HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Gau
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
NOVEMBER 4, 2002
7A
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 3 FOOT
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 27 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY
(Case file #02-117)
History: This agenda item concerns an appeal of the denial of a
variance to allow the applicant to construct a driveway 3 feet in excess
of the maximum permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Richard Gau is requesting permission to construct a driveway 27 feet
in width on property located at 16994 Monroe Avenue SW (see
Attachment 3). The zoning ordinance prohibits residential driveways
exceeding 24 feet in width.
On September 9, 2002, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board
of Adjustment, held a public hearing to consider variances for a
reduced front yard setback and a 27 foot wide driveway. Both requests
were tabled. On September 23, 2002, the Commission reviewed the
requests again and approved a 5.1 foot front yard setback variance, but
denied the 3 foot variance for the driveway. Staffwas directed to
prepare a resolution approving the front yard setback variance. The
resolution was approved at the October 14,2002, meeting.
The"Commission determined the driveway variance did not meet all 9
hardship criteria. A reasonable use of the property, that is, a single
family home with appropriate driveway access is present on the site.
Furthermore, the driveway can be "fanned" to a greater width beyond
the property/right-of-way line, which is 14.5 feet beyond the curb, so
long as the impervious surface does not exceed 30 percent of the lot
area. This will allow additional parking area on the property without
the need for a variance. A copy of the minutes of the October 14,
2002, meeting are an attachment to this report (see Attachment 4).
16200~~~~S~t~a~v~~ ~~~~\~i~mf{~~ Minnesota 35372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T
T
On October 15, 2002, Richard Gau submitted a letter appealing the
Planning Commission's denial of the driveway variance (see
Attachment 2).
Current Circumstances:
The subject property was platted as Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake
Village, in the 1850s, which was one of the first plats in Prior Lake.
The site is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland
District). The platted dimensions ofthe lot are approximately 50 feet
wide by 142 feet deep for a total lot area of approximately 7,100
square feet.
In 1983, a 5 foot variance was granted from the 25 foot required front
yard setback and a 4 foot variance was granted from the 10 foot
required side yard setback to allow for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage. The dwelling currently
maintains a 19.9 foot front yard setback from Monroe Avenue.
Figure 1 - Gau Residence from Monroe Avenue
The zoning ordinance only requires 2 parking spaces for a single
family dwelling. A two-stall garage is present on the site, and two
vehicles can be parked in the driveway, so there are a total of 4 parking
spaces on the property.
The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a driveway 27 feet in
width. Section 1107.205 (6) states that residential driveways shall not
exceed 24 feet in width at the right of way line. (Note: Driveways are
required to be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface
material, as approved by the City Engineer.)
Issue: The City Council must determine whether it concurs with the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested 3 foot variance.
The applicant contends that the length and the width of the driveway
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Gau appeal\CC Report.doc
2
hinder off-street parking. Also, on-street parking is prohibited on
Monroe Avenue because of the pubic access to Prior Lake.
The 24 foot maximum width intended to provide each property with
adequate ingress and egress. Considering that a standard double
garage door is 16 feet wide, the 24 foot driveway provides 8 additional
feet. At the same time this maximum allows for snow storage and ,
adequate curb cut spacing on neighborhood streets
In reviewing this appeal, the City Council may grant a variance from
the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance,
provided that:
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 lot is relatively flat and rectangl,llar in shape, so the
topography and shape of the lot does not impact driveway width or
location, so the property owner does not have a practical difficulty
to warrant relief from the maximum driveway width permitted by
the zoning ordinance.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are
peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property,
and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the
Use District in which the land is located.
The conditions of the property do not impact the driveway width or
location.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
A 24 foot wide driveway offers ample area to park to vehicles side
by side.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an
adequate supply oflight and air to the adjacent property,
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Gau appeal\CC Report.doc
3
T
T
-'T"'"
The driveway width variance will establish a precedent for other
residential properties and may impact snow storage in the
boulevard.
5. The granting ofthe 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 setback variance does not appear to impair
health and safety of the immediate area, but it will impact the
character establishing a driveway width for the Spring Lake
neighborhood.
6. The granting ofthe proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the maximum driveway width is to limit vehicular
access to a public street, allow for adequate on-street parking
availability, and provide an area for snow storage. A 24 foot wide
driveway also allows parking for two vehicles. An additional 3
feet of driveway width appears inconsistent with the intent of the
ordinance.
7. The granting ofthe Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The increased driveway width serves as a convenience to the
property owner. A driveway that complies with maximum zoning
ordinance standards would still allow for ample ingress and egress
to the property, as well as vehicle storage.
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 ofthe property.
The fact that the property owner has proposed the driveway width
greater than permitted by ordinance makes the hardship self-
created.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does not believe that economic reasons are the sole purpose
of the request.
Conclusion: The planning and engineering staff recommend denial of
the variance to allow the 27 foot wide driveway. This
recommendation is based on the fact that there is a reasonable use of
the property without the 27 foot wide driveway, and additional parking
can be accommodated on the property without relief from the zoning
ordinance. A hardship does not exist that prevents the applicant from
L:\02FILES\02appeaI\Gau appeal\CC Report.doc
4
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
making a reasonable use of the property. The applicant created the
hardship by designing the driveway in violation of Zoning Ordinance
Section 1107 .205( 6).
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the variance 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 the
requested variance.
3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons.
The staff recommends alternative # I:
A motion and seco d to uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to d y the requested 3 foot variance from the 24 foot
im d e y width to allow a 27 foot wide driveway.
L:\02FILES\02appeaI\Gau appeal\CC Report.doc
5
T
........ ........-...-,-----.
T
BLDG. PERMIT SURVEY
PREPAREO FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
Volley surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TELEPHONE (SIZ) 441-2570
I
~
ALLEY
~
50 plot
50.04 meo..
TC EL
933.07
933.17
.
936Jl _
- _ 937.0
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
14.5\ BO
\
....
W
01
N
~ 6.0
DECIC'
3
.:. ........ Z!J
I~" 0., ~ ....~
/. Sh'b :\ .
Oeck <<'.,..0
,. . -..'
0'" . p'.
_,t,\lEll
0"'''' t,
0\,05t ,pf 0'1
l' I'.I\.Gtl'l
&G~
01
III
o
o
z
16./--
.S-
HOUSE
...
. D
Q.
N
-r
5.8
~
J
.
'" .
.. .
t5i
e
- - 15:!ui:
93.3 10
N
-r
N
-r
..
D
QI
e
(()
N
N
.,.
~
" I
~ \
0; \
\
I
,
I
/
60
9 .2'"_ 500 _" 934.0 I
~-- SPRING 5O-'~~~AKE---/:'~OAD
929 46
,
930.51
,
DESCRlPTION:
ATTACHMENT 2
Ev10
I.U
:>
2:
I.U
>
<(
s~oo\'
~G
I.U
o
a::
2:
o
~
L
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Mimlesota Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or olT from
said property lIS oflhis 9th day of August, 2002.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of tile existing garage slab.
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
. ---:-;-,-:-. ;--.-;-::1
. ,.. \', . \ \.
: \. ~. " \ .
". \
'.:.\.. ~ 1\ ~i~\
. -J'V
\.JU~-"--
L----
o
L
SCALE
20
40
]
FEET
I ,,~re'by certify thot this survey wos prepared
Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage by m. or omder my d;r",,' supervllion ond thaI
'''''' a duly licensed Land SUlVfYOr onder ,he
laM the Sto}4 /\Iinn'.Ota
iLPY1Ag/c::P'/ -
D<lle ~-Il. J" 'C.- Lic,n.. No. 1018.3
--.
IN
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31
o Oena'" 1/2 inch' 14 inch iran
man,,,..nl .el ot>d "..,..ked by
LiC'ns. No 10/8.3
. OefIotlt iron monument found
. Oenot.. P K. Hoil J.'
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31
***Conlractor 10 verify di",l"n~illn~ prior 10 cGnslrucliou***
III 1 I 1 11 I I I 1 1 t:il'Wf 1 1 I I \ 1 1"'1
'<.....
VI//A "...
fILE Nn
9566
BOOK 23(,
SURVEY
PAGE
11
ATTACHMENT 2
15 October 2002
Letter of Appeal to the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
This letter is to inform the Planning Commission, of Prior Lake,
that I am appealing the decision to deny a three foot variance,
from the maximum twenty four foot width residential driveway
ordinance.
The fact that the City Planning Department, recommended that
the three foot variance for a twenty four foot driveway be granted,
shows me that they have taken into consideration many facts that
go along with my property at 16994 Monroe Avenue Southwest
Prior Lake.
I took some measurements of the driveways proposed
variance of three feet. From my property line to the edge of the
street is fifteen feet. That leaves fourteen feet nine inches to the
edge of sidewalk. My vehicles are a truck which, is eighteen feet
six inches long, and my car which is seventeen feet long. As you
can see, that leaves about four to five feet of parking space
behind these vechiles. I feel that because of my properties
characteristics, compared to other property in the area, the fact
.. .... -- _L _...L .LL___ 1-.1__11_ .-:_..._ ........... .........~h .......i_.. I",vl"'\ hl"v~+ 1~llnl"h
SLDG PERMIT SURVEY
PREPARED FOR:
RICK a JUN E GAU
16994 MONROE AVE. SW
PRIOR LAKE I MN. 55372
ALLEY
0.'_
,.-.
HOUSE
~
o
C
SCALE
,"eo to ~
III .'. 0
,. Slab' .j.... z:
17, '. _\0
:.;,. . "''''::;'''6.,--
93l .6 -
zo
I
I
,
W o1J
(II ~..r DECK
N
ro 6.0
III 24
!!!
9~'J -
/
I
,
--[
N
<3"
- ~:!'
936.6
>-
"
~ .
~ ~
..
e
- 15::.0.:
93.3 rtl
N
<3"
..
~
o
. 1
'e ,
:.
m \
\
9 ''z.,._
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
SUITE IZO-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
TE.LEPHONE (512) 447 - 2570
\
~
50 plat
50.04 mea.
- _ 937.0
\
I
\
I
TC EL 933.17
933.07 ·
14.51 BO
",1/
:=
I..LJ
::>
:2
I..LJ
>
c:::(
936.3
19.9
=
(II
0()
HOUSE
o
.,
11.7 5
T11 IJ)
~ t?!'[ ~~..1:~i.~I~;.::\
T I U GARAGE I~l:: :~:~.:.::::ij@.::
SI~~:p' !Iil~:i::::'. E
CL
~#i:i/?::J?::t(:
c.d'I~!l6l
*-0 1'0s~tl oOf o\J{.
,\ltl"I'"G{. l'
~G
'.'.
~---
..
o
..
e
<D
N
N
<3"
50.01 mea..
50 plat
I
I
I
;/
7' 934.0
-'
60
J
I
/
...."'930. I
-
SPRING---- IAKE---"
929.46
.
ROAD
930.S1
.
DESCRIPTION:
ATTACHMENT 3
Evlc
S100l'
lOG
I..LJ
o
0:
:2
o
~
L
Lot 12, Block 32, SPRING LAKE VILLAGE, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing the location of all visible improvements and encroachments on to or olT from
said property as of this 9th day of August, 2002. r:
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 933.31 Top of the existing garage slab.
IN
40
.J
FEET
o Oend., j /2 inch ~ 14 inch Iron
monument ,.t and marked by
License No. 10183
. Oenot<<s Iron monUmer1t foona
<II
'he1'~by cf:rtify fhat thl, surv~y wall preporrd
DenoteS proposed direction of finished surface drainage ~~:'a ":u'';'':'~';;:'ddi~-;~:!:::;:: :::.:r:::
10M the Staf1 MinnfJoto.
iC ~4P c::P"L4 - C
Dot. 8_11..'o-r-. Lictns.Na.IOI83
933.1 Denotes existing grade elevation
x
(933.0) Denotes proposed finished grade elevation
~
The existing garage slab is at elevation 933.31
The lowest floor elevation is 933.31
._....,.-;:;-:::-c;:s-T:J
. 'r" I', II" .... ...\
'. .' --:. '.' .... .'- ',i":
'i\ .u; I 5 ~~ :~j
u u~-------'
\-----
FILE Nn 9566
''':'':'
800K ~PAGE-!:!..-
Denotes P. K NoH set
"''''Cllnt n1ctor to verify dilll,'"silln~ prior to c(;nstructiun"''''.
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2002
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the October 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7 :02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and
Stamson, Community Development Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane
Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Ringstad
Stamson
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the September 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Correction in the September 23rd, Minutes - Page 10, Criego: relates to driveway entrance
should be "to reduce the width of the driveway". The Minutes were approved as
amended.
4. Consent:
A. Case 02-088 Gau Variance Resolution
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Ringstad did not remember the committee approving the driveway variance. After
looking at the Minutes, they agreed the variances approving the setbacks for the stoop
and eave.
Criego believed there were other requests for variances that the Commission did not vote
on.
Kansier said there was another Resolution denying the requests. The Commissioners can
make another motion denying the requests.
Criego recalled a third request. Lemke pointed out it was not a separate request, it was
part of the front yard setback. Kirchoff stated there were only 2 requests. She also
confirmed there were 2 Resolutions attached to the original report.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl01402.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14. 2002
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-
OllPC APPROVING VARIANCES TO PERMIT A 14.9 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A 5 FOOT STOOP AND 5 FOOT EAVE AND DENY A VARIANCE
FOR A 27 FOOT WIDE DRlVEW A Y.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case 02-097 Mark Liesner is applying for a 52,492 square foot variance from
the required minimum 2 acre lot area in the RS (Rural Subdivision Residential)
zoning district and a 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot minimum setback
from a tributary river for the construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 13,
Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 14, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
/-
Mark Liesner is requesting variances from zoning ordinance provisions to permit the
construction of a single family dwelling on property zoned R-S (Rural Subdivision
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 4525 Jackson Trail (Lot
13, Block 2, Titus 2nd Addition). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The site is a vacant, riparian lot, as it abuts an unnamed tributary watercourse connected
with Pike Lake. Trees are scattered throughout the property. Municipal water and sewer
is currently unavailable to the site. The applicant requests the following variances:
1. A 52,492 square foot variance from the required minimum 2 acre lot area in
the R-S zoning district to allow a 34,628 square foot lot.
2. A 76 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback from an unnamed
tributary watercourse.
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property
zoned R-S and SD. The subject lot does not comply with the minimum lot area
established by the zoning ordinance, because it was platted in 1974, prior to the current
ordinance being adopted in 1999. Moreover, the proposed dwelling does not comply
with the minimum setback from the tributary watercourse that extends along the east
portion of the site.
Since the property is a legal, nonconfonning lot of record and the required watercourse
setback significantly constrains the site's buildable area, variances are warranted. The
property owner cannot construct a reasonable use without relief from the zoning
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI01402.doc 2
fi
I
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
1107.205(6) PERMITTING A MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 24 FEET TO ALLOW A 27 FOOT
WIDE DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED AS 16994 MONROE AVENUE SW
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, On November 4, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal
by Richard Gau of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 3 foot variance to
permit a 27 foot wide driveway on the property legally described as follows:
Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, 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 reversing the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the
requested variance should be upheld.
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 makes the following findings:
a. On November 4, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Richard
Gau of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 3 foot variance to permit a 27 foot wide
driveway on the property legally described as follows:
Lot 12, Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota; and
a. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-088, and
held a public hearing thereon September 9, 2002, and reviewed the request again on September 23,2002.
b. The Planning Commission concluded the driveway variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and
denied the variance.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\gau appeal\cc res.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
c. Richard Gau appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of
the City Code on October 15,2002.
d. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-088 and Case File #02-117, and held a hearing thereon on November 4,2002.
e. The City Council has considered the effect of the requested 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.
f. The City Council has determined the request does not meet the hardship criteria. There are no unique
characteristics of the property to warrant a variance, and any hardship was caused by the actions of the
applicant through the design of the driveway.
g. The denial of the requested variance does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance, as a reasonable use currently exists on the property.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-088 and Planning Case File #02-117 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, and denies a 3-foot variance to permit a 27 foot wide driveway.
Passed and adopted this 4th day of November, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Petersen Petersen
LeMair LeMair
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\gau appeal\cc res.doc Page 2
r