HomeMy WebLinkAbout4C 14856 Estate Avenue Report
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 2016
AGENDA #: 4C
PREPARED BY:
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
AGENDA ITEM:
AFTER CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN
THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Scott and Christa Erickson, on behalf of the owners of the subject property, are
requesting a variance in order to allow for the construction of a new home on a
property located at 14856 Estate Avenue. The property is located along the
southern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Lori Road. The following variance
is requested:
• A 20.5-foot variance from the required minimum 75-foot structure set-
back from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior Lake
(Section 1104.302 (4))
Regulation Minimum Proposed Variance
Lake Setback 75’ 54.5’ 20.5’
History
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD (Urban
Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is
currently vacant.
Current Circumstances
The current City Ordinance regarding lake setbacks according to Subsection
1104.302 (4) is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake. Ac-
cording to the submitted survey the planned house proposes a 54.5-foot set-
back from the lake to the proposed upper level deck. The lake setbacks on ad-
jacent properties are both indicated over 75 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of Prior Lake.
The lot was platted in 2011 with the Eastwood 3rd Addition. The grading plan for
this plat (see attached) indicates a building pad which would meet the required
setbacks and not require a variance. A 15 foot drainage and utility easement
exists on the west boundary of the lot as well as in the front corner of the lot for
the location of a sanitary sewer lift station.
Given the required structure setbacks (side yard – 10 feet, front yard – 25 feet,
and lake – 75 feet) the buildable area for the lot without the need for setback
variances is approximately a 60-foot-wide by 63-foot-long building pad that is
2
over 3,780 square feet outside of the drainage and utility easements (repre-
sented by the red shaded area on the attached exhibit). The survey indicates
that the design will meet the maximum requirement of 30% of the total lot area.
Conclusion
City Staff has met with the applicant regarding the variance request and has rec-
ommended reconfiguration of the house design to meet the current setback reg-
ulations. City Staff believes that there remains a reasonable buildable area with-
out the need for variances, and therefore, does not support the variance request.
Based upon these findings in this report, City Staff recommends the applicant
consider redesigning the proposed home to fit the buildable area without the need
for variances. A resolution for denial of the variance request is attached to the
City Staff report.
ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance. Subsection 1108.400 states that
the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that:
(1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of
the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the
granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use
the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties.
A practical difficulty does not exist to comply with the strict terms of the
City Ordinance. The buildable area of over 3,780 square feet does allow
for a reasonable house to be constructed without the need for a variance.
(2) The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variances does not appear to be in harmony with the
general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose
of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly
development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and pub-
lic areas”. A reasonable residential house which meets the buildable
area without the need for a variance could be achieved on the property.
(3) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property
not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a
mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
It appears a reconfiguration of the house design may allow for a reasona-
ble residential use of the property without the need for a variance.
(4) The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the
public welfare.
Nearby properties with similar lot conditions have lake setbacks which
meet the 75-foot requirement. The size and depth of the subject property
would allow for a reasonable house construction.
3
(5) The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the
property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject
property is located.
The requested variance would allow construction of a residential upper
level deck which is an allowed accessory use within the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) Zoning District.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the lake setback variance of 20.5-feet re-
quested by the applicant, or approve any variance the Planning Commission
deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose as directed by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion and a second to deny the lake setback variance of 20.5-feet be-
cause the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical diffi-
culties under the zoning code criteria
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Alternative #3
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 16-XXPC
2. Location Map
3. Survey stamp dated June 16, 2016
4. Survey indicating approximate buildable area
5. Eastwood 3rd Addition Plat – grading plan (2011)
6. Written comments from the public
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 16-XXPC
DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing on
July 5, 2016, to consider a variance request from Scott and Christa Erickson, on behalf of the property
owner, Cygnus Construction LLC, to allow construction of a single family dwelling within the lake setback
located in the R1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property:
14856 Estate Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Eastwood 3rd Addition
(PID 25-480-001-0)
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request (Case #DEV16-001017) was duly published in
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request, and persons
interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance
request; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission 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, and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings:
a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
A practical difficulty does not exist to comply with the strict terms of the City Ordinance. The buildable
area of over 3,780 square feet does allow for a reasonable house to be constructed without the need
for a variance.
b. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variances does not appear to be in harmony with the general purposes of the
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most
appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public
areas”. A reasonable residential house which meets the buildable area without the need for a variance
could be achieved on the property.
c. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
It appears a reconfiguration of the house design may allow for a reasonable residential use of the
property without the need for a variance.
d. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be
detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare.
Nearby properties with similar lot conditions have lake setbacks which meet the 75-foot requirement. The
size and depth of the subject property would allow for a reasonable house construction.
e. The granting of the variance will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted
in the zoning district where the subject property is located.
The requested variances would allow construction of a residential dwelling which is an allowed use within
the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.
3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby denies the following variance
based on the above findings to allow the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) Zoning District:
a. A 20.5-foot variance from the required minimum 75-foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
(OHW) elevation of Prior Lake (Subsection 1104.302 (4))
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF JULY, 2016.
_______________________________ Bryan Fleming, Commission Chair
ATTEST: _________________________________
Dan Rogness, Community & Economic Development Director
VOTE Fleming Kallberg Larson Petersen Tieman
Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
E
S
T
A
T
E A
V S
E
L O R I R D S E
150TH ST SE
Lower Prior Lake
Ü
14856 Estate Avenue Variance Location Map
LOWER PRIOR LAK E
GD
(904)
H I G H W A Y 1 3150TH S T S E
E A G L E C R E E K A V N E
Lower Prior Lake
SUBJECTPROPERTY
SUBJECTPROPERTY
E
A
S
T
W
O
O
D
3
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
-
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
(
2
0
1
1
)
1
Jeff Matzke
From:Ann Mathiesen <mathiesen@integra.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:34 PM
To:Jeff Matzke
Cc:Jan Mathiesen
Subject:Variance for 14856 Estate Avenue
Categories:Red Category
Dear Mr. Matzke,
My husband and I are unable to attend the public hearing to be held on July 5th in relation to the variance request for
14856 Estate Avenue. Please submit this email to the official record related to this issue.
We reside at 14898 Lori Rd SE, 4 lots to the west of the subject property.
We would request that a variance for a modified lake setback NOT be granted to the owner of the subject lot. Our
reasoning is threefold:
1. All properties along Estate Ave, Lori Rd and 150th St. are consistent with the 75' setback.
2. There is no "averaging" of adjacent properties that would support this variance.
3. The aesthetics of the neighborhood shoreline would be unfavorably altered.
Sincerely,
Ann & Jan Mathiesen
14898 Lori Rd SE
Sent from my iPhone
1
June 29, 2016
Dear Prior Lake Planning Commission members,
This email is in reference to the request for a variance to the lake setback for a new home at 14856
Estate Avenue (PID 25-480-001-0). My wife and I live in the house on the adjacent lot to the southwest
(14872 Estate Ave). We are opposed to granting the variance for the reasons outlined in this letter.
Ability to comply with setback regulations has been demonstrated.
In the 2011 application to sub-divide the original undeveloped wooded lot, the argument put forth by
the applicant/developer (Cygnus Construction) was that the new smaller lot could support a satisfactory
building structure within existing setback laws. Therefore there is no demonstrated hardship that was
not manifestly known, acknowledged and accepted by the developer at the time the lot split was
submitted to the prior members of the planning commission.
• Reference 1: “06-13-11 PC Agenda Packet”, agenda item 5E
http://156.99.83.130/weblink8external/0/doc/201504/Page1.aspx
• Reference 2: “06 13 2011 PC Meeting Minutes”, pages 5-8,
http://156.99.83.130/Weblink8External/0/doc/203618/Page1.aspx
• See figure 1 (attached) for a survey showing where proposed house could fit.
The reduced lake setback of 54.5 feet would be significantly less than the surrounding neighborhood
home lake setbacks.
The surrounding lakeshore houses are all within the legal setbacks of 75 feet from the ordinary high-
water mark. In most cases, the houses are at a significantly greater setback. There is no justification for
the averaging clause to be applied. Granting the proposed variance would place the new house in a
drastically different position relative to the houses along Estate Avenue and Lori Road.
• See figure 2 - aerial view of the neighborhood, Scott County GIS website,
http://gis.co.scott.mn.us/Public_Parcel/?pin=254800010
We would love to have a beautiful house and the fellowship of new neighbors replace the barren dirt,
weed and equipment-strewn eyesore that has been our view for over three years. However we cannot
support this application and we have fear that an ambiguous denial from you will simply encourage
future applications with varying degrees of minor setback differences.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Allen Joscher
2
Figure 1 - Survey of proposed lot split and new homes
Figure 2 - Aerial view, Scott County Property MN