HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Brian Carlson Variance
AGENDA #
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
ANAL YSIS:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
7A
R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDER RESOLUTION 96-22 DENYING APPEAL OF
VARIANCE FOR BRIAN AND MARILYN CARLSON -
SUBJECT SITE, LOTS 18 AND 19, FAIRLAWN
SHORES, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 20,1996
Brian O. And Marilyn J. Carlson submitted an application for a 2.4 foot
variance to permit a 7.6 foot side yard setback on the West and a 19
foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 56 feet. A public hearing
was set for January 22, 1996, and the variance request was heard by
the Planning Commission at that time. The staff recommendation was
that the requested variances be denied because the request did not
meet the Ordinance criteria. The Planning Commission agreed with
the staff recommendation and denied the requested variances.
By letter dated January 26, 1996, the Carlsons appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission.
In denying the request the Planning Commission relied on the following
facts
1. The subject property was platted as two separate lots in 1923, but
was later combined into one parcel.
2. The subject property is 15,767 square feet in area, which exceeds
the area requirements for lots in the R1 - Urban Residential and SO
- Shoreland districts.
3. The subject property is 77.96 feet wide at the front which is only
approximately 12 feet narrower than required under Section 9.3A,
and approximately 86 feet wide at the Ordinary High Water Mark
which is 11 feet wider than required by Section 9.3A.
4. The applicants have legal alternatives under the City Code for the
. construction of the proposed attached garage which would not
require a side yard setback variance, and which would not interfere
with the function of existing house on the property.
5. The applicants have legal alternatives for the construction of a
deck/porch which would not reduce the lakeshore setback on the
property .
Because of these facts the Commission concluded that compliance
with the Ordinance would not result in a hardship, and would still leave
the applicant with reasonable use. The staff recommendation was
based on the same or similar factors, which it concluded caused the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER
ALTERNATIVES:
ACTION REQUIRED:
REVIEWED BY:
request to fail the Ordinance criteria for granting variances.
1. The City Council could support the Carlson's original request for
variance.
2. The City Council could support the recommendation of the staff
and Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution 96-22.
.I
cl6pt Resolution 96-22 denying the appeal.
2
RESOLUTION 95-22
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL
ENYING AN APPEAL BY BRIAN AND MARILYN CARLSON
OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN THE MATTER
OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCES CASE NO. V A96-02
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 20th of
February, 1996, to act on an appeal by Brian and Marilyn Carlson of
the Planning Commission's denial of their request for side yard setback
and lake shore setback variances for property legally described as Lots
18 and 19, F AIRLA WN SHORES, Scott County, Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in the City's Zoning
Ordinance at Section 7.6(C)(1-4), in that denial of the variances does
not deprive the appellant of a reasonable use of his property, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's
decision denying the request for variance was appropriate and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, The contents of Planning Case V A96-02 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
WHEREAS, The City Council has made the following findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The subject property was platted as two separate lots in 1923, but
was later combined into one parcel.
2. The subject property is 15,767 square feet in area, which exceeds
the area requirements for lots in the R1 - Urban Residential and SD
- Shoreland districts.
3. The subject property is 77.96 feet wide at the front which is only
approximately 12 feet narrower than required under Section 9.3A,
and approximately 86 feet wide at the Ordinary High Water Mark
which is 11 feet wider than required by Section 9.3A.
4. The applicants have legal alternatives under the City Code for the
construction of the proposed attached garage which would not
require a side yard setback variance, and which would not interfere
with the function of existing house on the property.
5. The applicants have legal alternatives for the construction of a
deck/porch which would not reduce the lake shore setback on the
property.
16200 mig~n~~ Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4117-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Brian and Marilyn
Carlson's request for variance.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of February, 1996.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{Seal}
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
RES9622.DOC
2
January 26, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate Planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn Shores
Trail S. E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Leek:
We Would like to appeal plannings denial of our variance to
the city council.
Please put us on the agenda for the February 20, 1996
meeting.
If any question, please advise.
.. ____._.~__._~.._.,...,__"~"~_~_...~~,._",,.._,~,_~..~_."_.__,~~,,~~_'_""""_''''_'''''''''''''>'''''''' """""~"___",."""",,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,,___,,__,,,,,,,,,,_,_'''__''h'''''''''''~.~.,,~...,__....._.,,"""_._____~...
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR
5554 F AIRLA WN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES ...L. NO
JANUARY 22, 1995
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian and Marilyn
Carlson. The Carlsons intend to remodel their existing house. The portions of the
proposed remodeling which are the subject of the variance application are 1) the removal
of the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch in its place and 2) the removal
of the existing, detached 2-car garage and its replacement by an attached, 40 foot garage.
Based on the survey submitted with the application, construction of the proposed porch
addition would result in a lakeshore setback of 56 feet instead of the existing 61 feet and
the required 75 feet. Construction of the attached garage would result in a minimum side
yard setback on the East of7.6 feet instead of the existing 12.5 feet and the required 10
feet. The survey indicates that the net existing and the proposed impervious surface
coverage are 22.6%, which would be consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property was platted in 1923 as Lots 18 and 19, FAIRLA WN SHORES. It is
a large property, containing 15,767 square feet and measuring 77.96 feet wide at the
streetside property line. The existing house was built in 1971. Both the platting of the
subject property and the construction of the existing house occurred while the property
was in the unincorporated area of Scott County. The property was a part of the 1973
annexation from Eagle Creek Township.
The rationale for the request vis-a.-vis the proposed porch is 1) that the existing deck is
dilapidated and requires replacement, and 2) the applicants wish to create more usable
interior space. The City's ordinances would permit maintenance of the deck as a non-
conforming structure. Replacement of the deck at its current size and in its present
configuration would require a variance. The existing deck is not/should not be included
in impervious surface under the Shoreland Ordinance. The proposed porch count toward
impervious surface coverage because of the roof.
16200 ~e~~@){;Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The applicants wish to add a larger, attached garage for additional storage and,
presumably, convenience. While staff does not have benefit of a floor plan for the
existing house, it appears that the proposed garage could be shifted to the 2.4 feet to the
East to comply with the side yard setback. It does not appear that the shift would conflict
with the entrance to the existing house. The increase in the size of the garage would
result in additional impervious surface. The survey does not show the proposed final
driveway configuration, thus it is not clear whether or not it would add impervious
surface. In the event that the Commission approves the requested variance, staff suggests
that the applicant submit verification of the proposed impervious surface calculations
with the building permit application.
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance
is literally enforced. The property is currently developed with a residence with lakeshore
side deck and detached 2-car garage. The house has a building footprint, exclusive of the
deck of 1,288 square feet, and has a walkout level. In staff s opinion these facts
constitute prima facie evidence of reasonable [residential] use of the property. Similarly,
the property currently has a 2-car garage. Moreover, legal alternatives exist which would
allow the construction of the desired garage. Thus literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would not result in undue hardship (i.e. deprivation of reasonable use) with respect to the
subject property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in
undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, the size, shape and
configuration of the subject lot does not present unique circumstances.
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.
Because staff has concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance
were literally enforced, this criteria is not met.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide relief in those cases where development
opportunities are severely limited by the conditions of a property. This does not appear
to staff to be a property where opportunities are so limited. However, because of the
96-02V A.DOC
2
"'~~>"r'''-____~''~~'''''--+'.<'''-_-'''''"'''-''''-''''''''--''''''"~'.''''~''' "'~'~.."""",.,,'.~_....<.....~.... ,_"...,."-.",...o.~.,._",~,,,.,,~..,~.______........__,_~,,_~..h.~".,~...,.,~,,,,-
setback from Fairlawn Shores Trail, and because of the additional encroachment toward
the lake is only 4 feet, it does not appear that the proposed additions would have an
adverse, aesthetic impact on the surrounding properties.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicants, 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 Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property currently exists, that legal
alternatives exist to accomplish the applicants' objective, and thus that the Ordinance
criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings consistent with the Planning
Commission's action.
96-02V A. DOC
3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
'~licant: 1:,te I AN" LJ..; ..... ~1l~/,LY"; ~ C/l teuI"./
Address: ~ ~/A/~J._i.t/n/ .:.-Jt..~-IE"j ~ ~/L .1 ~_
Property ONner: A'Am~ A.r Al/dV;
Address : ~.r ./? ,J1'()V~
Type of Cwnership: Fee Contract
Consul tant/Contractor:
VA q0 -D;)..
pm#' 25"- a ~ /.a:;, "7 b
,
Home Phone: -V~ 7 -Y,JJ/I
Work Phone:
Home Phone:
Work Phone:
Purchase Agreanent
Phone:
Existing Use
of Property: tJ t/~
Legal Description
of Variance Site:
Variance Requested:
If E.//,o &" K' (.'E
Present Zoning:
LeI/f ..//..;/9 ~/?/,e.{4""N" .J)-/o~&f
-5Erd',;1~K //'f'~n? .i.A.4'E
...f .F -r-4AC/\ U/E.r r ~ nr:1& ,? !'
J~(7rr co~V
.
Has the applicant previously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional
use peIlIlit on the subject site or any part of it? Yes X ~
What was requested:
When: Disposition:
Describe the type of improvements proposed:
/f'EmgAEL ~A');::-
5U8MISSION REQUIREMENI'S:
(A)Completed aI;Plication foon. (B) Piling fee. (C)Prot:erty SUrvey indicating the
proI=Osed developnent in relation to prot=erty lines and/or ordinary-high-water mark;
proI=Osed building elevations and drainage plan. (D) Certified from abstract fion,
names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject prot=erty. (E) Complete legal description & Prot=erty Identification Number
(pm). (F)Deed restrictions or private. covenants, if applicable. (G)A parcel nap
at 1 ft-20 '-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading,
access, surface drainage, landscaping and utility service.
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPl'ED AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNI~ <D1MISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requirements for variance procedures. I agree to ide i.nt..orma . follow the
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance. ~ c!/
SUbmitted this,& daV",,.,,V;9IC-( 199?
PLANNING aJMMISSION
CITY COm'CIL APPEAL
APPIDlED
APPIDlED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARI~
DA.TE OF HEARIN;
CDNDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director
Date
JRVEY PR t:.l-'ARED i-UH :
RIAN CARLSON
;54 FAIRLAWN SHORES TRAIL S.E.
~ lOR LAKE, MN. 55372
i
1
i
212---__
--40.9__ ---::-
OJ
:tu:
0:: I
-rv_
'0 _ft') 0
1Jf\...~
C' - -
'_ 0
I -7 - 0 f\...
II >-.-~
=-Zrv
3:' ,
,
I
EXISTI NG
HOUSE
Valley
1tI
N
E)( I Sr, NG
HOUSE
::. :..- '. <f.O. 4.-.
932.4 - - - - _ _ -
'--
--t_________
---------4
)'/ -----
f,
------
---
--~
T.C.EL.
931.88
,
,
I
I
/I"
SAN. M.H.
RIM 931.56
o
F"airtaw
______ n
~"ores
933.16
---
Ira it
~
January 15, 1996
Mr. R. Michael Leek
Associate planner
City of Prior Lake
Subject:Variance
5544 Fairlawn
Shores Trail S. E.
Dear Sir:
Friday morning, January 12, when you called to tell me that
the planning department had denied my variance and you
wanted to know if I wanted to proceed to go to the
planning commission and then city council my reply was yes.
At that time, I asked for information regarding past
decisions regarding variances and building permits with
regard to lakeshore properties. This information, I felt,
would be useful in my preparation for the upcoming meetings
with the planning commission and city council. You stated
that this is public information and you would talk with me
Tuesday about information you had gathered. You stated that
this is public information and available to me.
This weekend I had some additional thoughts which may help me
in my presentation to the planning commission and city
council and are listed below:
1. A copy of the ordinance that would have applied to the
improvements made to the property when the home was
originally built. I believe the home was built in 1971 or
1972.
2. A copy of all new ordinances, up to and including
the present ordinance, that have been enacted since the home
was built.
3. If there is such a thing, a copy of the ordinance that
applies to substandard lots.
4. A listing of all lakeshore building permits since I
became a homeowner in 1978.
5. A listing of all variances granted for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
6. A listing of all variances denied for
lakeshore property since I became a homeowner in 1978.
8. A copy of the DNR requirement concerning lakeshore
setback or confirm that it is 50' or 30' if your home is up
on a bluff.
Please advise If you would have any question or
suggestion concerning those items.
Based on our previous conversation, I assume that the
information requested is public information. In other words,
if I have no legal right to this information do not give me
the information.
If I can be of any assistance in researching the records, I
will take whatever time is necessary to help.
u,
~
PS: You said the planning department denied my request for
variance. Do I get something in writing telling me why?
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR A WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A SETBACK OF 7.6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET
AND A LAKE SHORE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 75 FEET RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND
PORCH ADDITIONS, RESPECTIVELY, TO AN EXISTING HOUSE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-
SHORE LAND 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 of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, January 22, 1995, at 7:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT:
Brian D. And Marilyn J. Carlson
5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE:
Lots 18 and 19, "FAIRLAWN SHORES", Scott County,
Minnesota, also known as 5544 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
REQUEST:
The applicants propose the removal of the existing, detached
garage, and the construction of an attached garage as shown on the
attached site survey. The applicants also propose the removal of
the existing deck and construction of an enclosed porch extending
4 feet closer to the lakeshore. The applicants' plans propose a
side yard setback to the West of7.6 feet instead of the required 10
feet and a lakeshore setback of 56 feet instead of the required 75
feet. Thus, the applicants request that the Planning Commission
approve a 2.4 foot side yard setback variance on the West, and a
19 foot lakeshore 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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER
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.
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: January 12, 1996.
2
DNR METRO REGION
Yes No
Floodplain CJ Cl ShoroIand
~ \ (M.S.I03F.IOl) (M.S.l0JF.201 )
I
Yes No
Protected Waters CJ 0 Wat<< Appropriation
(M.S.I03G.24S) (M.S. I 030.255)
~'.
~ \
!
I \
flr~J/~T - RetA~ ~ MM!.lL..Y~ ~ .
LoTS Ii+-- Lq I F.uu.~ sJ./.QI!.(r l I g..! I
... ~.
~' il
J;~
~!
, i
Ii
~
TEL:612-772-7977
Jan 22,96
10:29 No.003 P.Ol
Project Review Worksheet
DNR.. Division of Waters / Metro Region
ProjeetName -.J!MIAN ~.
Project Type (check all that apply):
C Preliminary Pial
CJ Final Plat
Cl Subdivision
DPUD
u-(ariancc:
o Other
DNR. Jurisdiction (answer all):
~~a
i' i f1
- i
...
o
~
~ ~
..J
~
.
Yes
[J
No
o
Comments
wL~1
Eln-:,h
~'.h ':1~
:s6-vc4.~ . A ~c~
7~' ~--~ d---.
e..~. q
tZ~~~~ ~~ ~177~ :~~~,rw~ ~~
II&!
"..J$'~ ,,~~~~
.~~.. ~
,J.~~ ~ v'--:k- ~ ~ ",rJ.
NoTe":
S 3' To
rHL
9{)v' ~N7DfJlL.
S~AtL
nFP-
:c.
: \
I
Recommendations and Proposed Conditions _~LbM ... JJ . ,de....~.J t Lcite... seU,..."t.
~i ~rr::i/:/~la ~'2~-,~'~-L~/7 -7 J~~~"'3~;2;
~O~Aa
~~i1.~ c
~ ~+- +- J_ ,.~t.J~ .c:.
w.",J
Reviewer PM' L~~~
Title Arr&- ~(~ Phone ,.., L -., "C) Date /.. L.'L-'"
\
..\ .
.1 !I ,II. :. .
,..
~ '"
~~