HomeMy WebLinkAbout5G2 - Van Pelt Deck
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DECEMBER 15, 2003
5G2
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION
(Case file #03.134PC.VAN PELT)
DISCUSSION:
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 12
foot Variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction
of a deck addition as requested by Tom and Dina Van Pelt, 14624 Oakland
Beach Avenue SE.
The City Council supported the Variance because the platted Reserve area
between the subject property and Prior Lake creates a peculiar condition to
warrant relief, The platted Reserve is dedicated to the lots within the Oakland
Beach plat and is unlikely to be developed. Moreover, the City Council found
that the proposed deck will not impact the character of the neighborhood
because it meets the 75 foot shoreland setback.
The Council attached the following conditions to the rear yard setback
Variance. These conditions must be adhered to prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the deck addition.
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.
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.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\cc consent report.doc
www.citVofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Conclusion: The attached resolution is consistent with the City Council's
direction for approval of a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance to allow for the
construction of a deck addition.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt attached the attached resolution to approve the variance as
requested by the applicant.
2. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The staff recommends alternative # 1. The following motion is required:
A motion and second as part of the Consent Agenda to approve Resolution
03-XX overruling th decision of the Planning Commission and approving the
Variance subject t I he conditions.
REVIEWED BY:
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-134 Van Pelt\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 REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND APPROVING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) AND LOCATED AT
14624 OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE SE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Tom and Dina Van Pelt applied for a Variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code
to allow a 13 foot rear yard setback as shown on Exhibit A on property zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts and located at 14624 Oakland Beach
Avenue SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Variance as contained in
Case File 03-121, 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, Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31,2003; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, 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 meets the criteria for granting Variances set forth
in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has set forth adequate reasons for
granting a Variance.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be overruled, and said Variance should be approved.
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
www.cityofpriorlake.com
I"OJ iilas'O] lIflllilalslOJ IJ4 "aR Illllt'aplll'Q"all'llsQllltiQR IlQQ PogP 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
a. Tom and Dina Van Pelt appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 31, 2003.
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 03-121 and Case File 03-134, and held a hearing thereon on December 1,
2003.
c. The City Council determined the extraordinary and exceptional conditions unique to this lot
include the following:
i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width
and 100 feet in depth.
ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District.
iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within
the platted subdivision.
iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark.
d. The City Council finds that because the property abuts a platted Reserve area a peculiar
condition applies only to this property and those immediately adjoining to warrant the granting of
a 12 foot rear yard setback Variance.
e. 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. A home with a patio door on the second
story without any type of balcony or structure may cause some concern for public safety.
f. The City Council determined that the Variance would not unreasonably impact the character of
the neighborhood because the proposed deck addition meets the 75 foot minimum required
shoreland setback and minimum side yard setbacks.
g. The City Council finds that property owners are responsible for knowledge of Zoning Ordinance
provisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council finds the appellant's reliance on the
builder's representation that a deck was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance was not
unreasonable based on the unique conditions pertaining to this lot.
h. The City Council finds that it is reasonable for a purchaser to believe that a second story deck is
permitted on a home meeting all of the following conditions:
i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in width and
100 feet in depth.
i. The lot is a nonconforming, platted lot of record measuring approximately 40 feet in with
and 100 feet in depth.
ii. The lot is a riparian lot within the Shoreland Overlay District.
iii. The lot is adjacent to a platted Reserve dedicated for the use of property owners within
the platted subdivision.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\approval resolution.doc
Page 2
iv. The proposed deck meets the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark.
j. This Variance is granted because of uniqueness of the property and the conditions set forth
above. The Council will not be sympathetic to Variance applications where new structures are
built with second floor doors and ledger boards in the hopes they can use this Variance as a
basis for asking for similar treatment. This Variance is unique because of the reasonable
reliance the property owners placed on the representations of the builders that a deck could be
constructed.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 03-121 and Planning Case File 03-134 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby overrules the decision of the
Planning Commission and approves the 12 foot Variance from the 25 foot rear yard setback for the
construction of a deck addition as shown on Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
A. The resolution must be recorded by the applicant 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.
B. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
C. A revised survey shall be submitted by the applicant with the building permit application
indicating the location of the existing dwelling and proposed deck. An impervious surface
worksheet shall also be submitted.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of December 2003.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
leMair leMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-134 van pelt\approval resolution.doc Page 3
PLAT OF SURVEY
~
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 MONUMEj(pT
-<> POWER POLE
rn TELEPHONE BOX
1m GAS METER
'l:i HYDRANT
l><l WATER VALVE
- OE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
c=:J PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
BENCHMARK:
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT WEST OF
if 14624 AT BOULDER RETAINING WALL
APPROX. 50 FEET EAST OF SE CORNER
LOT 16, ELEVATION - 928.00
....--- DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
I hereby certify that this survey
was prepared by me or under my
supervision ana that I am a duly
registered land surveyor under
Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02
to 326.16 A..
e>?"'~/ r r
Reg. Nol8.-t2-1 Dote: / Z_:lt..o 0
Ll-' Hansen Thorp
J I Pellinen Olson Inc.
'"f' l) Engineers. Surveyors. Landscape Arch/te<
7510 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644
(612) 829-0700 FAX (612) 829-7806
1'1
I I
EXHIBIT A
Dot.
8-31-00
- 9
107 61
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 60-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
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1, 2003
leMair: Asked the definition of the "reserve area".
Kirchoff: Explained that the area is private park or common area for the Oakland Beach area homeowners, The building
setback from that area is 25 feet.
Zieska: Asked if the difference between a deck and balcony is that a deck has ground support and can therefore be a larger
structure.
Kirchoff: Confirmed.
Blomben::J: Asked the size of the proposed deck.
Kirchoff: According to the survey, the proposed deck size is 12'x24'.
Hauaen: Asked if standard building practices are that a door and ledger board are installed when no deck is permitted.
Kirchoff: Commented that logically it makes sense that if a door and ledger board is incorporated, a deck would follow. It is
misleading for a property owner,
Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open.
Tom Van Pelt (14624 Oakland I?each Ave. SE): Thanked the City staff and Councilmembers for their efforts to find a
solution to this issue. Commented that the first variance application was by a prospective buyer, and upon denial of the
variance, he believed the City should have required the builder to re-submit plans. The building inspection could also have
required the door removed and replaced with a window, It is misleading to a buyer if a door and ledger board is included.
He purchased the home after its substantial completion from the outside. It seemed from a reasonable standpoint, a deck
could be added.
LeMair: Asked if 12 feet of land can be bought from the Oakland Beach association.
Van Pelt: By its bylaws, the Association property cannot be sold.
Zieska: Thanked Mr. Van Pelt for his attempts to work this issue through staff.
Blombera:Asked if the applicant had been told that a deck could be constructed.
Van Pelt: Advised that the contractor said a deck could be constructed.
Steve Vespested (14662 Glendale Ave.): Commented that aside from ordinances in place to protect property, the
uniqueness of this property is overlooked. Did not believe allowing a variance of this type adversely impacts the
neighborhood, the City, or the common area. Believed common sense should prevail and that the City was negligent in not
requiring that the deck door be changed during the inspection.
MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried.
LeMair: Believed a mistake has been made, but did not believe it is the City's responsibility to regulate these types of
circumstances, Commented that it appears that the neighbor's deck is closer to the lake that this one would be. Was not
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1, 2003
certain a balcony would be a feasible option. Would be in favor of allowing a variance but would like to see the stairs
reconfigured as to not further encroach the setback,
Zieska: Empathized with the VanPelts, but the record and past practice indicates that no deck should be permitted. This
house was constructed within the past 3 years. Did not believe there is any material change from the first two times
variance applications had been submitted. Suggested that the City further review its ordinances to require that house plans
for new construction include a footprint for a deck, or not allow homes to be built up to the rear lot line. Supported the
Planning Commission denial.
Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember LeMair, and would support a small variance in this case because the property abuts
a common area rather than the lake setback.
BlomberQ: Asked if the City can t~1I a builder not to include patio doors.
Kansier: Advised that under the building code, a patio door is considered a large window. Under the zoning ordinance, a
balcony is not considered a rear yard encroachment.
BlomberQ: Pointed out that the record indicates that a deck would not be added to the home, that the City was responsible
in its action, and that a variance should not be granted on that basis. Did believe that a variance is warranted on the basis
that this property is peculiar in that it abuts a lakeshore common area, does not encroach upon an adjacent residential lot,
and still meets the 75 foot shoreland setback. Just as she supported a similar proposed ordinance amendment, she also
supports this variance.
HauQen: Discussed having rules vs. using common sense. Ordinances are in place to guide property as a whole.
Concerned with having builders advise prospective homeowners that decks are permitted when in fact they are not.
Commented that there is enough argument to the contrary and gray area in application of the hardship criteria. Believes the
ordinance should be revisited. Supported the variance.
Zieska: Asked Council member Blomberg if the rationale is that the rear yard setback can be smaller due to the open
reserve area. Commented that there is a lot of emotion involving the fact that there is a door and ledger board. What
happens when builders start constructing homes without a deck, but with a patio door?
BlomberQ: Advised that she supported the variance, and the ordinance amendment that was considered several weeks
ago, because the private common open space could not be built on. In those cases, believed it acceptable to build up to the
rear property line. Believed that a distinction can be drawn between variance applications that abut common open space
but still meet the other required setbacks such as the shoreland setback, and homes that are constructed in general.
HauQen: Repeated that Councilmember Zieska's concerns are the very reason he believes the ordinance needs to be
discussed further so that builders are required to indicate decks on the building footprint.
BlomberQ: Repeated that this property is unique in that it abuts a common area, and that is the rationale for using the
variance tool in this circumstance.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION
OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
Kirchoff: Clarified that the variance proposed in the staff report is for a 12'x24' rectangular deck, It was not the deck
submitted by the applicant. Any style deck would need to be constructed within that 12'x24' footprint.
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
December 1 , 2003
Pace: Asked what distinguishes a deck from a balcony.
Kansier: Explained that a deck requires supports to the ground where a balcony is cantilevered from the house. Also noted
that as long as the design of the deck fits within the granted setback, it can be any style.
VOTE: Ayes Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for the Construction of a Deck
Addition 2830 Fox Run NW (Case File #03-131).
Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report.
BlomberQ: Asked for a definition of a "villa" style home,
Kirchoff: According to the PUD, villa homes are single family attached or detached homes on smaller lots, On this home,
there are no lower level patio doors.
BlomberQ:Asked if the golf course will always be a golf course.
Kirchoff: The golf course use can be changed through an application for amendment to the PUD by the owner and
approval by the City Council.
Petersen: Asked the size of the proposed deck.
Kirchoff: Advised that the proposed deck is smaller than the old one, approximately 14'x20'.
Pace: Clarified that the intended use of the City's Private Use of Public Property Agreement was not to prospectively allow
construction within an easement, or a waiver of the City's right for infringement into an easement.
LeMair: Asked if there was ever a permit issued for the deck.
Kirchoff: No permit was issued. The staff cannot tell when the original deck was constructed and has assumed that the
deck was included after issuance of the certificate of occupancy since it was not included on the survey for the house.
Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open.
Jim Bates (attorney for the applicant): Advised that the proposed deck does not protrude further than the initial deck. Also
advised that the lot size is .46 acres. Submitted a letter dated November 28, 2003 from him to the City Council on his
interpretation of the state standard for variances. Further noted that State statute allows City's the variance tool to provide
relief for property owners from the strict application of the ordinance. Noted that the McCoys bought the property with the
initial non-conforming, illegal deck and that the excessive impervious surface existed at the time of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy. Clarified that the door faces to the rear of the house even though it is on the far east side of the
home, There is no significant impact upon adjacent neighbors and indicated that the golf course representatives do not
8