Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-127 VA Appeal survey pgs 47&48APPLICATIONS APPLICATION MATERIALS L:\TEMPLATEIFILEINFO.DOC 1 O/31/2002 APPEAL REQUEST OF RESOLUTION 02-019PC Randy and Patrice Simpson hereby formally request an appeal to the City Counsel for resolution 02-019PC variance denial and public hearing date of 10/28/2002. Previous to application for an interpretation of our lot and a variance to the set back I met with planning staff (Cindy and Jane) to explain our situation and ask for guidance and clarification. My initial contact was with Cindy to interrupt my lot layout and the zoning ordinance. Cindy at this time was only on Staff for a short time so I requested a meeting with Cindy, Jane and Don. A meeting was set up with Jane, Cindy and myself to cover all aspects of the lot and the unique situation. I supplied staff with documentation on previous vacations and court rulings pertaining to this situation. The City Attorney reviewed the documentation and after 3-4 weeks a determination was made by Staffto apply for a variance. Under Staff recommendation I did apply for a variance. At that time I also questioned the intent of the ordinance and if the ordinance truly was drafted with the thought of a ½ vacated unimproved dead end Street required a 25-foot setback. Below I will respond to Staff comment for a hardship and justification of a denial of a variance. Keep in mind 1 still question the interpretation of the ordinance and the original intent of the ordinance as it pertains to this lot. Hardship Findings I. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water condition, 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. Staff response. The property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of another in addition to a vacated right-of-way and the reserve area. There are no exceptional conditions associated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner. Owner response. The words extraordinary and exception condition above describe the relationship of this lot in conjunction with the ½ of vacated 6 th. Street. How many other lots have an access to the lake located next to it preventing an addition to the home. Previous staff allowed us to build 12 years ago and did not consider this to be a comer lot at that time. I believe Staff is not interpreting the information correctly and the intent of the ordinance. The words peculiar and practical difficulties above also relate to the fact, it would be peculiar to attach or detach a garage on the other side of the property. The 2020 Comp Plan address aesthetic as a goal. I do not believe detached garages in the front yard achieve that goal. 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 lot is located. Staff Response. The alleged condition, that of this being a comer lot, is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any comer lot. The are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. Owner Response. Without counting how many comer lots Prior Lake has out of its 5000 or so home sites, I would guess 750 to 1000, and only a handful of access to the lake 1 would consider this peculiar to this property. Terrace Circle, originally platted as 6~ Street, also has a similar situation onto Prior Lake has two homes with less than a 25-foot setback located next to it. Another access off of Sunset on the Spring Lake has homes within the 25-foot setback also. How many other lots in the City have ½ of a vacated dead end road that is privately maintained located next to it. This so-called street has no street sign; no traffic control signs, and is ignored by the City. This road also crosses land that Scott County District Court has ruled the public has no rights to. I will address this issue later 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Staff Response. A reasonable use is present on the property. The front yard set back is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property with out any variance. Owner response. As a property owner I have the right of useful enjoyment of my property. Useful enjoy varies from individual to individual. My hobbies require additional inside parking and workspace. My rights are being penalized on two sides of my lot a 25 foot setback on the side that other similar lots do not have and another 41.5 foot set back on the front. This is an additional setback of 15 foot on the west side and 17 feet on the north side. Additional garage space can be added on other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai.__~r to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Staff Response. Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet from an unimproved public right-of-way, which is used for Spring Lake access. Owner response. The request does not impair any of the above listed items. A majority of the homes in the City are 10 feet or less from the property line. My neighbor's home is only 7 feet from my east line, this is found throughout the City and is allowed in many case by ordinance and by variances. Structures built elsewhere on the lot could affect adjoining properties. 5. The granting of the proposed Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. Staff response. The granting of the variance will impact the character of the neighborhood by allowing a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring Lake. Owner Response. Staff needs to comment on how this will effect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Many homes in the area are closer than I0 feet to a lot line and some are as close or closer to a right-of-way than 10 feet. The City and County will discover this upon expansion of Spring Lake Road. The proposed additions to the structure will increase values and keep the integrity of the neighborhood by not allowing detached structures in the front yards. The addition will also allow additional inside storage that will prevent additional outdoor storage frowned upon by ordinance but not enforced. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response. The granting of the 15-foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. One purpose is to encourage "the elimination of the non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." The proposed addition will expand the nonconforming setback. Owner response. I have questioned the intent of the ordinance since our first discussions. 1 do not believe the intent of the ordinance was to limit useful enjoyment ora property located next to ½ of a vacated unraaintained dead end street. The Street was platted 145 years ago, as were many others in the area that have been vacated, abandoned or improved. Staff approved and allowed the so-called non-conformities in 1990. The Comp Plan emphasizes maintaining access to the lakes. I have discussed ways to maintain public access to the lake and eliminate all the non-conformities but this has fallen on deaf ears. Staff seams more interested in ways to challenge ideas than to explore other options. As I mentioned earlier a Scott County District Court case ruled the public does not have interest or rights to the reserve area and if that is so they do not have legal access to the lake. I would think it is in the publics and the City's best interest to seek other options to maintain access to the lake and eliminate non-conformities. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Staff response. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. Owner response. The only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard. As for the fact of a garage already on the site yes there is but ordinance does not limit garages or stalls if attached and limit only 1 detached garage of 832 sq. fi. In 1990 staff allowed us to build as shown on the survey. If setbacks were an issue we could have built off the other side. Now with the layout of the home an attached garage offthe other side would enter through a bedroom and a detached garage would look out of place and effect the character of the neighborhood. 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 owner of the property. Staff response. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. Staff believes that the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Owner response. The owner questions what actions of the property owner directly resulted in the hardship. Staff allowed us to build in 1990 and created the so-called non-conformity, now staff believes it's the owner's actions that resulted in the need for the variance. This hardship could be resolved in many ways. 1.by picking the house up and moving it to the east, 2. By not building and using my property to its full potential. 3. Proper interpretation of the intent of the ordinance, 4. Vacation or abandonment of the remaining I/2 of the vacated street. 5. Granting a variance. Any and all properties or applicants seeking a variance could be resolved in one of the five ways, and many times are. 9.Increased development or construction cost or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Staff response. Although the garage addition will increase value of the property, staff does not believe that is the sole purpose of the request. Owner response. Yes and addition will increase value of the property. I don't know what other purpose staff is referring to. I would like to build on the complete structure for use and enjoyment for my family and myself. As I mentioned earlier, it would be cheaper to build a detached garage, but that is not what I want or I believe the City wants. I believe staff feels I want to attach the garage for monetary savings. I believe the requirement above relates to not granting a variance just on the basis it is less expensive to do it one way vs. the other. Conclusion. In my opinion the appeal of the resolution and granting the variance may be the quickest and easiest way to address the setback issue. Other ways may be interpretation of the intent of the ordinance or vacation of the remaining roadway. The three above mentioned solutions would be in my eyes in the best interest of all parties involved. Staff does have supporting documents on the lot, previous vacations, First Judicial District Court Case. I have also included a signed vacation request for the remaining road and have listed alternatives below. Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance for a 10 foot front yard setback. 2. Interpret the intent of the ordinance and instruct staff to let the applicant proceed. 3. Vacate the remaining portion of roadway, reserve and easement and distribute to the appropriate fee owners. 4. Vacate the remaining roadway and designate as parkland. 5. Deny all the request and solutions and potentially defend legal action f~om the applicant based on Prior City authorization to build and First Judicial District Court Case Hauser vs. Dvork challenging the publics right to access through the reserve and abandon roadways. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner and feel free to contact me with any questions prior to the City Counsel hearing. Please address and correspondence and questions to Randy and Patrice Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN. 55372 Contact phone numbers 952-447-9441 or 612-328-1435 Patrice Simpson Delivered to The City of Prior Lake Planning Department November 1,2002 Resolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLATE~FILEINFO.DOC RESOLUTION 02-196 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: PETERSEN WHEREAS, On December 2, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Randy and Patrice Simpson to construct a 698 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as follows: The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6~ Street, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variance should be upheld. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: 1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fially set forth herein. 2) The City Council makes the following findings: Randy and Patrice Simpson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a garage addition to be constructed to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R- 1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as follows: The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6~h Street, Scott County, Minnesota 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 rAresotuti\planres~002\02-196.floc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1 b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback as contained in Case #0-113 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request. do Randy and Patrice Simpson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on November 1, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-113 and Case File #02-127, and held a hearing thereon on December 2, 2002. f. The City Council 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. g. The subject property has ample buildable area to construct an addition and detached garage, which would be a total of 1,033 square feet or more than the proposed addition, without variances. h. The alleged condition (i.e., this being a corner lot) is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. i. The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing single family home and attached 2-car garage. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the appeal letter, the applicant states, "additional garage space can be added on the other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan." The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. j. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the elimination of non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance sets forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided that it does not expand. "A nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or dimension except to comply with the provisions of this ordinance." The proposed addition will expand the building into a required setback, and further expand the nonconformity. Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. ko The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. There is no hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As mentioned by the appellant in the appeal letter, "the only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard." r:\resolufi\planresX2002\02-196.do¢ Page 2 1. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. The proposed design is what created the variance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. There are legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the applicant. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-113 and #02-127 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. 4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying the following requested variance: a) A 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback. Passed and adopted this 2nd day of December 2002. YES NO Haugen X Haugen LeMair Abstained LeMair Abstained Petersen X Petersen Zieska X Zieska Vacant NA Vacant NA {Sefl} Frank Boyl~ager c.\resolufi\planres\2002\02-196.doc Page 3 December 5, 2002 Mr. Randy Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 Variance from 25 foot front yard setback for living space addition Appeal Case File: 02-127 Dear Mr. Simpson: This letter is to offidally inform you on that on December 2, 2002, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission thus denying your request for a 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition. Enclosed please find Resolution 02-196 so acting on the appeal. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 447-9813. Sincerely, Planner Endosure 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER November 4, 2002 Mr. Randy Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN 55372 Variance from 25 foot front yard setback for living space addition Variance Case File: 02-113 Appeal Case File: 02-127 Dear Mr. Simpson: On November 1, 2002, the City of Prior Lake received your appeal from the Planning Commission's decision concerning the above referenced variance. This letter serves as your official notification that all of the necessary submittals have been received and the appeal request is complete. At this time, your appeal is scheduled for the Monday, December 2, 2002, City Council meeting. You or your representative must attend this meeting. Please feel free to contact me at 447-9813, should you have any questions regarding the appeal process. Sincerely, Planner 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 Lo(~tion Map for Simpson Appeal Spdng Lake N CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION: DECEMBER 2, 2002 7B CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK (Case file #02-127) Randy and Patrice Simpson have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a variance. In the letter appealing this decision, theSimpsons raise issues pertaining to the vacation of the adjacent 6th Street road right-of-way, as well as the variance. Although the letter intertwines these issues, the variance and the vacation are mutually exclusive of each other. The decision pending before the City Council and the subject of this staff report is the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested variance. Histo~: This agenda item concerns an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 15 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 698 square foot third stall garage addition 10 feet from the property line abutting 6~h Street on property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road (see Attachment 3). The subject property is a corner lot because it lies at the intersection of Spring Lake Road and 6t~ Street, which a gravel street providing emergency and recreational vehicle access to Spring Lake. The zoning ordinance requires a corner lot in the R-1 use district to maintain a 25 foot front yard setback abutting each street. On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, held a public hearing to consider the item and denied the 15 foot variance for the garage addition by approving Resolution 02-019PC. · X Fl ES 2a e XSim ap al\C R ort. c 162d6~a~le ~r:e~ve.P~.~., ~Sno~CL~e, l~nnesota ~53724714 / Ph. (952)447-4230 / Fax (952)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Commission determined that the variance request failed to meet all 9 of the hardship criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council have considered the lack of a 2-stall garage a hardship, particularly because Prior Lake is a lake community, but to the best of staff's knowledge, they have not maintained this position for larger garages. The property owner currently has a 2-stall garage, and would be allowed to construct a 408 square foot garage addition (for a third stall) to the existing dwelling without need of a variance. In its discussion, the Planning Commission considered the situation of the property (i.e., the site is a corner lot abutting a gravel street) but stated that a garage addition or a detached garage can be constructed on the site without a variance. (See October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes in Attachment 4). On November 1, 2002, Randy and Patrice Simpson submitted a letter appealing the Planning Commission's denial of the setback variance (see Attachment 2). Current Circumstances: Spring Lake Townsite was platted in the 1850s, so the individual lots do not comply with current minimum standards set forth in the shoreland ordinance. The subject property is a combination of all of Lot 6 and 28 feet of Lot 5. In 1999, the zoning ordinance was amended to include a provision that stated "if2 or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous jCrontage in single ownership are of record.., and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot area and width, the lands involved shall be considered to be an individual parcel... " By operation of the ordinance, the two lots are considered combined. The Simpson parcel is 25,653 square feet in area, with a lot width of 108 feet. The subject property's lot area and lot width are consistent with minimum required dimensional standards for riparian lots on General Development waters. In 1969, a single family dwelling was constructed on the property. An addition was constructed in 1992, on the north side of the dwelling, which abuts 6th Street. This addition is located, at its closest point, 19.3 feet from the property line, and does not comply with the minimum 25 foot front yard setback from 6th Street, and was constructed without a variance. Based on available records, staff has concluded a building permit was inadvertently issued for the addition. The existing dwelling is therefore nonconforming. As previously noted, the zoning ordinance requires a corner lot to have a front yard setback on each street. The minimum front yard L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 2 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. The subject property has ample buildable area to construct an addition and detached garage, which would be a total of 1,033 square feet or more than the proposed addition, without variances. 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 alleged condition, that of this being a corner lot, is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing single family home and attached 2-car garage. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the appeal letter, the appellant states, "additional garage space can be added on the other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan." The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. 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. Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet from 6th Street, which is vehicular access to Spring Lake. 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. L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 4 The granting of the variance will impact the character of the neighborhood by allowing a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from a street used as access to Spring Lake. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the elimination of non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance sets forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided that it does not expand. "A nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or dimension except to comply with the provisions of this ordinance." The proposed addition will expand the building into a required setback, and further expand the nonconformity. Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. There is no hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As mentioned by the applicant in the attached appeal letter, "the only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. IfI wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard." 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 alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. The proposed design is what created the need for the variance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. There are legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the applicant in his appeal letter as referenced in criterion 3. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. A higher cost to construct legally viable alternatives is not justification for a variance. The applicant has acknowledged that it would be cheaper to construct a detached garage. Conclusion: The staff recommends denial of the 15 foot variance to allow the 10 foot setback from the 6~h Street. This recommendation is based on the fact that there is a reasonable use of the property L:\O2FILES\O2appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 5 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWI:~ BY: ATTA C HMENTS: without the additional garage area. Furthermore, a smaller garage addition as well as a detached accessory structure can be constructed on the property within the required setbacks. Therefore, a hardship does not exist that prevents the applicant from making a reasonable use of the property. The proposed garage addition is a convenience. Moreover, the applicant created the hardship by designing the addition in violation of Zoning Ordinance Section 1102.405(3). The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance as requested by the applicant. The attached Resolution is consistent with this action. 2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the requested variance. 3. Table or continue consideration of this item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1: A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Cfr o°n~ia;S~ °she ttb°a cd; ~ ~ta lhleo rwe qaUle~ t;odo } 5s e tf~;~ ~ ~ naC~arfra~em atdh~, t2i5o nf°teot a si~il~ Frank Boy~ity~lanager 1. Resolution 02-XX 2. Location map 3. Appeal letter 4. Survey 5. October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes 6. Compliant garage addition L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appeal\CC Report.doc 6 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION 02-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, On December 2, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Randy and Patrice Simpson to construct a 698 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as follows: The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6th Street, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variance should be upheld. 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 makes the following findings: Randy and Patrice Simpson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a garage addition to be constructed to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R- 1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as follows: The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6th Street, Scott County, Minnesota 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 l:\02files\02appeaBsimpson appeal\cc resolution.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1 b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback as contained in Case//0-113 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 2002. c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request. do Randy and Patrice Simpson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on November 1, 2002. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File//02-113 and Case File//02-127, and held a hearing thereon on December 2, 2002. f. The City Council 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. g. The subject property has ample buildable area to construct an addition and detached garage, which would be a total of 1,033 square feet or more than the proposed addition, without variances. h. The alleged condition (i.e., this being a corner lot) is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot. There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. i. The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing single family home and attached 2-car garage. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the appeal letter, the applicant states, "additional garage space can be added on the other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan." The variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. j. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the elimination of non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance sets forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided that it does not expand. "A nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or dimension except to comply with the provisions of this ordinance." The proposed addition will expand the building into a required setback, and further expand the nonconformity. Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. ko The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. There is no hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As mentioned by the appellant in the appeal letter, "the only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard." l:\02files\O2appeal\simpson appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 2 3) The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. The proposed design is what created the variance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. There are legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the applicant. The contents of Planning Case File #02-113 and #02-127 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying the following requested variance: a) A 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback. Passed and adopted this 2nd day of December 2002. YES NO Haugen Haugen LeMair LeMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager l:\02files\O2appeal\simpson appeal\cc resolution.doc Page 3 Location Map for Simpson Appeal ATTACHMENT 2 ! Subiect Site Spring Lake 2~ 0 2~ 400F~t ATTACHMENT 3 10/31/2002 APPEAL REQUEST OF RESOLUTION 02-019PC Randy and Patrice Simpson hereby formally request an appeal to the City Counsel for resolution 02-019PC variance denial and public hearing date of 10/28/2002. Previous to application for an interpretation of our lot and a variance to the set back I met with planning staff (Cindy and Jane) to explain our situation and ask for guidance and clarification. My initial contact was with Cindy to interrupt my lot layout and the zoning ordinance. Cindy at this time was only on Staff for a short time so I requested a meeting with Cindy, Jane and Don. A meeting was set up with Jane, Cindy and myself to cover all aspects of the lot and the unique situation. I supplied staff with documentation on previous vacations and court rulings pertaining to this situation. The City Attorney reviewed the documentation and after 3-4 weeks a determination was made by Staffto apply for a variance. Under Staffrecommendation I did apply for a variance. At that time I also questioned the intent of the ordinance and if the ordinance truly was drafted with the thought ofa ½ vacated unimproved dead end Street required a 25-foot setback. Below I will respond to Staff comment for a hardship and justification of a denial of a variance. Keep in mind I still question the interpretation of the ordinance and the original intent of the ordinance as it pertains to this lot. Hardship Findings I. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water condition, 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. Staff response. The property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of another in addition to a vacated ri~t-of-way and the reserve area. There are no exceptional conditions associated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner. Owner response. The words extraordinary and exception condition above describe the relationship of this lot in conJunction with the ½ of vacated 6 th. Street. How many other lots have an access to the lake located next to it preventing an addition to the home. Previous staff allowed us to build 12 years ago and did not consider this to be a comer lot at that time. I believe Staff is not interpreting the information correctly and the intent of the ordinance. The words peculiar and practical difficulties above also relate to the fact, it would be peculiar to attach or detach a garage on the other side of the property. The 2020 Comp Plan address aesthetic as a goal. I do not believe detached garages in the front yard achieve that goal. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or i.mmediately adioining property, and do not apply; generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the lot is located. Staff Response. The alleged condition, that of this being a comer lot, is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any comer lot. The are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. Owner Response. Without counting how many comer lots Prior Lake has out of its 5000 or so home sites, I would guess 750 to 1000, and only a handful of access to the lake I would consider this peculiar to this property. Terrace Circle, originally planed as 6e Street, also has a similar situation onto Prior Lake has two homes with less than a 25~foot setback located next to it. Another access off of Sunset on the Spring Lake has homes within the 25-foot setback also. How many other lots in the City have ~A of a vacated dead end road that is privately maintained located next to it. This so-called street has no street sign; no traffic control sins, and is ignored by the City. This road also crosses land that Scott County. District Court has ruled the public has no rights to. I will address this issue later 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Staff Response. A reasonable use is present on the property. The front yard set back is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property with out any variance. Owner response. As a property owner I have the right of useful enjoyment of my property. Useful enjoy varies from individual to individual. My hobbies require additional inside parking and workspace. My rights are being penalized on two sides of my lot a 25 foot setback on the side that other similar lots do not have and another 41.5 foot set back on the front. This is an additional setback of 15 foot on the west side and 17 feet on the north side. Additional garage space can be added on other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai__[ to the adjacent property., unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Staff Response. Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be located l0 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet from an unimproved public right-of-way, which is used for Spring Lake access. Owner response. The request does not impair any of the above listed items. A majority of the homes in the City are l0 feet or less from the property line. My neighbor's home is only 7 feet from my east line, this is found throu~out the City and is allowed in many case by ordinance and by variances. Structures built elsewhere on the lot could affect adjoining properties. 5. The granting of the proposed Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. Staff response. The granting of the variance will impact the character of tl2e neighborhood by allo~ving a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring Lake. Owner Response. Staff needs to comment on how this will effect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Man3' homes in the area are closer than 10 feet to a lot line and some are as close or closer to a right-of-way than 10 feet. The City and County will discover this upon expansion of Spring Lake Road. The proposed additions to the structure will increase values and keep the integrity of the neighborhood by not allowing detached structures in the front yards. The addition will also allow additional inside storage that will prevent additional outdoor storage frowned upon by ordinance but not enforced. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response. The granting of the 15-foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. One purpose is to encourage "the elimination of the non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." The proposed addition will expand the nonconforming setback. Owner response. I have questioned the intent of the ordinance since our first discussions. I do not believe the intent of the ordinance was to limit useful enjoyment ora property located next to ~A ora vacated unmaintained dead end street. The Street was platted 145 years ago, as were many others in the area that have been vacated, abandoned or improved. Staff approved and allowed the so-called non-conformities in 1990. The Comp Plan emphasizes maintaining access to the lakes. I have discussed ways to maintain public access to the lake and eliminate all the non-conformities but this has fallen on deaf ears. Staff seams more interested in ways to challenge ideas than to explore other options. As I mentioned earlier a Scott County District Court case ruled the public does not have interest or ri~ts to the reserve area and if that is so they do not have legal access to the lake. I would think it is in the publics and the City's best interest to seek other options to maintain access to the lake and eliminate non-conformities. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Staff response. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. Owner response. The only convenience to the applicant would be not having to lkigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. IfI wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the fi'ont yard. As for the fact of a garage already on the site yes there is but ordinance does not limit garages or stalls if attached and limit only 1 detached garage of 832 sq. ft. In 1990 staff allowed us to build as shown on the survey. If setbac 'ks were an issue we could have built off the other side. Now with the layout of the home an attached garage offthe other side would enter through a bedroom and a detached garage would look out of place and effect the character of the neighborhood. 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 owner of the property. Staff response. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. Staff believes that the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Owner response. The owner questions what actions of the property owner directly resulted in the hardship. Staff allowed us to build in 1990 and created the so-called non-conformity, now staff believes it's the owner's actions that resulted in the need for the variance. This hardship could be resolved in many ways. 1 .by picking the house up and moving it to the east, 2. By not building and using my property to its full potential. 3. Proper interpretation of the intent of the ordinance, 4. Vacation or abandonment of the remaining ~ of the vacated street. 5. Granting a variance. Any and all properties or applicants seeking a variance could be resolved in one of the five ways, and many times are. 9.Increased development or construction cost or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Staff response. Although the garage addition will increase value of the property, staff does not believe that is the sole purpose of the request. Owner response. Yes and addition will increase value of the property. I don't 'know what other purpose staff is referring to. I would like to build on the complete structure for use and enjoyment for my family and myself. As I mentioned earlier, it would be cheaper to build a detached garage, but that is not what I want or I believe the City wants. I believe staff feets I want to attach the garage for monetary savings. I believe the requirement above relates to not granting a variance just on the basis it is less expensive to do it one way vs. the other. Conclusion. In my opinion the appeal of the resolution and granting the variance may be the quickest and easiest way to address the setback issue. Other ways may be interpretation of the intent of the ordinance or vacation of the remaining roadway. The three above mentioned solutions would be in my eyes in the best interest of all parties involved. Staff does have supporting documents on the lot, previous vacations, First Judicial District Court Case. I have also included a signed vacation request for the remaining road and have listed altematives below. Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance for a 10 foot front yard setback. 2. Interpret the intent of the ordinance and instruct staff to let the applicant proceed. 3. Vacate the remaining portion of roadway, reserve and easement and distribute to the appropriate fee owners. 4. Vacate the remaining roadway and resinate as parkland. 5. Deny all the request and solutions and potentially defend legal action fi.om the applicant based on Prior City authorization to build and First Judicial District Court Case Hauser vs. Dvork challenging the publics fight to access throu~ the reserve and abandon roadways. Thank you in advance for your consideration in l[his manner and feel free'to contact me with any questions prior to the Ciw Counsel hearing. Please address and correspondence and questions to Randy and Pan'ice Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN. 55372 Contact phone numbers 952-447-9441 or 612-328-1435 Randy Simpso~ Patrice Simpson Delivered to The City of Prior Lake Planning Department November 1,2002 ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 B. Case #02-113 Randy and Patrice Simpson a variance from the 25 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to a single family dwelling for the property located at 2933 Spring Lake Road. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Randy and Patrice Simpson are requesting a variance from the zoning ordinance for the construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) and located at 2933 Spring Lake Road (part of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and 30 feet of vacated 6th Street right-of-way and a portion of the platted Reserve). The property is guided Urban Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property is a fiparian lot abutting Spring Lake. The property is also a comer lot with frontage on Spring Lake Road and 6th Street (an unimproved road). A single family dwelling, constructed in 1969, currently occupies the site. In 1992, an addition was constructed to the dwelling that does not comply with the minimum front yard setback from the 6th Street fight-of-way. At its closest point, the dwelling is 19.3 feet from the property line. In order to construct the proposed addition a 15 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback is necessary to allow a 10 foot setback. Staff recommended denial of the requested 15 foot from yard variance to allow a 10 foot setback from the 6th Street right-of-way based upon the following: 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a hardship exists to warrant the granting of the variance. 2, A large garage addition can be constructed within the buildable area of the property. 3. The addition would expand the nonconformity of the existing structure. Should the Planning Commission approve this request, staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency regulations. Questions from the Commissioners: Ringstad questioned how the City classified the addition in1990. Kansier said there was no information available at the time. She also pointed out she did not know what the required setback was on comer lots at that time. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN 102802.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 Criego questioned the vacation of 6th Stre, et. Kansier responded only a portion of the street was vacated. It is a platted right-of-way and winter access to Spring Lake. There is traffic. Stamson also pointed out the neighbor's garage access is on 6th Street. Comments from the Public: Randy Simpson, 2933 Spring Lake Road, said the road is used by ice fishermen as a winter access, not a boat access. Simpson said the staff in 1990 did not interpret the lot as a corner lot. He had to downsize his plan at that time. He questioned if it is still really a street. He also pointed out other vacations in the platted subdivision. In response to staff's hardships, Simpson questioned if the street was partially vacated, is it really a corner lot? The ordinances pertain to streets not half streets. The street is maintained by the homeowners and Sportsmen's Club, not the City. Simpson pointed out staff felt the applicant created the problem, but he did not agree. There are other locations on the property to place the garage but he feels this location is aesthetically the best. He felt he was penalized to have setback averaging from the neighbors' homes. Simpson pointed out the other options would block his view of the lake as well as the neighbors. He said if he did not get the requested variance there are other options to vacate the street. Stamson questioned the applicant's existing tarred driveway onto 6th Street. Simpson said he uses it for parking his boat trailer and equipment. Criego questioned the applicant having a driveway on 6th street, implying that it is a street. Simpson responded it needs to be determined. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Simpson made some excellent points, but concerned in keeping some continuity from 1990. · Could possibly support to continue the current garage line to eliminate additional new setback requirements toward the street or alley. · Simpson said one reason to stagger the garage is the length requirement in the city ordinance. Kirchoff said the ordinance was for a side yard - not a front or corner lot. It implies to only interior side lot lines, not side streets or corners. Atwood: · Interested in the corner lot issue, it seems to be repetitive. · Sympathetic to the applicant with the uniqueness of the lot. · It is not a busy road or alley. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteshMN102802.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 Criego: · Questioned staff if there was a limitation on garage size? Kirchoffsaid "No". · Did staff ask legal advice if that was considered a street? Kirchoffsaid legal staff stated it was a street. · Kansier clarified it was a platted 60 foot wide street, although never improved to that width. Half of it was vacated so there is still a 30 foot public street width. There are a number of platted streets in the City that have nothing on them. In this area, the City still applies the corner setback, even though the street is unimproved. · This is never going to be a street, but will be an access to the lake. · Kansier said it is technically a platted street - there is access to the neighbor's garage as well as the applicant's access. It is used by the public for access as well. · Questioned when was the adjacent garage put in and how far from the line is that? Kirchoff responded she did not have any information when it was constructed but it is 25 feet from the property line. Atwood: · Questioned if the structure was built in 1990. Simpson indicated it was. Kansier said the information provided is very sketchy. Assumed it was put in as an access or more of a parking or storage pad. Stamson: · As far as determination as a street - it has a platted right-of-way, has two accesses and is used by the public. There is no question it is a street. · Staff's interpretation is correct. · As far as a variance and hardships - it is a tougher call. · One thing the Commission looks at is the hardship created by the application of the ordinance alone. The ordinance is written for the entire City. · In this case, the 25 foot setback throughout the city is valid. In applying it to this situation it is a little overkill. Maybe one of the hardships has been met, but not all, not enough to grant a variance. Open Discussion: Criego: · If you believe it is a street, you have to abide by the 25 foot setback. There are other ways of adding to the garage. Ringstad: · Getting back to what happened in 1990- what was the City classifying the street at that time? Criego: What was done 12 years ago may not be valid now. Times change. Ringstad came up with an alternative that works. It would ha,ve a 5 foot variance. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminute$~VlN102802.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 Stamson: · Starting to define streets is going to be a problem. There are several unusual streets in the City. The Commission just looked at one (Oakland Beach) where the street does not sit on the right-of-way. There is other ways to build a garage on this property. Leaning towards denying. It does not qualify for any of the hardships. Ringstad: · Agreed to deny the request as presented. Having a tough time not granting some sort of variance from 12 years ago. It was not that long ago. · Suggest tabling this to see if the applicant and staff can come to some sort of compromise. Criego: · The applicant currently has a two car garage. Now he wants to add another garage and a half. How does that fit into a variance request? Look what the Commissioners have done in the past. Stamson: · Agreed. In the past the Commissioners felt not having a two car garage was a hardship, a third car garage is a convenience and not warranting a · Iasxlatli~g that as well as the previous discussions - there is no hardship. · There is no denial of the property. He can build a fairly good size garage addition within the ordinance requirements. Atwood: · Agreed with Kingstad to see if the applicant and staff can work something out. Ringstad: · What I am hearing from everyone is that were not in favor of supporting what is before the Commission. If something comes before the Commission that is new, it is a new consideration. Stamson: · Does not have a problem tabling so the applicant may want to alter or change his request, but the concern is the way it has been presented. It gives the appearance that the Commission is negotiating a variance. It either warrants a variance or not. Hate to give the impression that we are allowing staff to negotiate a variance with an applicant. It is not proper. · Kansier agreed. Staffdoes not have the authority to negotiate a variance. Atwood: · The applicant stated he had other options. · Kansier explained they did speak to the City Attorney about vacating the right-of-way. The attorney felt at this point in time, it would be difficult to L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutcskMN 102802.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 show it was in the public's interest to vacate. It was basically their opinio.n the City would be causing problems for themselves. Criego: The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an existing 2 car garage, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car garage is sufficient. If there is a need for additional storage then the property is certainly large enough to adapt. Stamson: · Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Denied a third car garage on more difficult lots. · In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used has not been met. The Commissioners agreed to deny the request. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. C. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the height and opacity of fences on corner lots. Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who resides on a corner lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The property owner would like to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards. On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending the fence ordinance concerning corner and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow corner lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street. Whether or not corner lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutesWIN102802.doc 9 ATTACHMENT 6 ~ POTENTIAL GARAGES COMPLIANT ADDITION/DETACHED GARAGE HEARING NOTICES L:\TEMPLATE/FILEINFO.DOC Cynthia Kirchoff From: Sent: To: Cynthia Kirchoff Friday, November 08, 2002 9:03 AM Prior Lake American (E-mail) Hi- Attached is a public hearing notice for the Randy Simpson appeal to be published in the November 16th edition of the Prior Lake American. Thank you. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP Planner City of Prior Lake (952) 447-9813 (952) 447-4245-fax Appeal Public Hearing Notice.d... E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, December 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 15 foot variance from the 25 foot minimum front yard setback (side yard abutting a street) to allow a 10 foot setback for the construction of a garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. APPELLANT: Randy & Patrice Simpson SUBJECT SITE: 2933 Spring Lake Road, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as Lot 6 and part of Lot 5, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite, and a portion of vacated 6th Street right-of-way and a portion of vacated Reserve, Scott County, Minnesota. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447- 9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria. Prepared this 20th day of November 2002. Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner City of Prior Lake Mailed to property owners within 350feet of the subject site on November 21, 2002. L:\02FILES\02appeal\Simpson appealMVlailed Public Hearing Notice.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) ~'~._~ (~(..~~ of the City_qfP_rior Lake, tCgunty of Scott, State of Minnesota, being dulf~vom, says on the "~4 ~day of //~10'l). , ~002, she served t..he attache~ lis~ofpersonr s to halve an interest in the ~'//]'~. ff~ ~/OU~LY_L44~.I t'~~' O'g/}q, vO$7.~ CC~--[5? ,byma'ilingtoth~macopythereof, end]c[sed in' an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this ~ day of ,2002. NOTARY PUBLIC LSDEPTWORKkBLANKFRM~MAILAFFD,DOC Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5162® JONATHON R & JILL M GAUBY 2958 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 KENNETH J & DEBRA M SCHERER 16910 LIME RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 LARRY D & SHARILYN WEEKS 2936 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 ROBERT J SCHAEFER 15223 BLUEDORN CIR SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 JAMES S & JULIE A CAMPBELL 2953 CENTER RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MYLES B FLEEK 2908 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CAROLE M KITCH 2876 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 FORREST W & LOIS E WALTERS 2993 CENTER RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MARK R TOBIAS 3009 CENTER RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 ROLAND G & MARY HAAS 2946 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 GERALD J & KRISTINE ZISKOVSKY 2952 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 PHYLLIS A HOPKINS 2935 CENTER RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 JAMES E MCNEAL 2922 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 JEFFREY & CATHERINE RANDOLPH 2888 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5162® DALORES M CRAIG 2863 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 WILLIAM A & RENELDA HAUER 1426 4 AVE E SHAKOPEE MN 55379 RICHARD J HEINZ 2913 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MARK S & MARY K HEINZ 2895 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MICHAEL L & SUZANNE SCHIPPER 2883 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 CHARLES F & PATRICIA A DEVET 2965 SPRING LAKE RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 ROBERT J & COLLEEN A PALMBY 2949 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 MELVIN B & LAVONNE E OLSON 2977 SPRING LAKE RD SW PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 · · Original surveys and drawings L:\TEMPLATE~FILEINFO.DOC .,% ~[~*:; ':;*'-" PROPOSED ADDITION ~...':.:.'::..': // :...,*..=~.~ POTENTIAL GARAGES :"..'."~:~.'~ 8 ~ Location Map for Simpson Appeal ATTACHMENT 2 ~ ect Site Spdng Lake N 2~ 0 2~ 400F~t ATTACHMENT 3 10/31/2002 APPEAL REQUEST OF RESOLUTION 02-019PC Randy and Patrice Simpson hereby formally request an appeal to the City Counsel for resolution 02-019PC variance denial and public hearing date of 10/28/2002. Previous to application for an interpretation of our lot and a variance to the set back I met with planning staff (Cindy and Jane) to explain our situation and ask for guidance and clarification. My initial contact was with Cindy to interrupt my lot layout and the zoning ordinance. Cindy at this time was only on Staff for a short time so I requested a meeting with Cindy, Jane and Don. A meeting was set up with Jane, Cindy and myself to cover all aspects of the lot and the unique situation. I supplied staff with documentation on previous vacations and court rulings pertaining to this situation. The City Attorney reviewed the documentation and after 3-4 weeks a determination was made by Staffto apply for a variance. Under Staff recommendation I did apply for a variance. At that time I also questioned the intent of the ordinance and if the ordinance truly was drafted with the thought of a ½ vacated unimproved dead end Street required a 25-foot setback. Below I will respond to Staff comment for a hardship and justification of a denial of a variance. Keep in mind I still question the interpretation of the ordinance and the original intent of the ordinance as it pertains to this lot. Hardship Findings 1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of exceptional topographical or water condition, 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. Staff response. The property has ample buildable area, since it is a compilation of a lot and a portion of another in addition to a vacated fight-of-way and the reserve area. There are no exceptional conditions associated with the property that present an undue hardship for the property owner. Owner response. The words extraordinary and exception condition above describe the relationship of this lot in conjunction with the ½ of vacated 6 th. Street. How many other lots have an access to the lake located next to it preventing an addition to the home. Previous staff allowed us to build 12 years ago and did not consider this to be a comer lot at that time. I believe Staff is not interpreting the information correctly and the intent of the ordinance. The words peculiar and practical difficulties above also relate to the fact, it would be peculiar to attach or detach a garage on the other side of the property. The 2020 Comp Plan address aesthetic as a goal. I do not believe detached garages in the front yard achieve that goal. 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 lot is located. Staff Response. The alleged condition, that of this being a comer lot, is found throughout the City of Prior Lake. According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any comer lot. The are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property. Owner Response. Without counting how many comer lots Prior Lake has out of its 5000 or so home sites, I would guess 750 to 1000, and only a handful of access to the lake I would consider this peculiar to this property. Terrace Circle, originally platted as 6~' Street, also has a similar situation onto Prior Lake has two homes with less than a 25-foot setback located next to it. Another access off of Sunset on the Spring Lake has homes within the 25-foot setback also. How man), other lots in the City have ½ of a vacated dead end road that is privately maintained located next to it. This so-called street has no street sign; no traffic control signs, and is ignored by the City. This road also crosses land that Scott County District Court has ruled the public has no rights to. I will address this issue later 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. Staff Response. A reasonable use is present on the property. The front yard set back is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property owner. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property with out any variance. Owner response. As a property owner I have the right of useful enjoyment of my property. Useful enjoy varies from individual to individual. My hobbies require additional inside parking and workspace. My rights are being penalized on two sides of my lot a 25 foot setback on the side that other similar lots do not have and another 41.5 foot set back on the front. This is an additional setback of 15 foot on the west side and 17 feet on the north side. Additional garage space can be added on other areas of the lot but will block my view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai__~r to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Staff Response. Although the granting of the 15 foot front yard setback variance may not impact public safety, it will allow a structure to be located 10 feet from a property line and approximately 12 feet fi'om an unimproved public right-of-way, which is used for Spring Lake access. Owner response. The request does not impair any of the above listed items. A majority of the homes in the City are 10 feet or less from the property line. My neighbor's home is only 7 feet from my east line, this is found throughout the City and is allowed in many case by ordinance and by variances. Structures built elsewhere on the lot could affect adjoining properties. 5. The granting of the proposed Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety and comfort of the area. Staff response. The granting of the variance will impact the character of th, e neighborhood by allo*wing a structure to be located approximately 12 feet from an unimproved street, which is used as access to Spring Lake. Owner Response. Staff needs to comment on how this will effect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Many homes in the area are closer than 10 feet to a lot line and some are as close or closer to a right-of-way than 10 feet. The City and County will discover this upon expansion of Spring Lake Road. The proposed additions to the structure will increase values and keep the integrity of the neighborhood by not allowing detached structures in the front yards. The addition will also allow additional inside storage that will prevent additional outdoor storage frowned upon by ordinance but not enforced. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response. The granting of the 15-foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. One purpose is to encourage "the elimination of the non-conformities or minimize their impact on adjacent properties." The proposed addition will expand the nonconforming setback. Owner response. I have questioned the intent of the ordinance since our first discussions. I do not believe the intent of the ordinance was to limit useful enjoyment of a property located next to ~ of a vacated unmaintained dead end street. The Street was platted 145 years ago, as were many others in the area that have been vacated, abandoned or improved. Staff approved and allowed the so-called non-conformities in 1990. The Comp Plan emphasizes maintaining access to the lakes. I have discussed ways to maintain public access to the lake and eliminate all the non-conformities but this has fallen on deaf ears. Staff seams more interested in ways to challenge ideas than to explore other options. As I mentioned earlier a Scott County District Court case ruled the public does not have interest or rights to the reserve area and if that is so they do not have legal access to the lake. I would think it is in the publics and the City's best interest to seek other options to maintain access to the lake and eliminate non-conformities. 7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. Staff response. The granting of the Variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. Owner response. The only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard. As for the fact of a garage already on the site yes there is but ordinance does not limit garages or stalls if attached and limit only 1 detached garage of 832 sq. ff. In 1990 staff allowed us to build as shown on the survey. If setbacks were an issue we could have built off the other side. Now with the layout of the home an attached garage offthe other side would enter through a bedroom and a detached garage would look out of place and effect the character of the neighborhood. 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 owner of the property. Staff response. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. Staffbelieves that the proposed design is what created this application for relief, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. Owner response. The owner questions what actions of the property owner directly resulted in the hardship. Staff allowed us to build in 1990 and created the so-called non-conformity, now staffbelieves it's the owner's actions that resulted in the need for the variance. This hardship could be resolved in many ways. 1 .by picking the house up and moving it to the east, 2. By not building and using my property to its full potential. 3. Proper interpretation of the intent of the ordinance, 4. Vacation or abandonment of the remaining ½ of the vacated street. 5. Granting a variance. Any and all properties or applicants seeking a variance could be resolved in one of the five ways, and many times are. 9.Increased development or construction cost or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Staff response. Although the garage addition will increase value of the property, staffdoes not believe that is the sole purpose of the request. Owner response. Yes and addition will increase value of the property. I don't know what other purpose staff is referring to. I would like to build on the complete structure for use and enjoyment for my family and myself. As I mentioned earlier, it would be cheaper to build a detached garage, but that is not what I want or I believe the City wants. I believe staff feels I want to attach the garage for monetary savings. I believe the requirement above relates to not granting a variance just on the basis it is less expensive to do it one way vs. the other. Conclusion. In my opinion the appeal of the resolution and granting the variance may be the quickest and easiest way to address the setback issue. Other ways may be interpretation of the intent of the ordinance or vacation of the remaining roadway. The three above mentioned solutions would be in my eyes in the best interest of all parties involved. Staff does have supporting documents on the lot, previous vacations, First Judicial District Court Case. I have also included a signed vacation request for the remaining road and have listed alternatives below. Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance for a 10 foot front yard setback. 2. Interpret the intent of the ordinance and instruct staff to let the applicant proceed. 3. Vacate the remaining portion of roadway, reserve and easement and distribute to the appropriate fee owners. 4. Vacate the remaining roadway and designate as parkland. 5. Deny all the request and solutions and potentially defend legal action from the applicant based on Prior City authorization to build and First Judicial District Court Case Hauser vs. Dvork challenging the publics right to access through the reserve and abandon roadways. Thank you in advance for your consideration in [his manner and feel free'to contact me with any questions prior to the City Counsel hearing. Please address and correspondence and questions to Randy and Patrice Simpson 2933 Spring Lake Road Prior Lake, MN. 55372 Contact phone numbers 952-447-9441 or 612-328-1435 Randy Simpso~ '~ / Patrice Simpson Delivered to The City of Prior Lake Planning Department November 1,2002 ATTACHMENT 6 ~ POTENTIAL GARAGES ~2_~..,,-~. COMPLIANT ADDITION/DETACHED GARAGE