HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A Sideyard Setback Variance
......
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
DISCUSSION:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
8A
DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPEAL OF ELMER CLARKE FROM A
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A SIDEY ARD
SETBACK VARIANCE.
JUNE 17, 1996
Elmer Clarke applied for a variance to allow him to
reconstruct his house on the old foundation. The house was
severely damaged by fire last year. The Planning
Commission considered a similar request last year, but
denied the request because Mr. Clarke owned abutting
property which could be combined to create a more
conforming lot. Subsequently, Mr. Clarke sold his interest in
the abutting lot and re-applied for variances from the lake
setback and the side yard setback requirements.
The Planning Commission heard this application on May
28, 1996 and approved the variance from the lake setback
but denied the request for the side yard variance.
Mr. Clarke then appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission which denied the side yard setback variance.
The attached planning commission staff report contains a
survey showing the location of the existing foundation
relative to the lot line. The foundation has a setback of 2.1
feet from the lot line. One of the reasons for the Planning
Commissions denial of the request was the proximity of the
house to the south. At the hearing, it was indicated that the
house was 7 to 9 feet from the foundation comer and the
Commission felt this was too close. However, the staff
report indicated that the neighboring house was
approximately 14 feet from the foundation at the closest
point. Mr. Clarke has also indicated that he has measured
this distance and that 14 feet seems to be the correct
distance.
In order to comply with the setback of 5 feet, the applicant
must construct a new basement wall 3 feet within the
16200 ~~~~\~~~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
existing foundation. This will also reduce the size of the
house. The foundation has a footprint area of 634 square
feet and increasing the setback by 3 feet reduces this to 544
square feet.
The applicant wishes to retain the existing foundation in its
entirety, both for cost reasons and to preserve as much
living space as possible.
ISSUES: As in all variance cases, the basic issue is whether the
applicant is able to make a reasonable use of his property if
the ordinance is strictly enforced. In this case, the Council
must determine whether the reduction in floor area of the
proposed house by 90 square feet reduces the size of the
house to a point where a reasonable use of the property is
not available to the owner. The ordinance does not specify
at what point a reasonable use is available; this
determination is based on the experience and views of the
City Council concerning development in the City.
Assuming a two story house on the property (which is what
the applicant has indicated he wishes to build), the total
living area allowed in the house with the variance is 1,268
square feet while without the variance, 1,088 square feet
would be allowed.
The Council could conclude that 1,088 square feet is large
enough to constitute a reasonable use of the property or,
conversely, it could conclude that this is too small in
relation to the lot and is inconsistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
Staff believes that a strict reading of the ordinance criteria
for granting variances would result in the former conclusion
and it would be appropriate to deny the appeal.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Council may approve the requested variance for a
side yard setback of 2.1 feet instead of the required 5
feet.
2. The Council may deny the requested variance
3. The Council may continue this case for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 2.
ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent
with Council action.
Rr1wed ~y: .
1kJ
2
96041 V AR.DOCIDR
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR ELMER CLARKE
16280 PARK AVENUE
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
YES -X- NO
MAY 28, 1996
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Elmer Clarke who
proposes to reconstruct a house on an existing foundation as shown on the attached
survey. The Commission heard a similar request from Mr. Clarke in the Fall of 1995
(File No. 96-041). The previous request was denied by the Commission because Mr.
Clarke owned abutting property which could be combined to create a more conforming
lot. The Commission's denial of the previous request was upheld by the City Council.
Since that request was heard Mr. Clarke has conveyed his interest in Lot 14, Lakeside
Park (See copy of attached quit claim deed). Thus, he no longer owns abutting land, and
has re-submitted the request for the following variances.
1. A 28 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the
required 75 feet.
2. A 7.9 foot variance to permit a side yard on the South of2.l feet instead of the
required 10 feet.
DISCUSSION:
The existing house, which was substantially damaged by fire earlier in 1995, 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 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
point it drops Qff sharply toward the shoreline. At its closest point on the South, the
existing house is about 14 feet from the neighboring house.
V A95-3i 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The proposed setbacks are as follows;
It appears it would be feasible for the applicant to move the proposed new house to the
North so that the house would meet the side yard setback requirements, although the
garage at the size shown would not meet the setbacks on both sides. The garage setback
could be dealt with under the recently amended setback provision for substandard lots of
record.
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. Thus, with respect to the requested lakeshore
variance it appears the criteria is met. However, with respect to the side yard setback
variance request it appears that other, legal alternatives exists.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
As it relates to the lake shore setback request, the hardship relates directly to the
configuration of this lot and its topography as it drops off toward the shoreline. As it
relates to the side yard request, the hardship results from economic considerations of the
applicant's.
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.
With respect to the lakeshore variance, 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. With respect to the side yard, the hardship results from the applicant's desire
and decision to re-use the existing foundation.
V A95-31
2
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
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 for lakeshore variance appears to meet the Ordinance criteria, staff
recommends approval of that request. Because it does not appear the side yard request
meets the criteria, staff recommends denial of that request.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion directing staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the Commission's
decision.
V A95-31
3
~URVEY FOR: ELffiE\=< C~LA~?J<~E
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 13, LAKESIDE PAIU{, 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.
<v
~ ~.:r:~
<(/ o.O'V' ~:'J:-
.J::-- ~ <# ~
\?' sJ'V\ \ ~~
""J 0\, ~/
o ~/
').;; //.;"/ ~~bmR..L'1
Q/ J /.' c}<.rJi.1J6l0~
O a // a
I,' /. >~
........ v. /~
/)()/ ~ ;:>1(/ .4
f/ - lI.Jy J~~.
""'<.... <V ~v ;.
j!J 0/
~ '
~ "
N OD:. ~ WOOD <F QJHY\ E-- 0 {
S'( ~s \ 1r\)G- t-\ou::vE. YuA DL'-(
~uRt-JT
, I
-',5DO ~ ~t:
Co~O ~ ~ ""- 'H2.0Po'&J:..D
B.lQ % CoUE:-R-
Bearings are assumed
-. \- \-
. ~J
Pl\~ \\ - '\
\br \~D~
E,\,J:.Q ;:a,n.~ \
\
o
'?
({
D
zr:;
\
\
\
\
l,~,=
Sea Q//V it'nth 3C)~Q9_~
~
t-\o v.. ~ E-
Subject to easements of record if any
o Denotes set or found iron pipe monuments
a Denotes set wood hub and tack
Proposed garage floor elevation
184.0 Denotes existing elevation
C)z. \ It)
Propo~ed top of block elevation
I\LSO t..)t\~TI UG.
C1~Q) Denotes proposed finish grade eleva tion
CJ\ 7.0
Proposed lowest floor elevation
F\LSQ E.)(.lsT I klG
( ~note.
direction of surface drainage
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries
of Lot 13, 'LAKE..,'S\C)E PAR.K, SC.OIT County. Minnesota as on file and of record
in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County,
also showing the proposed location
of a house 8S staked thereon.
Dated:JIAUE.. \~\\C)<17
~ 81\SED: P\rR.1 L LL>, \<)9{o
That I am a duly RegiRtered Land Surveyor \mcier th" Laws of the Stat" of Mlnne8ota.
~~Q I cJ\~~QJ~H