The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8E - Dave Smith Setback Appeal ~ STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 8E JENNI TOVAE4 PLANNER CONSIDER APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission granted Dave Smith an 18 foot setback variance permitting a front yard setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. At that time, the property to the east of his was vacant, which prohibited the use of setback averaging. On September 30, 1996, the applicant received a building permit for the garage addition, but has yet to start any construction. On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission granted a 22 foot variance from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the adjacent vacant parcel (Pavek's property) permitting a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. This is 4 feet closer to the centerline than Dave Smith's variance. On October 10, 1996 the Pavek's received a building permit for a single family dwelling. To date, the foundation, exterior walls, and roofmg are complete. On October 21, 1996 staff received a request from the applicant to move his proposed garage addition closer to the street using setback averaging. Staffs interpretation is that the City cannot use setback averaging, because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no adjacent structure from which to measure the setback. Furthermore, the Planning Commission determined exactly what the setback would be by the granting of the variance. 16200 ~g~~'ei-PJf~~~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 6B CONSIDER APPEAL OF DAVE SMITH FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO SETBACK AVERAGING (Case File #96-0105) 2590 SPRING LAKE ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR _ YES --X- NO-N/A OCTOBER 28, 1996 Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The attached letter dated October 22, 1996 was sent in response to an inquiry made by Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback his proposed garage addition. A letter of appeal was received October 22, 1996 and a copy is attached. DISCUSSION: Section 4. 1 (F) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to lot and yard requirements states "Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the existing structures." On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). The granting of this variance established exactly what the setback would be On September 30, 1996 the applicant received a building permit for the garage addition. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 1 Ph. (612) 447-4230 1 Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -,^,"_",,,,,__"'_'''_''<''h."',,'''_''"~',,;,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""",,,~,^,,,,,,,,,,,,,'-""."-4',,-,__,,,,,,,,,,____,,,.~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~_"",,,~_,,,,,~,,,,,,>,~,,,_._..,....,..,..,,._~.,..,,,".____,,..~,","._.,.,''-"_..,'''.",....-'",,.,_.~,.'.,., _,_ _,."..,."."~.-.."'...A~""~._,_.._._.. .,_._,..,.......',.,___.."..,_.....,_"'..'",',"'"..,.,~"_4"~,~.,._"',._".~.,._........~._--...~ .. .... On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 261 0 Spring lake Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). On October 10, 1996 the applicants received a building permit. As the Pavek's home is being built next door to Dave Smith, he notices that the new house is being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed garage addition. He has recently approached the Planning Department requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street (see attached letters). He wants to use setback averaging to achieve this. The Planning Department has affirmed that we cannot use setback averaging if one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Generally, future conditions are not and cannot be considered. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in calculating a setback average. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code, unless a variance is granted. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance. 2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that setback averaging using current construction/future development is in compliance with City Code provisions. 3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends Alternative No.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission. 96105pc.doc Page 2 PAVEK VARIANCE 2610 SPRING LA-KE ROAD I ...n 1266 COLLEGE CITY I-OES PAGE 02 II!E!'! ;.. . . : . ""'-" . . .' , ..-' OIrglt1rtl . " ... -, -. . , 'IIIIG,.:: .eOJ,i.. ~i~..' . .-.:.......: Lq't: '-.:2~',.~~. BKAcB, Ci ty of Prior Lake, Scott County, . 'j ,Hinnesi01:.a arid rel!t.r.vln~ easementfJ of record. ~ . P,OND .. .. .... ,. II.. · K" l Ita fit ..., " . " ~, ',' '-. '" Me.. Drainage ,c uti Ht)' Ei....nt. qf1.~ -_.:.--, &slnl.. l lINe r ..... ~.~ .~ ~ 1-- . . C.' i -... ~ co ..; CI ~, ~. CO. ,ROAD cw.s NO. 12 LOT sa; FOOTAGE = 8,.357~ ~. I:: .. lOt FI JiM , !, !(I q~1 , ~ ~-r. 2, '2..1 3,'1 orz- 2.~. LI Cf . % '()F :r""-f"eR\lIDU~ Sv..... FAct$" 'PfQJ05E~ E:LEYA T IOMS '. JIaP .of. Feun~"IOA ~ CU!4.S ear", Floor . -<<b3.S If anNeilt".,r. . _ ql".~. !! AJtrox..',Sher senlce Et'lv. ....~~, ~ :"T Propolld EI n. EI Existing Eln. e_ ar Drain,;. DIrections .~ D. Denatl' .ffs.t Stake . 0 House Sldt - Sit'.S Ide . . JoB NCt q~.~ BOOk: PAGE: BENafMARK. ~ . j ICAL(: l ,. .. 3D Flit MIN. SET8ACK REQUIREMENTS Front - Rear - - , ,~;, .,-,;" . . "''''''''Itf .. ~'''' - -.. --.-- ....... ............ -- I ..., CElTIFll1lAT T1f1l1. . nu _ CIIIET AEPRESEJlT1TlaN I;f 1lE --=r IF THE AIM 0UCA11ED PllRAn AS SUWEYED IY. all NY DIRECT SlRlWIS'IIM'" DIID fill' ........., Ta SHIll I......'S (II ENeRQACHIOTS. DaPT AS -. Bit, q, Z7 ,qt. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DAVE SMITH VARIANCE 2590 SPRING. .LAKE ROAD 101.70 ~~/B. ot) \~ '000 1.7'/7 rY I <:3' .1 "', ~II I DiEc.Jt!.5 .0 a) ~ Ili ~ a) ~ COO O^,E SpJI( y MA.H~ I Dws:..t.luq ~ 2590 0" "'f? . ~'LL. (9 z,.; Z~) L/'f.O ~ ... Pt:<or..:>cst:..O ~ QAI<:A'-7. ~ 10 N CX) ~ <i .' \ CX) !o.'-S ( 9/? ~!') ,-Vo. Eb9"E P'&" :J t3!Tl/MI PU oS 13 '7: ~ -'" # ..3/~ 19~":.Z "0 -- COl'NTY ( SPRING ROAD NO. 12 LAKE ROAD) ! 13~: j7Z/8~ ~ . PROP~RTY DESCRIPTION Area of existing tlouse & garaga 1496 sa. ft. Area of concret'? d rive after removal of 4 feet of widttl 474 sq. ft. Area of proposed garage 624 sq. ft. Total impervious area 2596 s'1' ft. Tota I lot ared 8648 sq. ft. Lots 27 & 1R 'BUTTERNUT BEAC"" According tn the recorded plat thereof Scott Countv. Minn~sota Impervious areas 3S a ~ercentage of ~he lot area. 30% . Denotes lron monument set Denotes iron monument found <l .Denotes concrete sl ab Denotes existlng spot elevation Denotes pruposed E']'~vdtiun ~ -N ~ o ( 9'ZI.80,1 ( J BFNCIIMARK SCALE I () 10 IN FEET I I/o Spike in power pole located in the northwest quadrant of NorLhwood Road ;:tnd Spr.ing Lake> Road Elevation 922.45 N.G.V.D. '20 14243 Miloka Circle N.E. Prior Lake. Minne'ola 55372 612.445.9154 rebv certify that this survey, plan or report prppared by me or undpr my direct supervision I' that I am a dilly Rp~istered l.and Surveyor r the laws of the State of Minnesota. a~~~~ ,rnmtp: EA, Roerhnve RLS l);ltl' _Pt<'/L /9~ / 9~6 Rt'Iot. No. 7OQr; BOERHA VE LAND SURVEYING. INC Stamson: . Hillcrest owned both lots at the time of the demolition. . Albers explained the demolition permit and then the building permit process. . Tovar spoke on the ownership and lot split before the demolition. . Regrettable it happened but the ordinance is specific. This is variance criteria. . It is our obligation to enforce the ordinance as written. There was a short discussion on the interpretation of the ordinance. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL FINDING SETBACK AVERAGING WITH PREVIOUS EXISTING STRUCTURES IS IN COrvlPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE PROVISIONS. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION PASSED. rn w ill ~ U B. Case #96-105 - Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision of the Zoning 01Mer relating to setback averaging. Jenni Tovar presented the staff report stating the following: On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). Dave Smith noticed Pavek's house being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed garage addition. He approached the Planning Department requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street. The Planning Department has affirmed setback averaging cannot be done if one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the front yard setback would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code, MN I 02896.DOC PAGE 8 unless a variance is granted. Recommendation to the City Council was to uphold staff's interpretation of the ordinance. Comments from the public: Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, distributed a survey showing his proposed change. Mr. Smith would like to have his garage line up with Pavek's house. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, has been working with Mr. Smith on his construction and improvements. He attended all the related hearings. Mr. Weninger feels Commissioners stated the setbacks should be consistent with Smith's house at the Pavek hearing. Tovar explained Mr. Smith's variance request. V onhof: . Cannot use future considerations. Commissioners made a decision with the criteria at the time. . Support staff. Kuykendall: . Technically and legally staff recommendation is appropriate. . Understands where applicant is coming from. Can come back and apply for a variance. Wuellner: . Questioned Pavek's variances. . Agrees with V onhof and supports staff. Stamson: . Concurs with City Staff. Criego: . Agrees with the rest of Commissioners. . Cannot accept appeal at the time the variance was granted none of this information was known. Jim Weninger felt it was appropriate Commissioners review the Pavek variance. His impression was the Pavek variance was consistent with Dave Smith's setback. Jane Kansier addressed Mr. Weninger's concern stating the setbacks were consistent with the neighborhood. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE. PAGE9 MN102896.00c Vote taken signified ayes by V onhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Public Hearing Continued. D. CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS Criego read the Opening Statement for public hearing. There was no attendance by the public. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report. The amendment is to the Zoning Ordinance revising the required side yard setback for an addition to an existing dwelling. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced side yard setback. The variance invol~ed an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one side yard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. Rye commented on the City Council's feelings that an amendment be brought forward which would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staff approach was to allow one 5' setback to an existing structure. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . The original ordinance was written for substandard lots and tries to make an exception for them. It seems backwards to give people with larger lots the same 5 feet side yard setback. If the City wants it uniform it should have been left at 10 feet. Wuellner: . This recommendation came up before the Commissioners by a previous staff. It did not pass at that time. Commissioners felt in time, it would become the norm. . Crowding along the lakefront is getting worse. This will exacerbate the problem. . Keep as is. Not in favor. MNI02896.DOC PAGEIO October 22, 1996 Dave Smith 2590 Spring Lake Road Shakopee,~ 55379 Dear Mr. Smith, On October 21, 1996 you made a request to build your garage addition 63 feet from the centerline of North wood Road, rather than the 67 feet as approved under Variance #96-040 (June 10, 1996). Your purpose for wanting your garage addition to be closer to the road is that the property to the east is currently under construction, and with approval of a variance (#96-082), this house will be setback 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road. Your desire is to have your garage addition line up with this new house, 4 feet closer than what your variance was approved for. The Planning Department cannot approve of your addition to encroach upon the required setbacks any more than what your variance was approved for. The variance granted was for 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (34 feet from the property line). If you wish to build your garage closer, then you must apply for a new variance. Section 4.1 F. states "Where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall be the average of the existing structures." At the time of your applications for a variance and a building permit, there was not a building on the property to the east of yours. Therefore, you could not and cannot use the setback averaging. You can appeal our decision to the Planning Commission by written request. Your appeal will be placed on the next available Planning Commission meeting. There is no fee for an appeal. If the appeal is over turned then you must submit a new survey and site plan to be approved by the Planning, Building and Engineering Department prior to issuance of a revised building permit. Please call the Planning Department if you have any questions on our decision or the process of appeals. Sincerely~/1 ~~/ Don Rye Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQLAL OPPORTLNITY EMPLOYER .-'/'1U_ ~o;J ~ uJCJvtl/1 L'/ke 70 .A??eA-L f4c fiA/J/!:rzj P~f'J pk /S-ln.J ~ f ~?I-~:2 70 ///d a//~.tv /he- T,?r r?lc/? fA/'1:fC-. r rl c.LIJ.5'er --rtJ S?l"'~ ~ ~ <' -'/7C/'~ )5 ;A ;//Vt5l- ;Jov../ g<:"17" 8,vr.z.f /,~J,..J- ~q:J " PO/ "TO rc:.I)~r'c s t' 5 '7 R- LLo5-e-- jGl )2~4)\ (U gc: c:: cJ;v.s rS -J.e '7+ t--V /; 4 -f-~c! /VI ;r:,A TV? ;ZcZi1c'51,~ (Ae SAfr7C Se+ gAL~ ~5 74e~ J5' 0- .fo~7-/-Iy IS .5;-J ~r(;JG cS/# ~d/~ ---------- ~ ~ '----- -'~.---- ~