HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Variance Appeal / Simpson
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DECEMBER 2, 2002
7B
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 15
FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK (Case file #02-127)
Randy and Patrice Simpson have filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny a variance. In the letter appealing
this decision, the Simpsons raise issues pertaining to the vacation of
the adjacent 6th Street road right-of-way, as well as the variance.
Although the letter intertwines these issues, the variance and the
vacation are mutually exclusive of each other.
The decision pending before the City Council and the subject of this
staff report is the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny the requested variance.
History: This agenda item concerns an appeal from the Planning
Commission's decision to deny a 15 foot variance from the required
25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 698 square foot
third stall garage addition 10 feet from the property line abutting 6th
Street on property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road (see
Attachment 3).
The subject property is a corner lot because it lies at the intersection
of Spring Lake Road and 6th Street, which a gravel street providing
emergency and recreational vehicle access to Spring Lake. The
zoning ordinance requires a corner lot in the R-l use district to
maintain a 25 foot front yard setback abutting each street.
On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board
of Adjustment, held a public hearing to consider the item and denied
the 15 foot variance for the garage addition by approving Resolution
02-019PC.
16266\~~k1~S~f~~~~~t~;1j5~lirFTh~~~.AArnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Commission determined that the variance request failed to meet
all 9 of the hardship criteria. The Planning Commission and City
Council have considered the lack of a 2-stall garage a hardship,
particularly because Prior Lake is a lake community, but to the best
of staff's knowledge, they have not maintained this position for
larger garages. The property owner currently has a 2-stall garage,
and would be allowed to construct a 408 square foot garage addition
(for a third stall) to the existing dwelling without need of a variance.
In its discussion, the Planning Commission considered the situation
of the property (i.e., the site is a corner lot abutting a gravel street)
but stated that a garage addition or a detached garage can be
constructed on the site without a variance. (See October 28, 2002,
Planning Commission meeting minutes in Attachment 4).
On November 1, 2002, Randy and Patrice Simpson submitted a
letter appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the setback
variance (see Attachment 2).
Current Circumstances:
Spring Lake Townsite was platted in the 1850s, so the individual lots
do not comply with current minimum standards set forth in the
shoreland ordinance. The subject property is a combination of all of
Lot 6 and 28 feet of Lot 5. In 1999, the zoning ordinance was
amended to include a provision that stated "if 2 or more lots or
combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in
single ownership are of record... and if all or part of the lots do not meet
the requirements established for lot area and width, the lands involved
shall be considered to be an individual parcel... " By operation of the
ordinance, the two lots are considered combined.
The Simpson parcel is 25,653 square feet in area, with a lot width of
108 feet. The subject property's lot area and lot width are consistent
with minimum required dimensional standards for riparian lots on
General Development waters.
In 1969, a single family dwelling was constructed on the property.
An addition was constructed in 1992, on the north side of the
dwelling, which abuts 6th Street. This addition is located, at its
closest point, 19.3 feet from the property line, and does not comply
with the minimum 25 foot front yard setback from 6th Street, and
was constructed without a variance. Based on available records, staff
has concluded a building permit was inadvertently issued for the
addition. The existing dwelling is therefore nonconforming.
As previously noted, the zoning ordinance requires a corner lot to
have a front yard setback on each street. The minimum front yard
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 2
setback in the R-l use district is 25 feet. The proposed garage
addition is set back 10 feet from the property line abutting 6th Street.
Simpson residence from intersection of Spring Lake Road & 6th Street
Issue: The City Council must determine whether it concurs with
the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested 15 foot
variance. The applicant maintains that the property is not a corner
lot and the 25 foot setback should not apply, and when the existing
garage addition was constructed in 1992, the property was not
considered a corner lot with two front yards.
A garage addition could be constructed without a variance. Staff has
prepared a site plan showing a 24 feet deep by 17 feet wide (408
square feet) addition that meets both required front yard setbacks
(see Attachment 5). The suggested addition complies with the
average 41 foot front yard setback from Spring Lake Road and the 25
foot setback from 6th Street. Also, it is possible that a 25 foot by 25
foot (625 square foot) detached garage can be constructed between
the existing dwelling and Spring Lake Road (this location is
permitted on riparian lots) that complies with minimum front and
side yard setbacks.
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
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 3
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 has ample buildable area to construct an
addition and detached garage, which would be a total of 1,033
square feet or more than the proposed addition, without
vanances.
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 alleged condition, that of this being a corner lot, is found
throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning
ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner
lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property
with the existing single family home and attached 2-car garage.
Additional garage area can be constructed on the property
without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the
appeal letter, the appellant states, "additional garage space can be
added on the other areas of the lot but will block my view and my
neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to
build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not
be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Camp Plan. "
The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the owner.
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.
Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance
may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be
located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet
from 6th Street, which is vehicular access to Spring Lake.
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.
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 4
, " lIThe granting of the variance will impact the character of the
~~\ ~+ 'JI"\I"L.-. l.vf dJl(.{ tk.C155, neighborhood by allowing a structure to be located
l\ '.J I . \ ......I-.l() approximately 12 feet from a street used as access to Spring Lake.
l\lQ,i..r1;l S ~\I'-
l\, . L.J (' ~JIL 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary
1~'~S~nu. rq('" rvY"-l to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
~ 1 U,(~-?c6 .
ALl . .. t I d j 1!'IJ~ One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the
C/!'"'(.( .)~l~ ~ vv^ l' . . f f' . . .. h"
, P . ( .11 ( , ' e ImInatlOn 0 non-con ormltles or mInImIZe t elr Impact on
~." rv-lk I adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance
f><lWrt "'''' ,tJru,i , . sets forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided
o ' \ ,. .J. 1ilK that it does not expand. "A nonconformity shall not be
3"-io~~~, {fV/,e1f'/"t... Kh enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or
~ 0w-A O;..J;."ll\,. dimension except to comply with the provisions of this
$'r!i, 1z~ (k~",~"l-. ordin~nce." The proposed addition will expand the bui.lding into
j, - a reqUIred setback, and further expand the nonconformIty.
.~ ~ . Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary
to the intent of the zoning ordinance.
j P \ f\..lJ 11 t~ <Jj'{.t/ WYJ J, 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
1 I n L I J J.t convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
f~v'f'vl ~ hI~ A ~b . <). demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
\/ ~J(J ~~hal( \-.q/u,W- t'. i
, The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the
( J. applicant. There are other options for additional garage space,
f'\ Ii~, ~() 1"1 ,
\..J"" ' and an attached garage is already present on the site. There is no
~ hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As
j~', \?e) \~!'iJ . fs ~ f Sf mentioned by the applicant in the attached appeal letter , "the
bit... c..~{ ','Jr"l-I )-tL~. ~J.' n only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as
v J ~''fl.<.. 6l- ~ to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff
~~~ ~1 ~~ I_~X I previously allowed building into the setback. If I wanted ease I
!.NY\. \J .11-..{ '1 olfvI I I would just build a detached shed in the front yard.>>
J\\.I, '( ~ . 1~ ~ \1~\f.J ~ 'I. ~L The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
wv..> I Ll1t1.,. Of J. dP~O this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result
ff""? f ?<;,t'-\ IS \.tv.> t ~ ~{~ from actions of the owners of the property.
pk~, j"J ,Ytl .7L'" The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property
* 1:~\ ~~ U Cn).Q/I'"L . owner. T~e proposed design is what created the need for the
~ A , va, riance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.
j 0 . hilA Ttrhere are legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the
S:t.' ::J? -S - ~ applicant in his appeal letter as referenced in criterion 3.
r \.- ~l<)k(~ 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
'-., hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
A higher cost to construct legally viable alternatives is not
justification for a variance. The applicant has acknowledged that
it would be cheaper to construct a detached garage.
Conclusion: The staff recommends denial of the 15 foot variance to
allow the 10 foot setback from the 6th Street. This recommendation
is based on the fact that there is a reasonable use of the property
L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 5
without the additional garage area. Furthermore, a smaller garage
addition as well as a detached accessory structure can be constructed
on the property within the required setbacks.
Therefore, a hardship does not exist that prevents the applicant from
making a reasonable use of the property. The proposed garage
addition is a convenience. Moreover, the applicant created the
hardship by designing the addition in violation of Zoning Ordinance
Section 1102.405(3).
ALTERNA TIVES:
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.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The staff recommends alternative #1:
A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the requested 15 foot variance from the 25 foot
front yard setback t allow a 10 foot setback for a garage addition to
a si.. g e fa ily wel ng.
REVIEWED BY:
ji> ~ AJ.J (1L ~lu o~~ ;~S
~ po~ ~t S~ ~y-<. eA~ rN
~~~. . '
1. Resol~tion 02-XX u::.', \st~ k both '\~ '\1 ~-t'S I~ 'N.
2. LocatlOn map ~r.;vl-\ (<"t1r'-(l'Y\k;;t--:. .
~: ~~~:;lletter tL', N6t'L~ ~ ?b<;f~4;~~~)TrAH
5. Octob~r 28, 2002, Pla~~ing Commission meetin; JT~.utes~ ~~~Jil '~~
6. Compl1ant garage addltIon v"'V 'V
J~~.w y.. i'<v- ,SC/::'P .,. c.,k<, 5 -0, c..L<j"f~,
2- '1'J? SrY~ ~ IU ): \)\~l~ lL ~hl"" V'<I~ ~ ,if Sfnd " ~ .fU Jis
~. ~-\~ ~ ~ t~\, ~ 0'1 ~ \ ~\~o ,~l-S(t~~ 1: i~1wp~h,1LC1"'
~. (u{~ \()\s ~ ~ yrorDsJ ~ :t~, BeL~.v</l hiS, (ilt.IS f<~
~ Yo ~ ~~ ~ f~ n>~~,' R.~ ~J 1L- ~,fLC h~J~
G11\ l;rlt- r.'\1)1. h~ ,~tftf~~'V'- v~ I iL 116 Itdt-,rrrJ2t-~,
L:\02FII--ES\O~afpeal\SiI1Jprn appeal\CC RfpOl\doc 1 j .61 'j k ~
0(. .,- ~<;4! It l6V1U, )iJ b~~""t<::. )lY!-~ ~ II ~ f ..
~LP ", 1)\J~' ~.I i.Q,,j~ s<) \ h,;t. ~ ~ 4-0 h:.\fUv,
ATTACHMENTS:
P ~bl ~'t..
~
Sv1~~
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
MINIMUM 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, On December 2, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Randy
and Patrice Simpson to construct a 698 square foot garage addition to an existing
single family dwelling located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as
follows:
The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite
and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6th Street, Scott
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards 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 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. Randy and Patrice Simpson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a
garage addition to be constructed to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-
1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and
legally described as follows:
The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a
portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6th Street, Scott County,
Minnesota
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\02files\02appeal\simpson appeal\cc resolution.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page I
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 25 foot front yard
setback as contained in Case #0-113 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria
and denied the request.
d. Randy and Patrice Simpson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 1109.400 ofthe City Code on November 1, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File #02-113 and Case File #02-127, and held a hearing thereon
on December 2, 2002.
f. 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 variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. The subject property has ample buildable area to construct an addition and detached garage,
which would be a total of 1,033 square feet or more than the proposed addition, without
vanances.
h. The alleged condition (i.e., this being a corner lot) is found throughout the City of Prior Lake.
According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot.
There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property.
1. The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing single family
home and attached 2-car garage. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property
without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the appeal letter, the applicant
states, "additional garage space can be added on the other areas of the lot but will block my
view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a
freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as
mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan." The variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
J. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the elimination of non-conformities or
minimize their impact on adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance sets
forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided that it does not expand. "A
nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or
dimension except to comply with the provisions of this ordinance." The proposed addition
will expand the building into a required setback, and further expand the nonconformity.
Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning
ordinance.
k. The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other
options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. There
is no hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As mentioned by the appellant in
the appeal letter, "the only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to
the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into
the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard."
I :\02fi1es\02appeal\simpson appeal\cc resolution.doc
Page 2
1. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. The proposed design
is what created the variance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. There are
legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the applicant.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-113 and #02-127 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission denying the following requested variance:
a) A 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback.
Passed and adopted this 2nd day of December 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\02files\02appeal\simpson appeal\cc resolution.doc
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
,
Location Map
for Simpson Appeal
~/II '~
I{ a:
(E RD sw2
/ II
1/1
Spring Lake
N
A
~
200
400 Feet
200
o
r-
.'. -.@@n-'..,..,:r':!....
! :'\ : <:, . U \ 'v I 1:-; ,;~
I".LS w t.5 "11
I~! ~ I m ;~I
~TTACHMENT 3
10/31/2002
APPEAL REQUEST OF RESOLUTION 02-019PC
Randy and Patrice Simpson hereby formally request an appeal to the City Counsel for
resolution 02-0 19PC variance denial and public hearing date of 10/28/2002.
Previous to application for an interpretation of our lot and a variance to the set back I met with planning
staff (Cindy and Jane) to explain our situation and ask for guidance and clarification. My initial contact
was with Cindy to interrupt my lot layout and the zoning ordinance. Cindy at this time was only on Staff
for a short time so I requested a meeting with Cindy, Jane and Don. A meeting was set up with Jane. Cindy
and myself to cover aII aspects of the lot and the unique situation, I supplied staff with documentation on
previous vacations and court rulings pertaining to this situation. The City Attorney reviewed the
documentation and after 3-4 weeks a determination was made by Staff to apply for a variance.
Under Staff recommendation I did apply for a variance. At that time I also questioned the intent of the
ordinance and if the ordinance truly was drafted with the thought of a ~ vacated unimproved dead end
Street required a 25-foot setback.
Below I wiI! respond to Staff comment for a hardship and justification of a denial of a variance. Keep in
mind I stilI question the interpretation of the ordinance and the original intent of the ordinance as it pertains
to this lot.
Hardship Findings
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional
topographical or water 'condition, 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.
Staff response. The property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of
another in addition to a vacated right-of-way and the reserve area. There are no exceptional conditions
associated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner.
Owner response. The words extraordinary and exception condition above describe the relationship of this
lot in conjunction with the ~ of vacated 6 tho Street. How many other lots have an access to the lake
located next to it preventing an addition to the home. Previous staff aIIowed us to build 12 years ago and
did not consider this to be a comer lot at that time. I believe Staff is not interpreting the information
correctly and the intent of the ordinance. The words peculiar and practical difficulties above also relate to
the fact, it would be peculiar to attach or detach a garage on the other side of the property. The 2020 Comp
Plan address aesthetic as a goal. I do not believe detached garages in the front yard achieve that goal.
-
- 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the propert)' or
immediatel" adjoininj! propert", and do not appl,,; j!enerallv, to other land or structures in the Use
District in which the lot is located.
Staff Response. The alleged condition, that of this being a corner lot, is found throughout the City of Prior
Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot. The are
no peculiar conditions that apply to this property.
Owner Response. Without counting how many corner lots Prior Lake has out of its 5000 or so home sites,
I would guess 750 to 1000, and only a handful of access to the lake I would consider this peculiar to this
property. Terrace Circle. originally platted as 6th Street, also has a similar situation onto Prior Lake has two
homes with less than a 25-foot setback located next to it. Another access off of Sunset on the Spring Lake
has homes within the 25-foot setback also.
How many other lots in the City have ~I: of a vacated dead end road that is privately maintained located
next to it. This so-called street has no street sign; no traffic control signs, and is ignored by the City. This
road also crosses land that Scott County District Court has ruled the public has no rights to. I will address
this issue later
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessan' for the presen'ation and enjovment of a
substantial property rij!ht of the owner.
Staff Response. A reasonable use is present on the property. The front yard set back is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial right of the property owner. Additional garage area can be
constructed on the property with out any variance.
Owner response. As a property owner I have the right of useful enjoyment of my property. Useful enjoy
varies from individual to individual. My hobbies require additional inside parking and workspace. My
rights are being penalized on two sides of my lot a 25 foot setback on the side that other similar lots do not
have and another 41.5 foot set back on the front. This is an additional setback of 15 foot on the west side
and 17 feet on the north side. Additional garage space can be added on other areas of the lot but wiII block
my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding
garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp
Plan.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of lij!ht and air to the
adjacent propertv, unreasonably increase the conj!estion in the public streets, increase the ~ of
fire, or endanj!er public safe!)'.
Staff Response. Although the granting of the IS foot front yard setback variance may not impact public
safety, it will allow a structure to be located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet from an
unimproved public right-of -way, which is used for Spring Lake access.
Owner response. The request does not impair any of the above listed items. A majority of the homes in
the City are 10 feet or less from the property line. My neighbor's home is only 7 feet from my east line,
this is found throughout the City and is allowed in many case by ordinance and by variances. Structures
built elsewhere on the lot could affect adjoining properties.
5. The granting of the proposed Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area.
.,
Staff response. The granting of the variance will impact the character of tl}e neighborhood by allowing a
structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring
Lake.
Owner Response. Staff needs to comment on how this will effect the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Many homes in the area are closer than 10 feet to a lot line and some are as close or closer
to a right-of-way than 10 feet. The City and County will discover this upon expansion of Spring Lake
Road. The proposed additions to the structure will increase values and keep the integrity of the
neighborhood by not allowing detached structures in the front yards. The addition will also allow
additional inside storage that will prevent additional outdoor storage frowned upon by ordinance but not
enforced.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contral")' to the intent of this Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response. The granting of the 15-foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance.
One purpose is to encourage "the elimination of the non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent
properties." The proposed addition will expand the nonconforming setback.
Owner response. I have questioned the intent of the ordinance since our fIrst discussions. I do not believe
the intent of the ordinance was to limit useful enjoyment of a property located next to !tS of a vacated
unrnaintained dead end street. The Street was platted 145 years ago, as were many others in the area that
have been vacated, abandoned or improved. Staff approved and allowed the so-called non-conformities in
1990.
The Comp Plan emphasizes maintaining access to the lakes. I have discussed ways to maintain public
access to the lake and eliminate ail the non-conformities but this has fallen on deaf ears. Staff seams more
interested in ways to challenge ideas than to explore other options. As I mentioned earlier a Scott County
District Court case ruled the public does not have interest or rights to the reserve area and if that is so they
do not have legal access to the lake.
I would think it is in the publics and the City's best interest to seek other options to maintain access to the
lake and eliminate non-conformities.
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.
Staff response. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other
options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site.
Owner response. The only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the
interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. If I
wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard. As for the fact of a garage already on the
site yes there is but ordinance does not limit garages or stalls if attached and limit only I detached garage of
832 sq. ft.
In 1990 staff allowed us to build as shown on the survey. If setbacks were an issue we could have built off
the other side. Now with the layout of the home an attached garage off the other side would enter through a
bedroom and a detached garage would look out of place and effect the character of the neighborhood.
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 owner of the property.
~
· Staff response. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the propertY owner. Staff believes that
the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning
ordinance.
Owner response. The owner questions what actions of the property owner directly resulted in the
hardship. Staff allowed us to build in 1990 and created the so-called non-confonnity, now staff believes
it's the owner's actions that resulted in the need for the variance. This hardship could be resolved in many
ways. l.by picking the house up and moving it to the east, 2. By not building and using my property to its
full potential. 3. Proper interpretation of the intent of the ordinance, 4. Vacation or abandonment of the
remaining ~ of the vacated street. 5. Granting a variance. Any and all properties or applicants seeking a
variance could be resolved in one of the five ways, and many times are.
9.Increased development or construction cost or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for
granting a Variance.
Staff response. Although the garage addition will increase value of the property, staff does not believe that
is the sole purpose of the request.
Owner response. Yes and addition will increase value of the property. I don't know what other purpose
staff is referring to. I would like to build on the complete strUcture for use and enjoyment for my family
and myself. As I mentioned earlier, it would be cheaper to build a detached garage, but that is not what I
want or I believe the City wants. I believe staff feels I want to attach the garage for monetary savings. I
believe the requirement above relates to not granting a variance just on the basis it is less expensive to do it
one way vs. the other.
Conclusion.
In my opinion the appeal of the resolution and granting the variance may be the quickest and easiest way to
address the setback issue. Other ways may be interpretation of the intent of the ordinance or vacation of
the remaining roadway. The three above mentioned
solutions would be in my eyes in the best interest of all parties involved. Staff does have supporting
documents on the lot, previous vacations, First Judicial District Court Case.
I have also included a signed vacation request for the remaining road and have listed alternatives below.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance for a 10 foot front yard setback.
2. Interpret the intent of the ordinance and instrUct staff to let the applicant proceed.
3. Vacate the remaining portion of roadway, reserve and easement and distribute to the appropriate fee
owners.
4. Vacate the remaining roadway and designate as parkland.
5. Deny all the request and solutions and potentially defend legal action from the applicant based on Prior
City authorization to build and First Judicial District Court Case Hauser vs. Dvork challenging the
publics right to access through the reserve and abandon roadways.
~
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner and feel free 'to contact me with any questions
prior to the City Counsel hearing.
Please address and correspondence and questions to
Randy and Patrice Simpson
~933 Spring Lake Road
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Contact phone numbers 952-447-9441 or 612-328-]435
.7
~~---------
. --. ~~---
Ra~dy Simpsop..?' /
~i~
Patrice Simpson
Delivered to The City of Prior Lake Planning Department November 1,2002
"
>
/
/
/
/
/
/
/,/
/
/
0",
/~
'",
"V
,// ,/'/"
// ./~
/ ....~
/ ",r
/
h
.- >>
E .
Z .~
me
PROPOSED ADDITION
",'
/
tjJ;;;
-::: lL .
a:.._
~ J''''
Cl If""
W J,.,
III LLJ (D
.: (~r:!
... .::: m
/
/'
/
/
/
"'-"
".
'.
~.
6>..
/
"
'I
~ ~...'
"'.:Jt..,J" ~(,.
_ ^, /;:;. G'~':".
'~.. ./....,
-"'- " "..... ",. ~
~$''' .'\~~,
.::'or .;.)'\
. >60."
"'0
->
1-,>
of>
-"'1-
"''\;.
....0
"''1
':r1-,,;.
"4",
-(>
. .f/tS'
"" ",
;:;;:~<:>
,/,'\ ..~.f"
"" '"
~2
1/ !"
~
"6'.6
'~'"
> o.\)
"'"1'.. :61-
.s-o!) ,
1........
,
...
VI
;;,
.J
:c
k " )
u
w
I- 0 //
.",
'/>
, "./,,'
..
..
f'A
'-
/
ATTACHMENT 4
I^
/ '.
.".
...
,"
\
J
)/
./
.
-~
0,
"\
/
/
'"
.2 en
(J) '"
~
<:
-
Q:
a..
V)
III
'"
..J '-
.., III
. of,
..,'-' '.,r
\ / oJ'
'<t. ..l' ";"~....
ry
'1,
.' 1^i. ~dO
./' l' 1'1 'f'"
\" ~....", v ~
,,-' y.' ".9.6
y .s'
.>:. ~-
~,j, ,."'f:,'
~V(.
~' -1
r., ,/'
f:'/
{/. l&J
,~- ~
q:
...J
<~L t4~ ED
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
ATTACHMENT 5
B. Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front
yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the
property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Randy and Patrice Simpson are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 2933
Spring Lake Road (part of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and 30
feet of vacated 6th Street right-of-way and a portion of the platted Reserve). The property
is guided Urban LowlMedium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The property is a riparian lot abutting Spring Lake. The property is also a corner lot with
frontage on Spring Lake Road and 6th Street (an unimproved road). A single family
dwelling, constructed in 1969, currently occupies the site. In 1992, an addition was
constructed to the dwelling that does not comply with the minimum front yard setback
from the 6th Street right-of-way. At its closest point, the dwelling is 19.3 feet from the
property line. In order to construct the proposed addition a 15 foot variance from the
required 25 foot front yard setback is necessary to allow a 10 foot setback.
Staff recommended denial of the requested 15 foot front yard variance to allow a 10 foot
setback from the 6th Street right-of-way based upon the following:
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship exists to warrant the granting of
the variance.
2. A large garage addition can be constructed within the buildable area of the property.
3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the existing structure.
Should the Planning Commission approve this request, staff recommended the following
conditions:
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.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned how the City classified the addition in1990. Kansier said there was
no information available at the time. She also pointed out she did not know what the
required setback was on corner lots at that time.
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl 02802.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28.2002
Criego questioned the vacation of 6th Str~et. Kansier responded only a portion of the
street was vacated. It is a platted right-of-way and winter access to Spring Lake.
There is traffic.
Stamson also pointed out the neighbor's garage access is on 6th Street.
Comments from the Public:
Randy Simpson, 2933 Spring Lake Road, said the road is used by ice fishermen as a
winter access, not a boat access. Simpson said the staff in 1990 did not interpret the
lot as a corner lot. He had to downsize his plan at that time. He questioned ifit is
still really a street. He also pointed out other vacations in the platted subdivision. In
response to staffs hardships, Simpson questioned if the street was partially vacated,
is it really a corner lot? The ordinances pertain to streets not half streets. The street
is maintained by the homeowners and Sportsmen's Club, not the City. Simpson
pointed out staff felt the applicant created the problem, but he did not agree. There
are other locations on the property to place the garage but he feels this location is
aesthetically the best. He felt he was penalized to have setback averaging from the
neighbors' homes. Simpson pointed out the other options would block his view of
the lake as well as the neighbors. He said ifhe did not get the requested variance
there are other options to vacate the street.
Stamson questioned the applicant's existing tarred driveway onto 6th Street.
Simpson said he uses it for parking his boat trailer and equipment.
Criego questioned the applicant having a driveway on 6th street, implying that it is a
street. Simpson responded it needs to be determined.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Simpson made some excellent points, but concerned in keeping some
continuity from 1990.
. Could possibly support to continue the current garage line to eliminate
additional new setback requirements toward the street or alley.
. Simpson said one reason to stagger the garage is the length requirement in
the city ordinance. Kirchoff said the ordinance was for a side yard - not a
front or corner lot. It implies to only interior side lot lines, not side streets or
corners.
Atwood:
. Interested in the corner lot issue, it seems to be repetitive.
. Sympathetic to the applicant with the uniqueness of the lot.
. It is not a busy road or alley.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 1 02802.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28. 2002
Criego:
· Questioned staff if there was a limitation on garage size? Kirchoffsaid "No".
· Did staff ask legal advice if that was considered a street? Kirchoffsaid legal
staff stated it was a street.
· Kansier clarified it was a platted 60 foot wide street, although never
improved to that width. Half of it was vacated so there is still a 30 foot public
street width. There are a number of platted streets in the City that have
nothing on them. In this area, the City still applies the corner setback, even
though the street is unimproved.
· This is never going to be a street, but will be an access to the lake.
· Kansier said it is technically a platted street - there is access to the
neighbor's garage as well as the applicant's access. It is used by the public
for access as well.
· Questioned when was the adj acent garage put in and how far from the line is
that? Kirchoff responded she did not have any information when it was
constructed but it is 25 feet from the property line.
Atwood:
· Questioned if the structure was built in 1990. Simpson indicated it was.
Kansier said the information provided is very sketchy. Assumed it was put
in as an access or more of a parking or storage pad.
Stamson:
· As far as determination as a street - it has a platted right-of-way, has two
accesses and is used by the public. There is no question it is a street.
. Staffs interpretation is correct.
· As far as a variance and hardships - it is a tougher call.
· One thing the Commission looks at is the hardship created by the application
of the ordinance alone. The ordinance is written for the entire City.
· In this case, the 25 foot setback throughout the city is valid. In applying it to
this situation it is a little overkill. Maybe one of the hardships has been met,
but not all, not enough to grant a variance.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
· If you believe it is a street, you have to abide by the 25 foot setback. There
are other ways of adding to the garage.
Ringstad:
· Getting back to what happened in 1990 - what was the City classifying the
street at that time?
Criego:
· What was done 12 years ago may not be valid now. Times change. Ringstad
came up with an alternative that works. It would have a 5 foot variance.
.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 1 02802.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28. 2002
Stamson:
. Starting to define streets is going to be a problem. There are several unusual
streets in the City. The Commission just looked at one (Oakland Beach)
where the street does not sit on the right-of-way.
. There is other ways to build a garage on this property.
. Leaning towards denying. It does not qualify for any of the hardships.
Ringstad:
. Agreed to deny the request as presented. Having a tough time not granting
some sort of variance from 12 years ago. It was not that long ago.
. Suggest tabling this to see if the applicant and staff can come to some sort of
compromIse.
Criego:
. The applicant currently has a two cargarage. Now he wants to add another
garage and a half. How does that fit into a variance request? Look what the
Commissioners have done in the past.
Stamson:
. Agreed. In the past the Commissioners felt not having a two car garage was
a hardship, a third car garage is a convenience and not warranting a
. YMlad~g that as well as the previous discussions - there is no hardship.
. There is no denial of the property. He can build a fairly good size garage
addition within the ordinance requirements.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Ringstad to see if the applicant and staff can work something
out.
Ringstad:
. What I am hearing from everyone is that were not in favor of supporting
what is before the Commission. If something comes before the Commission
that is new, it is a new consideration.
Stamson:
. Does not have a problem tabling so the applicant may want to alter or change
his request, but the concern is the way it has been presented. It gives the
appearance that the Commission is negotiating a variance. It either warrants
a variance or not. Hate to give the impression that we are allowing staff to
negotiate a variance with an applicant. It is not proper.
. Kansier agreed. Staff does not have the authority to negotiate a variance.
Atwood:
. The applicant stated he had other options.
. Kansier explained they did speak to the City Attorney about vacating the
right-of-way. The attorney felt at this point in time, it would be difficult to
~
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 1 02802.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28.2002
show it was in the public's interest to vacate. It was basically their opinion
the City would be causing problems for themselves. .
Criego:
· The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an
existing 2 car garage, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car
garage is sufficient. If there is a need for additional storage then the
property is certainly large enough to adapt.
Stamson:
· Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Denied a
third car garage on more difficult lots.
· In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used
has not been met.
The Commissioners agreed to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
02-019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning
the height and opacity of fences on corner lots.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28,2002,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a
resident, who resides on a corner lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The
property owner would like to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills
Parkway; however, the current ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards.
On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of
amending the fence ordinance concerning corner and riparian lots. Overall, the
Commission felt as though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not
recommend changes to the ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to
prepare an ordinance amendment to allow corner lots to have a fence six feet in
height along a side street.
Whether or not corner lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a
side street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally
intended for aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN 1 02802.doc 9
ATTACHMENT 6
..
,/
/',
'",-
'-.
/
--
../'
0",
//
/
/
//
/.
/
/
..
ir;
- ~
e .
~ .!
me
~
:#;-
//
/(,
/.~~
c,<?
.J
...
III
o:l
.J
VI
~ ~
v.
~ r~
% $
)/
..IA.
J
/
S,
.J
,..
"
"
.,
,
/0
.,)1-"
\. MWm POTENTIAL GARAGES
:;$M.~
":' \.
~~ .:..;:'.~."{)
/1 ",7 \
I 'f "-,
~
" '"
~2
..
"'0
),
. "1 , . ..'
'rl'~ ~ ..;"
"" / ,,'
'~. /..,'
.. .... ,~ v'"
..- '
o!' '. ~:'q;'"}
..J~ ,)'1
. ~.~.
"'0
.)1-,>
of)
''''1-
~'l;.
"'0
"'"
~
1-...
..~...
"'>
o
"I. '1'0,
. ('.; ..sO
/,. ~ ') 'f'.
.: ....."' v~ ('
~" .' ".9
,,-.,y, :6J'
/
..
.n
;:>
j
:t
-Y
"6'6
'~.f'
> e,9
"'.,... :61-
...... \
1.........
\
,'/
f//
/
,
'1,
J'
:"t.. ~ .tv v':-"
1"~~/
ri'.J,f'
,(/
lU
~
c:::(
-.J
I
^
"
u
...
.;>
)
"
~
, ,J.
,
OJ:'
"6
lI\
'" ..,
'-
~
~
-
a:
a..
V')
lI\
'"
.1 "
W ".
,.--.~1 --=.....-:-~.
j " /- ~~
' .
'----
COMPLIANT ADDITION/DETACHED GARAGE
-