HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Clark Variance
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ALTERNATIVES:
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
7A
R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDER APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL FOR
ELMER CLARKE - SUBJECT SITE: 16286 PARK
AVENUE
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
Elmer Clarke, submitted an application for a 28 foot lakeshore variance
and a 7.9 foot side yard setback variance on the South to allow the
construction of a new house on the existing foundation of his previous
house, which was destroyed by fire in 1995. The request was heard
on September 25, 1995. The request was tabled to permit Mr. Clarke
to develop his proposal to include a 2-car attached garage. The
revised request was heard by the Planning Commission on November
13, 1995. Staff recommended approval of the requested variances on
the grounds that the request met the Ordinance criteria. The Planning
Commission disagreed with the staff recommendation and denied the
requested variances on the grounds that the Shoreland Ordinance
requires combination of Mr. Clarke's 3 contiguous lots.
By letter dated November 15, 1995, Mr. Clarke appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission. The appeal was first scheduled for
hearing by the City Council on December 5, 1995. Because Mr. Clarke
was not in attendance, the appeal was tabled, and staff directed to
obtain the opinion of the new City Attorney regarding whether Mr.
Clarke could be required to combine the 2 lots which he owns to the
North with the lot which is the subject of the variance request and
appeal. The City Attorney submitted an opinion stating in the
affirmative that Mr. Clarke could be required to combine the lots
1. The City Council could support Mr. Clarke's original request and
the original staff recommendation to approve the variances.
2. The City Council could support the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the variance request and require combination of
Mr. Clarke's lots.
3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for the requested
lakeshore setback variance contingent on combination of the lots.
A motion directing preparation of the appropriate Resolution, with
Findings for co~sent consi.d ration at the next City Council meeting.
1," L,
Frank Boyles, C.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQl'AL OPPORTl'NITY EMPLOYER
",~",-""""",,,,,-,,,..,,,,,,,,,--,,-^,.,,,,--,,,,~,-,,,,-,,,-,,,<-,,>-,-~,-,,,,-,,,,,,..-.---->--........,
,
r
1
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANALYSIS:
ALTERNATIVES:
8B
R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDER APPEAL OF VARIANCE DENIAL FOR
ELMER CLARKE - SUBJECT SITE: 16286 PARK
AVENUE
DECEMBER 4, 1995
Elmer Clarke, 16286 Park Avenue, submitted an application for a 28
foot lakeshore variance and a 7.9 foot side yard setback variance on
the South to allow the construction of a new house on the existing
foundation of his previous house, which was destroyed by fire earlier
this year. A public hearing was set for September 25, 1995, and the
variance was heard at that time. The request was tabled to permit Mr.
Clarke to develop his proposal to include a 2-car attached garage. The
revised request was heard by the Planning Commission on November
13, 1995. The staff recommendation was that the requested variances
be granted because the request met the Ordinance criteria. Planning
Commission disagreed with the staff recommendation and denied the
variances.
By letter dated November 15, 1995, Mr. Clarke appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission
In denying the request the Planning Commission relied on the fact that
Mr. Clarke owns not only the subject site, but also the 2 lots
immediately to the North. The Commission concluded that Section
9.3(B)(1)(e) of the Shoreland Ordinance dictates that in this case Mr.
Clarke has other options, Le. combining the 3 lots in some fashion to
create 2 lots which more closely conform to Ordinance requirements,
and which would not require side yard setback variances, although
lakeshore variances would still be required.
The original staff recommendation rested on the supposition that runs
through the Ordinance that "lots of record" are buildable, that in any
event Section 9.3(B)(2)permits variances from Section 9.3(B)(1)(e).
Mr. Clarke's letter of appeal expresses his belief that the northernmost
of his lots is not buildable, and his intention to combine the northern
two lots.
1. The City Council could support Mr. Clarke's original request and
the original staff recommendation to approve the variances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTl'NITY EMPLOYER
~--,-,--~-_...----~~----
I
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
2. The City Council could support the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the variance request.
A motion directing preparation of the appropriate Resolution, with
Findings for consent con sid tion at the next City Council meeting.
2
TO:
CITY COUNCIL
C/O DON RYE
FROM:
ELMER CLARKE
DUANE CLARKE
DATE:
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
RE: APPEAL OF MEETING OF 11-13-1995
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Sir,
In review of the hearing on Monday Nov. 13, 1995, we think their
was a misunderstanding of the board members on what we were trying to
accomplish. We would like to get a variance on the lot with existing
foundation for several reasons.
1. It would conform with the site line and struture of the existing
houses to the south
2. It allows the use of existing foundation, sewer, electrical,
water.
3. It allows the combining of the next 2 lots to the north to
conform.
Although Elmer's assessment was for 3 lots, we believe that the 2
lots to the north would not stand on their own merit. The drop in
elevation of lot 15 would not make elevation criteria. Combining of
those lots would allow the lot to conform with little variance.
There seemed to be a mixed feeling from the board. We would like
the opportunity to APPEAL their decision to the City COUNCIL.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Elmer W. Clarke
~W CrJ../~
Duane A. Clarke
~4<th-'. ;4 d:~~
"If .
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
3.C.
CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR ELMER CLARKE
16286 P ARK AVENUE
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
YES X NO
NOVEMBER 13, 1995
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Elmer Clarke who
proposes to reconstruct a house on an existing foundation per the attached survey. The
request was first heard at the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1995. It
was tabled at that time to allow Mr. Clarke to develop plans which would include a
garage, and to detemline whether the amount to be spent would exceed 50% of the
structure's market value. The applicant has concluded that the amount to be spent would
exceed 50% of the market value. The revised plans are attached to this report. The
proposed garage would come no closer to the property on the South than 5 feet;
impervious surface would be less than the maximum permitted 30%.
The existing house, which was substantially damaged by fire earlier this year, was
constructed in 1960. The property was platted as a part of Lakeside Park which was
approved by the Scott County Board of Commissioners in 1921. This area was also
annexed by the City of Prior Lake in January of 1973. The applicant is thus seeking the
following variances;
1. A 28 foot variance to pemlit a lake shore setback of 47 feet instead of the
required 75 feet.
2. A 7.9 foot variance to permit a side yard on the South of 2.1 feet instead of the
required 10 feet.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is basically pie-shaped. It is 16.7 feet wide at the front, about 24
feet wide at the 25 foot setback line, and widens out to about 62 feet at the shoreline. The
terrain is gently rolling until a point about 15-20 feet behind the existing house, at which
16200 ffa!t\?!:t!reek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTU:"JITY EMPLOYER
point it drops off sharply toward the shoreline. At its closest point on the South, the
existing house is about 14 feet from the neighboring house.
The applicant wishes to reconstruct on the existing foundation and construct an attached
2-car garage. Attached to this report is a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard R. Koehn
regarding the suitability of the foundation for the construction of a new house. Because
more than one-half of the fair market value of$19,300.00 would be spent, the request is
treated the same as a new house. Thus, the variance request should be analyzed against
the Ordinance criteria as if it were a request to build a new structure.
The proposed setbacks are as follows;
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
If the Ordinance were literally enforced on this property, the building envelope would
only be 24 feet wide at its widest point. The pie-shaped configuration of the lot and sharp
drop-off to the shoreline severely restrict options for placing a house and garage (either
attached or detached) on the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
The hardship relates directly to the configuration of this lot (i.e. it is pie-shaped and very
narrow at the street side) and its topography as it drops off toward the shoreline.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
The hardship is caused by the application of the Ordinance to a property which was
platted and developed before it was incorporated into the City.
V A95-31
2
l'
.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The requested variances would observe the spirit and intent of the Ordinance in that
suitable structure separation for public safety purposes would be preserved, as well as
separation from the roadway for aesthetic purposes. If a garage were to be constructed,
which use has generally been deemed appropriate in the residential districts, it would not
be feasible to move the house forward and still comply with other setback requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because the request meets the Ordinance criteria, staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9537PC.
VA95-31
3
It>
~
S!
c
t))
'~
---- "'n__._ ..g.zz _._.
J _ .:=-"::-~I
z
w
o
.~
~~
o
.n3
~,
----
L_
\- . . ...
\ .
N
en
I '.~.
(9
z
5
:J
.....D._ _
::>
1_":::"'::""". ....:..:.::.==-_ ---.. ...-
I.. :'::'~'::':'.:"':--- ---.v-.-.-
-\----
\
_ (U~}-_(,::~~}_{ -" )__ ___
'"
~)
z
UJ
I
U
.-
52
.1' I- 13 ~ ---I z
8ffi~. 0
_~_~-_=__:.-:.===~=~xL-.. -.--
b
N
L--
UJ
(9
~
c:::
~
(9
Ii]
() u
<:i n'
f>
z
----.-0 ---
----.,-
v
. --- .-- g.g-- ...-1
\ ".J1
.-.-----.----~~.~z __..__u..____ _u____.__ ---.J
j
~ ~.LZ
~
U
w
o
b
M
....
b
N
.
-
Ii g
I \~ ~
r ~
f: ~ 2
: B~ ~
,
^
:!
i .i
, ,
,1/
;.\ ~
-,
/
/i
//
1/
//;
//
\ //
\ II
\\ //
Ii
//
\i?
----:-;;;;0
-
\
\
\
./
~ l.~
S
(l\ r
~
~ "I
""
I,:; !
"-
I'
() j
'''.1 ..
s , l
~ ~ '^.
~ . t-I0~ I "
I I 1
t I ~~ ~ I
;'''B , .~
n I ...
~~v t.
~< ~
u."
Ii I
(.. .
~'
l'I~
~ : ,>: 1
tY G() "-
I \\lC~~ ....-
" \: NfTl- .
I ~&~ f~l' ~ ~
\'
J~~ i
, ~g 0
; 't
I'
. _1_._
\
\
\
\
\
\
-\
-----
-............................
--_.~
VA95-31
.sURVEY FOR; f~l_r{\c.,
\ .
,~LF\ ~~~-KE
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 13, LAKESlUE PAlIK, Scott County, Minnesota and that part lying westerly ot
said Lot 13 l>etweon t.he westerly extensions ot the southerly and northerly lot lines
of said Lot 13 to the shore, line ot Prior Lake.
c(/
,)-
u. ,)Y'
'\ ..."'~
'-.J C'\ ~
:;>(:'
')->'
Q/ --,
O 0"
....... ('
;;p ~\ ~,
f ~ "'::;"',
I() iv/. 4V; "(<;.)"
""-- <,[/';) ;>' '-C)
J..~J c.). .
::--,""' ........
'oJ '\ S.:.
~
'v
0.0
\~on:.~ WOOD fl'fHfII':_ o{
Cn,:>nl\)(~ l-\()US[ YOA QL'{
~l.l.R..NT
Or
/3 _
..--/)
3c)j~ ~~~-t
j:l/\l~ 1\ - \
\bp W.o;)
f::-Lt-~ /\11.."> \
!
.,.... -1
.r
"\
\
\
\
\
\
l,,,,,,-
-:.........-
..) -"
1';.3 I
. '=> "
of l '\E....S
~r/~
I Lf.\KE~
-" I Or:.
r-\.-
~~
C (\ (J'ln ,r,... , I'V' \ (' \/\
o v' v .1- \ I \ "---- [ \
o
?
~
-
() 500 A1)'LOJ\J1..V..,~:
~G.O .Q~''''OJ\.Q ~,J, \-PM"~,~.~ \-1\1\\)..':,1:-
B. '0 · lu CoVE ~..... / .c:. /.': ~ '.' IMf'1:;:.\-"-vIOU;:'"
&1-\ ~v::'::'
-'\{p~ .:,A,",",~~
rho ILu'""
2.0"':\ -" Proposed garage floor eleva tion
Be.rInKS are assumed
o
2.'1
Subject to easements at record if any
o Denote. set or found iron pipe monuments
e- Denotes se t wood hub and lack
184.0 Denotes existing elevation
C12.\,~
Proposed top of block elevatlon
ALSO e..~\Snll-:'
~ Denotes proposed finish crade elevation
q\t:;.O
Proposed lowest floor elevation
f\w E.l<.l~T "IG
(~".,..
direction of surtace drainage
1 hereby certily that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries
ot Lot 13,
LP,~~'C'_S.\l.:d:::' 'P(\k.K, Seo"'\T" County. Minnesota os on Ule and at record
in the Office at the County Recorder in and tor said County,
also showing the proposed location
of a house as staked thereon.
That I om a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws ot the State of Minnesota.
Doted: J\,\uE... \ ~\ \'1c.) '7
(}&vJQ, ~~~~
.i.
Allan R. Haetings
Minn..ota Registration No. 17009
121 Lewis Street S.
Sui te No. 102
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
phone 612 445 4U27
NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING FOR LAKE SHORE SETBACK AND
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES RELATED TO RECONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE F AMIL Y HOUSE LOCATED IN THE R1-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AND THE SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, November 13, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
SUBJECT SITE:
REQUEST:
Elmer W. Clarke
16280 Park Avenue NE.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Lot 13, LAKESIDE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota, and that part
lying westerly of said Lot 13 between the westerly extensions of
the southerly and northerly lot lines of said Lot 13 to the shore line
of Prior Lake, commonly known as 16286 Park Avenue.
The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a single family house
which was damaged by fire earlier this year. The applicant's plans
propose a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the required 75
feet, and a side yard setback on the South of 2.1 feet
instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests that
the Planning Commission approve a 28' lakeshore variance and a
7.9 foot side yard setback variance.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 ! Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTl'NITY EMPLOYER
I
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: November 2, 1995
2
RESOLUTION 9537PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A 47 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET, A VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 2.1 FEET ON THE SOUTH INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-F AMIL Y
HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 16286 PARK
AVENUE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Elmer Clarke has applied for variances from Section 4.2 and Section 9 of the
Zoning Ordinance in order to permit construction of a new house with attached garage on
property located in the Rl-Suburban Residential and SD-Shoreland districts at the
following location, to wit;
16286 Park Avenue, legally described as Lot 13, Lakeside Park, Scott
County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the Application for Variance as contained
in Case #V A9531 and held hearings thereon on September 25 and November 13,
1995.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variances
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public
safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it
is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variances
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be
contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such
property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such
land is located. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the
Board of Adjustment relied upon are that it is pie-shaped and very narrow, as well
as the slope of the property.
6. The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variances will not serve merely as
a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
7. The contents of Planning Case V A95-31 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section
5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code these variances will be deemed to be abandoned,
and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder
of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits
for the completion of contemplated improvements.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the following variances;
1. A variance to permit a 47 foot lakeshore setback instead of the required 75 feet.
2. A variance to permit a side yard setback on the South of2.1 feet instead of the
required 10 feet.
These variances are granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the
project which is the subject of this request;
2. The side proposed garage shall be constructed no closer than 5 feet from the
South property line;
3. The improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the site plan
submitted by the applicant.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on November 13, 1995.
Richard Kuykendall, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
2