Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Ceminsky Variance AGENDA # PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ANAL YSIS: STAFF.AGENDA REPORT BC R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CONSIDER APPEAL OF VARIANCES FOR RON CEMINSKY - SUBJECT SITE: 5239 BROOKS CIRCLE SOUTHEAST OCTOBER 2, 1995 Ron Ceminsky, 5239 Brooks Circle Southeast, submitted an application for a 4 foot side yard setback variance on the East to allow the addition of a third garage stall to an existing, 2-car attached garage. A public hearing was set for August 28, 1995, and the variance was heard at that time. There was no public input regarding this request. The Planning Commission concurred with the Staff recommendation that the variance be denied because the request did not meet the Ordinance criteria. By letter dated September 5, 1995, Mr. Ceminsky appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. In that same letter Mr. Ceminsky expressed his intention to reduce the request for variance from 4 feet to 2 feet. The original staff report concluded that the Ordinance criteria were not met for the following reasons: 1. Since the subject site is developed with a single family residence with attached 2-car-garage, reasonable use was being made of the property. 2. Mr. Ceminsky has other, legal alternatives available for the construction of garage space on the subject site. 3. There are no circumstances unique to the subject site which result in unnecessary hardship. Specifically, at 17825 square feet with 88 feet of frontage, the lot is substantially larger than required by the Ordinance. The lot does not contain any unusual slopes which limit available alternatives. Mr. Ceminsky maintained that 1) there was no opposition to the requested variance, 2) other, available options would require the removal or moving of an existing storage building, 3) other options would require the removal of 1 - 3 existing trees in the rear yard, and 4) the Planning Commission had granted larger and more variances for other sites on the agenda. 16200 e'~E?<(sP&ek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council could support the original recommendation of the staff and Planning Commission. 2. The City Council could support Mr. Ceminsky's 4' setback appeal of the original Staff recommendation and Planning Commission determination. 3. The City Council could support Mr. Ceminsky's amended request for 2' variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council support Alternative 1. ACTION REQUIRED: A motion directing prep' ration of the appropriate Resolution, with Findings for consent co ~ideration at the next City Council meeting. REVIEWED BY: V A9527CCDOC 2 _~'''''",',",,~_~,,~''~--'''''''."~_'''''''''_._>'W~'''''"_~''"''"''~','.,; .,.~,.,"__..'., .-Jt F1LL Nc:>. YA9S-Z=f- ',Sl.!RVEY PREPARED FOR: , RON"", CEMINSI<Y 5239' ,BROOKS CIRCLE S.E . PRIOR LAKE i MN. 55372 . ,., Valley Surveying Co., F? A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447-2570 ~ 8,,~ ' ~8 ________ ,} ,,' , " . :." ' "'", ... '~,. ~,'~~-~'{ ,..>.:: 95'.e? I , : ";' ;.,~,\,!:'~:'j>"{~>: : ....,.,)....'..:.~ CIRCL ; ....' '. -" " . , , , , e~/., 8ar-oo. . ,.,! :0 , .. '. -~ ,-.I ..Ll.J I 0' - I ;...~ ,.". o r2 !!2_ <" , I 10 FT. UTILITY. ,.e, DMIHA_ ~~L J '0 ....T . :;: t~ I :I '21 8- .. 00 11)0 .0. , , ~ "~/.i,;~: ,.)> ~. ; . :' 'Wa', :~~~~J,;,t~~~~l;~{<;?~" '. ":', ;" . >:_' .;r:~' -'., '''f. ;.,.- '~' :"&t,t;s~~~~"~~iit&*~",, " ....:.. ...;. '-,' '. ' , , . ~,' ~~'..~i&~:~.'~~1;~if~,,:,~:... "'_ I I J ON.8 """-- - ..'~'.133.00--- N890 55158" E DESCRIPTION: ....- r _1.0 It ~, _ _,_ It ""'~.'"'r.. . ~ .......,.. ...................... September 5, 1995 Mr. DonaldRye City of Prior Lake Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mr. Rye: Based on the Planning Commission's decision and denial of my variance application at the August 28, 1995 meeting, I am requesting an appeal of their decision and to be considered for placement on the October 2, 1995 City Council agenda. I am changing my variance request from the original four (4) feet to a reduction of (2) two feet on the front corner of the proposed garage addition. If you should have any questions, please contact me. 5239 Brooks Circle Southeast Prior Lake, MN 55372 447-5417 omments from Commissioners: Arno : applicants did a good job of getting the coverage ratio down; major effort to change; upports variances. Roseth: neio bors have variances; agree variances are need to build a reasona Loftus: similar cents; feels the same - attempted to down size, belie s there is a hardship; supportive. Kuykendall: really tryin to cram on a small lot; still off on the c erage; cannot support hardship criteria #1; grand her clause could be used in this mer. Criego: neighbors support vari ces; hardship standards feels you can have a smaller house on the prope . if this is approved here are we going to stop?; feels the property has to have a home it but it shou be smaller. Jim Halek stated he has built approximatel 18 I s on Prior Lake in the last two years. Previous lakeshore owners received many v . ces. When the bridge opens the values on the lake will become much greater. Peo e not going to be building cabins on the lake - it will be their home. The better th omes, e better the taxes. We have to continue to attract the right people. W have to upgr e the homes on the lake. V onhof: there is no building en~ ope on the property WI out variances; meets hardship criteria; the proposal in front 0 us is a much more reasonab roposal than the original; variances should be approv . Discussion: t envelope requires variances; made an attempt and came b k with a more reason Ie proposal; there are other similar properties; granted similar v iances in neighbor od~ have to look beyond this piece of property - is this how we want e neighb ood to look? reflects the neighborhood. MOTION BY LOFTU , SECOND BY ARNOLD TO GRANT T VARIANCES. V e taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and V onhof. ARRlED. ITEM #6 CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON CEMINSKY OF 5239 BROOKS CIRCLE SE: TO ADD A THIRD CAR GARAGE STALL: 4 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE TO THE EAST. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated August 28, 1995. Staff recommends denial of the variances based on the Findings, the hardship criteria has not been met. MN82895 DOC PAGE 14 Ron Ceminsky, stated he lived in Prior Lake for 1 7 years and built this house in 1977. He is asking for a variance to add a third car stall to store materials. His neighbor does not oppose the addition. Mr. Ceminsky passed out pictures of his property to the Commissioners. According to the current ordinance he can add 8 feet but needs 12 feet. He feels he can not expand in the back yard because it is heavily wooded. Comments from the Commissioners: Roseth: in looking at this it is hard to justify a 4 foot variance; we like to save trees but he has the room in the back yard; it is not a hardship. Loftus: if a person builds within the code, they do not need a variance; this house was built and designed for the lot; given the large lot area it is not a hardship to add a third car garage. Kuykendall: move the shed and take out a tree; cannot justify; can put storage space behind garage; could rent storage for his business; it is applicant's decision on tree value. Arnold: there is no way to justify a variance with a lot this size; understand not wanting to move the trees but this is for storage and not a hardship. V onhof: concurs with Commissioner Loftus; it is a situation where we look at the total square footage; suggest to put addition behind. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO DENY REQUEST FOR 4 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE. Discussion: No demonstrated hardship for the basis of the motion. Recommendation to go to an architect. There are other options. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ceminsky felt the Staff and Commissioners do not care. He feels there is a hardship by removing the two trees and shed. (Leek stated it is not fair to say Staff and Commissioners do not care but they have to follow the hardship criteria.) Commissioner V onhof explained the process of appeal. hair Appointment. MN82895 DOC PAGE 15 PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6 CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR RON CEMINSKY 5239 BROOKS CIRCLE SEe R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR YES -1L NO AUGUST 28, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from Ron Ceminsky. The applicant proposes to add a third garage stall to an existing, attached 2-car garage. The front comer of the proposed addition is 6 feet from the side lot line. The applicant is thus seeking the following variance; 1. A 4 foot side yard setback variance on the East to permit a setback of 6 feet instead of the required 10 feet. DISCUSSION: The subject property contains about 17,825 square feet. It is developed with a single- family house with attached, 2-car garage which were constructed in 1977. The applicant wishes to add a third stall to the existing garage. The proposed setbacks are as follows; Variance Hardship Standards: The City's Zoning Ordinance sets forth 4 criteria against which requests for variance must be evaluated. These are set forth below. V A95-27 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria relates to whether there is a legal alternative to the proposal which will allow for reasonable use of the property without necessitating variances. The first level of analysis is whether reasonable use is currently being made of the property. While there are an increasing number of requests for the addition of a third stall to existing garages, and while 3-car garages are increasingly common in new construction, staff concludes that they are not essential to make reasonable use of property in the residential zoning districts. Moreover, it appears to staff that other, legal alternatives exist to accomplish the applicant's desired purpose. These alternatives would include the construction of a tandem-style garage stall and the construction of a separate garage in the rear yard area. Both of these alternatives would require the removal of existing, mature trees, and would thus be more expensive. Because staff is charged with applying a strict interpretation of the Ordinance, staff is forced to conclude that reasonable use currently exists, and that other, legal alternatives exist to accomplish the intended purpose. Thus, this criteria is not met. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. Because staff concludes that there is no hardship, this criteria is also not met. Were the Commission to disagree with staff and conclude that there is undue hardship, that hardship would arguably not result from circumstances unique to the property. The subject property is large, and relatively wide, and does not contain any significant slopes which restrict possible building locations. 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 is no undue hardship, this criteria is prima facie 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 basic purpose of the regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance is to set standards which "promote the public health, safety, and general welfare." Factors typically looked at include, but are not limited to; structure separation for fire safety, neighborhood aesthetics, and preservation of property values in a locality. The variance, if granted, would not appear to run counter to these factors. AL TERNA TIVES: V A95-27 2 1. Approve the variance 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 staff has concluded that the criteria are not met for the reasons set forth above, staff recommends Alternative 3. V A95-27 3 --'-~.;~"'~'......-.-.~,""""'~._..._-~-_._.---~"----""""~.."""'"