilitate the process of having the structure reviewed for compliance. It was never the intention to build a house on the lake without a deck, Kirchoff: Clarified that two permit applications have been submitted. The first was submitted showing no rear porch and a front-loading garage and has been approved for a building permit. The second was submitted adding the porch and showing a side-loading garage which has not been approved. Zieska: Commented that this is already a non-conforming lot. Did not believe it is right to grant a variance to further push the limits of a non-conforming lot. Believed the variance request is for convenience rather than hardship, noting that the applicant has submitted a survey without a deck that has been approved so a house can be built. Second, the applicant indicated that he requested a front yard setback because it would be easier to get than a rear yard, further indicating the variance is one of convenience. Third, the applicant advised that a rambler style was chosen rather than a two-story because it was more cost-effective per square foot. This also indicates convenience rather than hardship. Lastly, the applicant indicated that the home needed to be larger given that it is a lakeshore property in order to financially balance the cost of the lot to the cost of the home. Did not believe the reconstruction of CSAH 12 was relevant. Based on the circumstances in this case, believed the variance request was for convenience. HauQen: Agreed that the hardship criteria do not appear to have been met. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8, Pace: Commented that it is often difficult for staff to sort out the findings from the discussion articulated at the public hearing. The Council has articulated clear findings, but another option would be to direct staff to prepare a subsequent resolution for subsequent Council'consideration. Zieska: Asked if there is an issue with the 50-day rule. Kansier: Did not believe timing was an issue. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8 FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition on Property Located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue Sf (Case File #03-134) Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. 5