HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C - Setback 4851 Rutledge St.
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DECEMBER 6, 2004
7C
DANETTE MOORE, PLANNING COORDINATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR 4851 RUTLEDGE STREET.
(Case File #04-142)
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
Historv: On October 25,2004, the Planning Commission denied (4-
1) a Lifestyle Homes request for a variance to construct a single
family dwelling with a five (5) foot variance from the required 25 foot
front yard setback. The property is located south of Rutledge Street,
east of Lakeview Circle, and west of Stefan Circle, at 4851 Rutledge
Street SE.
Backaround: Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance permits any
owner of affected property within 350 feet of the subject property to
appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment (Planning
Commission) to the City Council. On October 29,2004, Mitchell
Husnik of Lifestyle Homes appealed the Planning Commission's
decision.
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District), and is guided R-
L/MD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) in the 2020
Comprehensive Plan. The lot is 24,517 square feet.
In the R-1 use district, the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet. The
applicant is requesting the approval of a 5 foot variance to allow the
construction of a single family dwelling within 20 feet of the front
property line. The neighboring lots maintain front yard setbacks
ranging from 26 feet to over 40 feet. The closest neighboring
structure (to the east) is setback over 40 feet from the Rutledge Street
right-of-way.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\~tYdiJn"iorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
The footprint of the proposed structure is 2,280 square feet. The
structure is proposed to have a three stall garage. The applicant has
not submitted any building elevations or floor plans.
Over fifty percent of the site is comprised of a wetland. However, the
site maintains the ability to accommodate a reasonable building pad
area within the required setbacks. If the proposed structure was
reconfigured or reduced in size, the structure could meet setback
requirements.
Issue: In order to construct the single family dwelling on the property,
the appellant is requesting a 5 (five) foot front yard setback Variance.
Section 1102.405 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot front
yard setback for properties in the R-1 use district.
Variance HardshiD Findinas: Section 1108.400 of the Zoning
Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance,
provided that:
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
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.
A reasonable use in this case is a single family dwelling, because
the property is zoned R-1. The site has adequate area for a
reasonable residential building envelope. The proposed structure
could be redesigned to fit within the building envelope. For that
reason, the strict application of the front setback requirement
would not result in an undue hardship.
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 lot is approximately 24,500 square feet in area. Although a
large part of the site contains a wetland, the site still provides
adequate area to construct a reasonable residential structure.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\cc report.doc
2
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
The granting of the front yard setback variance as requested is
not warranted for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the owner. A different design or smaller home
will eliminate the need for the variance.
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.
The granting of the requested variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties, or negatively
impact public safety.
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.
The granting of the variance could be seen as impacting the
character of the neighborhood, since it will allow for a reduced
front yard setback.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding
of land and undue concentration of structures and population by
regulating the use of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings
in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is
implemented through required minimum setbacks. A variance to
reduce the required minimum front yard setback is inconsistent
with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the appellant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The variance to the front yard setback will serve as a convenience
to the property owner. It is not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue difficulty. A different house design can be
used to meet these requirements.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\cc report.doc
3
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 owners of the property.
The design of the proposed house creates the alleged hardship.
It does not result from the strict application of the front yard
setback requirement.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
The narrative submitted by the applicant makes reference to a
hardship based on the buyer's budget. However, staff does not
believe that increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship are the basis of this request.
CONCLUSION:
The strict application of the required 25 foot front yard setback does
allow reasonable use of the site. A single family dwelling with a
different design can comply with these requirements. Based upon the
findings set forth in this report, staff recommends denial. The
Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation and denied
the variance request.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
appeal.
2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and grant the
appeal. If this is the case, the Council should direct staff to
prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1. This alternative requires a motion
and second adopting a resolution upholding the decision of the
Planning Commissio 0 deny the requested Variance.
REVIEWED BY:
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\cc report.doc
4
-, ~-~""_"",'-I__~,~_......'",~__,, .v.____"', ~." """_....-~<~~_""".. -c' .. ..," .I_"'~_"_ ~.,___...__.",.",.",,_,_<_,. .>.__...-"<>........>C".; _._.,~"..<-""^~_~""'-*",'_........."'.."*->,,,"_"""",_..,;,.,,,..."."_~..""'";._,_~..','_~~"..,...__,._..__"._,,_,_... "._..~.__ ....
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 04-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALLOWING A 5 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK MINIMUM IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (SECTION 1102.405 (4).)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Mitchell Husnik is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for the construction
of a single family dwellings on property located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential
Shoreland District) use district, located at 4851 Rutledge Street Southeast, Prior Lake
MN, and legally described as follows:
Tract A, R.L.S. No.39, Except the East 770 feet thereof, Scott County, Minnesota
and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case File 04-121, and held a hearing thereon October 25,2004; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 04-121 and Case File 04-142, and held a hearing
thereon on December 6, 2004.
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 finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting variances
set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld, and said variance should be denied.
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mitchell Husnik, on behalf of Lifestyle Homes Inc., appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 19, 2004.
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\uphold resolution.doc . f . I k
WWW.cltyOpnOrae.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 04-121 and Case File 04-142, and held a hearing thereon on December 6,
2004.
c. The Board of Adjustment has 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.
d. There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the property to warrant the setback
Variance. The property owner has not demonstrated an undue hardship because a single family
dwelling can be constructed on the property without Variances.
e. The granting of the Variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property
right. A single family dwelling with an alternate design can be constructed on the property
without relief from the Zoning Ordinance.
f. The granting of the Variance will impact on the character of the neighborhood because it will be
inconsistent with the front setback of neighboring dwellings.
g. One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "provide for the elimination of all nonconforming uses
and certain other nonconformities." Permitting the subdivision of the parcel into two lots would
violate the Zoning Ordinance that was specifically adopted to preclude situations such as this.
h. The granting of the Variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant. Since a single family
dwelling can be constructed without a Variance, the requested Variance is not necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
i. The alleged hardship does not result from the application of the of the front yard setback
requirement, but rather form the design of the proposed house.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 04-121 and Planning Case File 04-142 are hereby entered into
and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of December, 2004.
YES
NO
HauQen HauQen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager
1:\04 files\04 appeals\husnik-lifestyle\uphold resolution. doc
Page 2
Homeslr
Properties
LIC. # 20454500
October 27, 2004
City of Prior Lake
City Council Members
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Re: APPEAL. Variance for property located at
4851 Rutledge Street Southeast, Prior Lake, MN
This is an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision not to grant the
requested variance for the above referenced property.
I disagree with the Planning Commission's findings. Stated below is my
response to your 9 Zoning Ordinances as outlined in your "Procedure for an
Application for a Variance to the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
1. A. This property slopes steeply up to the south and to the east, which
limits buildable space.
B. This steep elevation requires us to build a retaining wall so that we can
meet the driveway grade requirement and to ensure proper drainage.
C. Wetland comprises more than 500k of the property, which, along with
additional required wetland setbacks, leaves only a small triangle of actual
building area.
2. The wetlands and the steep elevation are peculiar to this property.
3. The granting of the variance would allow the owner the right to build a
house that is similar in design and value of the other neighborhood
homes.
4. Planning commission in agreement.
5. The character of the neighborhood as a whole, for example the properties
along Red Oaks Drive, Rutledge Street, Stefan Circle, will not be
unreasonably impacted or diminished by a small 5 foot variance. These
homes were built at various times, with various styles, and various
setbacks. The referenced property on Rutledge has similar buildable
area, with in setbacks, as the properties along the lake on Red Oaks
I-
en
w
::::>
00.
w<(
~~
()Z
zo
<(-
-I-
a::<(
<(()
>0
~...J
-
Z
Cf)
::::>
I
en
~
en
w
a..
o
::c
3AV J.NOW3E)al~
z+
~
L-
eo
a..
...
c:
e
\f-
a>
~
eo
...J
ttn__lgs) '1'fJ ___N) 'JOtd I)
l"" /II on-. '1Il. us OZt "II 113 . 01112
Slm3flHllS / SHD<<>N] / SOIMd
a~UI 'litH au sewer
I ~ ~ u\.\ U 2J ~.:::.J '-JI
'UlIS .105_ ~ JTDII 'IDl11S 3<.15 'M nil
':lNl 's:0.ta3dOHd aNY s:mOH :nu.s:un
AaAHllS .10 lID:u,V:lLtlLLH:i:l
6S 'ON .S"I'8 'S J,~lii 'ald aNY Y J,:>VH.L 0/ d
d .
)- ~ III ~.. Z ...i i d~ ~
III ~
!~ ~on III ~~ g~ :''1 ~~ Zj ~
a~ $ ~~ A~ S~ Q~ 2~ i
! r III N Cl.
0
."
0 ..
.....'"
.... ..
r\ .... 0
z: ;g; ",
- ....
~ u
Uo c
Ul",
..
..
o
o
CIJ
oi
C')
o
z
>-
~
0::"';
~f
fi~
<
~Q;
e~
0::0
~l'-
!-ol'-
!!l..
t:l",
~1Il
o::~
~~
I :.2~
.u
CIJ><
u ...J~
0::.0
<~
..II
o l::
1Ill::
t::i
Cl
Z
~
c.=>
~
...J
~
<
~ ~
~ 0
t:l :I:
~ Z
~~ll. ~
~Z~E-~>-
o::~CIJ~~~
~~~g;>-z
O~::J>-;:J<
ll.E-u:I:t:lCIJ
9B0Pl@
>.
C
;:l
o
u
~ 112>> i
o .d ..
~ s: ~ ~ !t
1ls::l.0 a:
~~-gaE.
....-g;:ls::l.1l ;
O::l~o:i iii
>>..>>1:0 .,
!:o~",..
~Ea~~
l::
~ Ell ~ e
t:'t:l~t.d
ge.~~~ ~
-g ~~:a g ..
d3~;;"'QJ
~ ~:] 5
"Ill !-o",
IIl~E C ~
.~==~~ s ~
.!l]-.o:l~ 0
:5":521l~
-.o-g't:li~~
.d1lll::....l::Il_
.. OlOIl.d 0
~-E' E ~ ~.... .g
~ ~:~~ 2 ~~I
o a ~ II E-;; ~
~1l ~:i ~ :l 01
t~~'Occs~;s
.d~f;~~~
~~:a.!l-;; ~ ~
~
c
-..
ii ~5'~~
~ lS:;;~.~
~E~t~-e
~ c.g::~r2B
i.g ~~ [['0
i1i~'~K~
il~ ~!~l~
i .. 0..
I ~ 8- g.~
d ~: .....~
~ ~e~~i
~ ~8~~~
::I 'Q"'_'1J"O
:::: ~~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
m lLlL OlLlL
0:
o
~Q!!!
t:~i:
1-00:
:~io:
o ::>~
t:efi~
r. (&10:
E~~~
lD:ifi:!il
:i !:)rn(&ll-
::> o~x>-
~ i:ElillD
Q lil->-.:l
Q Q-C-C~
~ (&I :II!:}
~ ~ziJ!i
!!;l [;!~~8
x ll.ii: x
o xOl2tl
la ~~~:
~ !!;li=~~
(&I :>::~(&I!!;l
~ >-I-Q:>::
rn 5~~~
If ~~8fl
~ !!!~~~
lD i:u::>ll.
\
\
\
\ /.'
1~
~
/ sA "').
.... do
./ ;;l 't'>
/~ 'If,
/ \ \
\
\
Ol
c-..
."
o
z
on
~
<>
o
OJ
c:
c:
s
!
o
~
,,lIU........ tJ
~~~l~~l
0000000
~~I
en 4Jo.~g ~
Q)
~
o
Z
~o-_~f c:.g ~H~i~ 5~
=:~ :~~i ;i~~ H
c o~ :~~l Ji ~~ -
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~i
"'~a. :[>-~~~..el:~ ~~
!1!1;!iiH!!!!~~ ~
~2 ..E~-acn~~~~~~6~g.~
~~~~N~~~~n'~~~i.:5 ~
;>
cS
~::
"
~..-
('~
,~
i"
1.IJ
"'(
"-0
oz
~;
S~
!
, )
~ " . 1:l.IU JO 133J OiL
- - 15.3 3Hl JO 3NI1 153'0\
o
z
;
~
"'(
C)
_7
?-
-/
IJ-
\--
//-----. 1:l.lI1 JO 3NI1 153M I..:)
---M..vl.9roOOS ZV'ozr--- j
,../
u-
....
I
\
~ , i~!8: I~I i ' ; i . 10:, i : [ I ' i iQII>:~;~iO:I' !~181~1 ! i8i~i lD:jD:
!.~ ~i,~ i.~ I~ !,~l~!~ l.:r:;.~ i.~ i~ i.,,~ 1:5 !.~ I~:~ l~ i,~ !.~l:r:!.. i..~ :.~ I~ 1:5 ~I~!~:~ :,.~ !~!~ I~I~ I~!.~
,Ill OiWi:gi:gWI:giol~!O!~iOiOI~iOiOloloiOiOl~1 1~':gI:gl~ B!:gI:g!:g;W!~l~i:gi~IW:W
:~ I ;~i~i I~! I I !IL! : ilL I i i I : ! I iQ;! i~I~IIL, !~I~I~i ! iGlI~! gilil
';? ~ 'B::! ili; lID Icr; I-=I~,~'~ lID ili; 18 it: liillll'~i:SiOi lIB 11<1'1'11 11I1:s is' ~il2j'ilo1llo1llilllll i::!!~ I~ il<l
!~ il~lpJipJ ipJl~ II iiilii!~i~!liliiili .Iilii!ili lillilii~ ~!~i~I~!i!~I~li!~ ,ili
i~ ! ' i ! I i I ; I I I I : I i I loi..INll'>l.i",!.. 1.1 ' I i i_I i j I iN
i~ I l!l jlil 1m iilmlm il:l!il~ l~!!ij i~ i~ I~ ISIID jID!ID lID lID lID lID IE! 11ll!~I19IL1i19!la:il lal~l~!~
"
!2
u
>
II::
(&I
rn
..1
i oi ~
~~ ~
ON
~~ 8
~~ ~
:::I!. !:)
-cu 0:
:>::x
-c - ..,
~::f ;
~ s: :;.;
Q 0: Ii:
~12 ~
~~ ~
a>- it! ~
.:llD !!! 0
fila CI ~
j~ x 0:
~9 ~ ~
~ ~
(&I W
II:: 0:
0: 0:
::> ::>
U u
W
rn
r.l:l
ox
-c
W
~~
~
o
%
J-
W
Wa.
~<c
....~
oo~
Wo
C)<C
Om
WI-
...Jw
....00
:J
0::