HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing 4500 Lords Vrnc
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JANUARY 17, 2006
7A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A REDUCED SIDE
YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4500 LORDS
STREET
Introduction
Roger and Susan Ferguson have appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny their request for variances to the minimum front yard and
side yard setbacks to build a new house on the property located at 4500 Lords
Street. Following a public hearing, the City Council must decide to either
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission or overturn this decision,
thereby granting the variances. This report recommends the City Council
uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Historv
Roger and Susan Ferguson requested variances to construct a new single
family dwelling on the on the property located at 4500 Lords Street. The new
structure will replace an existing single family home. To construct the home as
shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required:
1. A 2.25 foot elevation variance from the required minimum of a vehicular
access of not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection
elevation within the flood plain (Section 1105.402 (4)).
2. A 20 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback (Section
1102.405 (3)).
3. A 6.17 foot variance from the required side yard setback for a wall
exceeding 50' in length (Section 1102.405 (6)).
The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on
November 28, 2005. The Planning Commission approved the first variance
from the required minimum access elevation due to the hardship created
because the applicant has no control over the elevation of the road. The
Planning Commission denied the requested front yard and side yard setback
variances because the hardship criteria had not been met, and the variances
are not necessary to build a single family home on the property. A copy of the
minutes of the November 28, 2005, Planning Commission meeting is attached
to this report.
On December 5, 2005, Roger and Susan Ferguson appealed the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the two setback variances. This appeal was
filed in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows an applicant to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the
www.cityofpriorlake.com
<Photie{95~542V'7(4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
City Council within 5 days of the date of the decision. In the attached letter
appealing the decision, the applicants state they do not feel their application
was given due consideration.
According to Section 1109.400 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council shall
conduct a public hearing within 30 days of the filing of the appeal, unless that
time is extended by the appellant. This appeal was originally scheduled for the
January 3, 2006, City Council meeting; however, the applicant requested this
item be heard at the January 17, 2006, meeting (see attached letter).
Current Circumstances
The property at 4500 Lords Street is zoned R-1SD (Low Density Residential
Shoreland District) and is guided R-UMD (Urban Low/Medium Density
Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The existing lot
is unplatted and included a 25' wide roadway easement across the southerly
end of the lot. This is the road right-of-way for Lords Street. The existing
house on this lot was built in 1962, with a deck and ramp addition in 1988.
The lot in question, according to the Impervious Surface Calculation
Worksheet, is 25,258 square feet in area, with approximately 284' feet of
frontage at the front lot line and approximately 280' feet of frontage at the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW). The lot area measurement does not
appear to include the road easement, but this must be verified by the surveyor.
The lot does not include any bluff, but it is located within the flood plain. Any
new construction on the site must be elevated at least l' above the 100 year
flood elevation (908.9' MSL).
This lot is located on Martinson Island, and is irregularly shaped. The west
side of the lot, the widest side, is about 139' deep. The lot narrows to 31' at
the east end. Due to the lake setback, the buildable area of this lot is
concentrated on the west side of the lot. Even with the setback constraints,
the lot has a buildable area of approximately 6,200 square feet, as shown on
the attached exhibit. This area is 82' wide at the west end, and 102' long at
the longest point.
The applicant is proposing to construct a single story, ranch style house, with a
3-car garage. The house is 102' long and 87' deep along the west side. The
floor area of the house includes 3,263 square feet, and the garage includes
986 square feet.
In order to build the house as proposed on the attached certificate of survey,
the applicants are asking the City Council to approve a variance to the front
yard setback and to the side yard setback. Each of these variances is
discussed below.
1. Front Setback: The minimum required front yard setback is 25' from the
front lot line. In this case, the front lot line is measured from the 25' public
street easement on this lot. It is measured in this way, because this is the
area in which the City has the right to construct a road and place any
utilities.
The closest point of the proposed house is located 5' from the right-of-way
-,-_.."..,....~-~~^~-~-~ ..,--~-~~~..-'.~"'-~._..,._..._...~._-"'"._~--,-_.~_.~,.....-....-....---. ~_.--.,_..~~_.__,. ..".,~." _.~_.._.~.._~ ..."~.__~."_..~__.__.,.._._,__,.~"______.._~~.....__,,_.""_""_'_~"'.__"'_'___--"'U____._
line. The house design includes a side loading 3-car garage, and it is the
corner of this garage which is the closest point to the front lot line. The
Engineering Department has commented that when Lords Street is
reconstructed, it will most likely be centered in the easement. This will
place the proposed house within 16' of the road surface. The survey does
not show utilities, but these utilities will be located outside of the road
surface, but within the easement.
It is the design of the house that causes the need for this variance. There
are other designs that could be utilized that would locate the house at the
minimum front yard setback, and that would not significantly reduce the
usable square footage of the house.
2. Side Yard Setback: The standard side yard setback is 10 feet; however,
Section 1102.405 (6) states, "the width of the side yard setback abutting a
building wall shall be increased 2 inches for each 1 foot the length of the
building wall exceeds 50 feet. The additional setback will not be applied if
there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% of the entire length of the
wall. For the purpose of this subsection, a wall includes any building wall
within 10 degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot."
The west wall of the proposed house is 87' in length. Applying the formula
stated above, this requires a 16.17' setback from the west lot line.
Again, it is the design of the house that causes the need for this variance.
There are other designs that could be utilized that would locate the house
in a way that would meet the minimum side yard setback.
The Department of Natural Resources was notified of this variance request,
but has not provided any comments.
ISSUES:
Variances to the provisions of the ordinance are intended to allow one to
deviate from the standard requirements of the ordinance when the strict
application of the requirement creates an "undue hardship." According to
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, subd. 6 (2), "'Undue hardship' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question
cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to
the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone
shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of the ordinance."
The landowner has control over the design of the house to be built on the site.
Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson are proposing a single-story, ranch style house on this
site. It is the design and the size of the proposed house dictating the need for
the setback variances. The attached exhibit identifies the legal building
envelope (the buildable area applying all of the minimum setbacks). This lot
has a buildable area measuring 82' wide at the west end, and 102' long at the
longest point, for a total area of approximately 6,200 square feet. Although the
legal building envelope may not accommodate the preferred style of the
house, a 6,200 square foot building envelope does allow a reasonable use of
the property.
In reviewing this request, the Council must also consider the potential impact
of this variance on the public infrastructure, specifically Lords Street. In 1978,
Lords Street was constructed in its present location. The existing street is not
centered within the 50' wide roadway easement; in fact, it is located outside of
the easement on the property to the south of 4500 Lords Street. The street is
tentatively scheduled for reconstruction in 2014. When this street is
reconstructed, the design engineers will attempt to center the roadway as
much as possible within the easement, which would move the actual roadway
closer to the property. The width of Lords Street will also be increased during
the reconstruction project, which will also move the roadway edge closer to the
property. Since the roadway is below the flood elevation, designers will
attempt to raise the future roadway elevation. If the garage is placed 5' from
the edge of the road easement as proposed, it limits the design of the future
roadway as any future roadway elevations must match the elevations of
existing garages and driveways.
During reconstruction projects, the City also upgrades the utilities. Moving the
structure closer to the underground utilities could be problematic when it
comes time to replace the utilities. The sanitary sewer in this area is 9 feet
below grade and depending on the location of this pipe, excavation limits could
extend beyond the roadway easement. Service repairs will also be necessary
and the water service is shown to be within 17 feet of the proposed garage.
The survey shows the overhead power located within the property limits of
4500 Lords Street on the east side. The location of other private utilities is
unknown and could also become a problem should this variance be approved.
Allowing the construction of this structure within 5' of the road easement will
impact the ability of the City to reconfigure and upgrade Lords Street within the
existing easement. This could also have financial implications if the City is
required to obtain additional easements from other affected property owners.
Variance Hardship Findinas: In considering an appeal to the decision of the
Planning Commission on a variance request, the City Council must consider
the same criteria as the Planning Commission, and listed in Section 1108.400
of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council must also make findings based on
these criteria. These criteria are mandated by State statutes. In order to grant
a variance, the proposal must meet all of the criteria.
The criteria and the findings suggested by staff are listed below.
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar
and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the
owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
.,-__"",^,,_,_.,_.~~___",.. ___'_~"___"~~""'__""""'_'__"'__"".~A'~'^-'-__'__<'..........,,'__.,.___..._..,_'"..~__,."..._...,.__ .__.._~,_.~~"_~~_...,.__..".~__.~.""^..~"_,._"..,, ,.__~,>,__.~",_.._~__~___'_____~,___,__~"~___.'_M'___'""'_.~~_~________~'__"'~~'_'_""'___
A reasonable use in this case is a single family dwelling, because the
property is zoned R-1. There are no exceptional or unusual conditions on
this lot that cause an undue hardship on the applicant. There is an ample
buildable area on the lot that would allow the construction of a home with a
similar square footage without the need for any setback 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 lot is 25, 258 square feet in area. Although the lot has an irregular
shape, there is still ample area to construct a single family home without
the need for variances. This is a reasonable use of the property.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The granting of the front and side yard setback variances is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the owner
because a reasonable use exists on the property.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of
fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the proposed front yard setback will potentially impact the
future reconstruction and alignment of Lords Street. The proposed design
will potentially place the house 17' from the future road surface. This may
not only endanger publiC safety, but may cause increased costs to the
taxpayers for the reconstruction of Lords Street.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health, safety, and comfort of the
area.
The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character of
the neighborhood.
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 "prevent overcrowding of land
and undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use
of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land
surrounding them." This purpose is implemented through required
minimum setbacks. A variance to reduce the required minimum front yard
--------~ _""~_~'__""'" ...___,.,__.,_,.,,,.. "_'_~'''''~'_'~''''''__~_W__~'-''''_~__''''_'''-1~~
."..~'" '_'>o_"_""~_"~,,~,~,,,,"__~,,,_,,,,"_"',_,.4_'_"___..._...,..,.,._.,.~,_....,"~,~.~______.~.",_,__________._....~___~~___~_.".._._.......,.,_._.._'._'M
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Reviewed by:
and side yard setbacks are inconsistent with the purpose 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 front yard and side yard setback variances will merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship. The applicants can build a single family
home without the need for any setback variances.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions
of the owners of the property.
The design of the proposed house creates the necessity for the setback
variances. The size and design of the house the applicants' want to build
is not a hardship that supports a variance. The need for variances does
not result from the strict application of the setback provisions.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
Increased development or construction costs are not the basis for the
variance requests.
Approval of the proposed variance may have a financial impact on the City
when Lords Street is reconstructed in that it could make it more difficult to
redesign this street, and potentially force the City to obtain additional
easements from other property owners that might not otherwise be needed.
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and grant the appeal. If this is the
case, the Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact
approving the variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
A motion and second adopting a resolution upholding the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the requested variance.
I
anager
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-xx
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
construct a single family dwelling which encroaches 20' into the required 25' front yard
setback and 6.17' into the required side yard setback on property located in the R-1SD
(Low Density Residential Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
4500 Lords Street, legally described as follows:
A tract of land in Government Lot Nine (9), Section Thirty-five (35), Township One
Hundred Fifteen (115), Range Twenty-two (22), Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point that is 220.28 feet north and 328.53 feet east of the
northwest corner of Lot 1, in the plat of Maple Park Shore Acres, said point on the
center line and east edge of the concrete bridge; thence North 83 degrees 00 minutes
East a distance of 129.0 feet; thence South 81 degrees 00 minutes East a distance of
112.4 feet; thence North 61 degrees 34 minutes East a distance of 113.0 feet; thence
North 54 degrees 57 minutes East a distance of 264.45 feet to the actual point of
beginning; thence North 73 degrees 17 minutes East a distance of 284.2 feet; thence
North a distance of 75.0 feet to the high water mark of Prior Lake; thence
Northwesterly along said high water mark to its intersection with a line bearing North
from the actual point of beginning; thence South 188.0 feet to the actual point of
beginning.
and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case
File 05-217, and held a hearing thereon November 28,2005; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 05-217 and Case File 05-224, and held a hearing
thereon on January 17, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
, .", /,
L ~" ,""
i,.,...;',"
C i"jf-NW. cityofpriorlake. com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
2. The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting
variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code.
3. The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld, and said variance should be denied.
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Roger and Susan Ferguson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on December 5, 2005.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 05-217 and Case File 05-224, and held a hearing
thereon on January 17, 2006.
c) The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light
and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the
surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
d) There are no exceptional or unusual conditions on this lot that cause an undue hardship on
the applicant. There is an ample buildable area on the lot that would allow the construction
of a home with a similar square footage without the need for any setback variances.
e) The conditions applying to the property are not peculiar to this site. The lot is 25,258
square feet in area. Although the lot has an irregular shape, there is still ample area to
construct a single family home without the need for variances. This is a reasonable use of
the property.
f) The granting of the front and side yard setback variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the owner because a reasonable use
exists on the property.
g) The granting of the requested variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to
adjacent properties. However, the granting of the proposed front yard setback will
potentially impact the future reconstruction and alignment of Lords Street. The proposed
design will potentially place the house 17' from the future road surface. This may not only
endanger public safety, but may cause increased costs to the taxpayers for the
reconstruction of Lords Street.
h) The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the
neighborhood.
i) One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and buildings and
the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented
through required minimum setbacks. A variance to reduce the required minimum front yard
and side yard setbacks are inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
j) The granting of the front yard and side yard setback variances will merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship. The applicants can build a single family home without the need for any setback
variances.
k) The design of the proposed house creates the necessity for the setback variances. The
size and design of the house the applicants' want to build is not a hardship that supports a
L:\05 FILES\05 APPEALS\Ferguson\uphold resolution.DOC
variance. The need for variances does not result from the strict application of the setback
provisions.
I) Increased development or construction costs are not the basis for the variance requests.
5. The contents of Planning Case #05-217 and #05-224are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2006.
YES
NO
Haugen Haugen
Dornbush Dornbush
Erickson Erickson
LeMair LeMair
Millar Millar
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\05 FILES\05 APPEALS\Ferguson\uphold resolution.DOC
__........._~~._~>_~..~_~_.__'___..~_~~_~_~.~......~,_..._,..,~u.,...~.___""',._._ , ..____, _,."."."..~______,_"....._,____~. ~~----.~,_.._,,~__.__.
~
01
a.
00
.0
o~
.., --
c.O
en :J
(J)~
~Q)
CD-C
CD
r-+
oS- - 8if+
Roger F. and Susan T. Ferguson
4500 Lords S1. NE.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Home: 952-447-8761. Mobile: 952-484-7588
December 5, 2005
Jane Kansier, Director of Planning
City of Prior lake
16200 Eagle Cree~Ave. S.E.
Prior lake, MN 55372-1714
Jane,
This letter is to inform you that Susan and I want to appeal the recommendation of the city Planning Department
and the denial of our two variances for front yard and side yard setback by the Planning Commission to the City
Council. We do not feel our application was given due consideration.
Sincerely,
Roger F. and Susan T. Ferguson
T
ra @ ~ G~ @ \f\\i\:
DLS ~ LS-1".! I
f '.'1
, ,
~\, 1I;C-52005 '.!;
~ L L/
~"--,,,-,~--,~-~--""--''''''''''''--''--''._"-''_._--'-"~'-''''-'' .~-_.~_._~-,---,_.._._-
Roger F. and Susan T. Ferguson
4500 Lords St. NE.
Prior Lake. MN 55~__________. _.
Ho~ "'-<<7~71[D1~i '':./ ; 0:, r'
c7 ",\?'> I (I . to. :, i ]
~' vt'~ ! \ \ . " :
~ ' \\. d)
v Ul ...-J
Danette Moore, Planning Coordinator ~ \. .<
City of Prior lake / p~ \J /,0/
1~200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. ,/\""" .t
Pnor lake, MN 55372-1714 ' 1'11-
Danette, ~. I
This letter is to inform you that Sand I want to reschedule our appeal of the denial of our two variances before
the City Council to the January 1 ity Council Meeting. You currently have us scheduled for the January 3rd
Council meeting and we do not feel that our appeal will receive fair consideration considering that three new
members are being sworn in on that date.
December 19, 2005
Sincerely,
bE~
T
. .-----"...-.,~--~...~~-~--..~,--.~...,~"'1_-.,.~.......-...- ,-",,-,-,-,-_.,,--,~,_._._,,'-'_.~'-~-~_.~-".__.'",_,--~'~-'-'----~~
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28, 2005
*
B. #05-217 Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting variances to the minimum
front yard setback and minimum road access elevation in the flood plain for the
property located at 4500 Lords Street.
Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the planning report dated November 28,2005,
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting variances to construct a new single family
dwelling on the on the property located at 4500 Lords Street. The new structure will
replace an existing single family home. The applicant is proposing to construct a single
story, ranch style house, with a 3-car garage. The house is 102' long and 87' deep along
the west side. The floor area of the house includes 3,263 square feet, and the garage
includes 986 square feet. To construct the home the following variances are required:
1. A 2.25 foot elevation variance from the required minimum of a vehicular access
of not more than 2 feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation within
the flood plain (Section 1105.402 (4)).
2. A 20 foot variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback (Section
1102.405 (3)).
3. A 6.17 foot variance from the required side yard setback for a wall exceeding
50' in length (Section 1102.405 (6)).
The property is zoned R-ISD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District). The existing
lot is unplatted and included a 25' wide roadway easement across the southerly end of the
lot. This is the road right-of-way for Lords Street. The existing house on this lot was
built in 1962, with a deck and ramp addition in 1988.
The lot in question, according to the Impervious Surface Calculation Worksheet, is
25,258 square feet in area, with approximately 284' feet of frontage at the front lot line
and approximately 280' feet of frontage at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW).
The lot area measurement does not appear to include the road easement, but this must be
verified by the surveyor. The lot does not include any bluff, but it is located within the
flood plain. Any new construction on the site must be elevated at least l' above the 100
year flood elevation (908.9' MSL).
The application has no control over the road elevation; therefore the strict application of
this requirement constitutes a hardship. For this reason, the staff would recommend
approval ofthis variance, subject to the condition the applicant provide an emergency
evacuation plan
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNl12805.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28, 2005
The strict application of the front and side yard setbacks, however, does not create an
undue hardship. Rather, it is the proposed design of the single family dwelling which
creates the need for variances. A single family home with a comparable area but a
different style can be constructed on the lot without the need for these variances. Based
upon the findings in their report, staff recommended denial of the setback variances
requested.
Billington asked if there are other similar (elevation) situations in the area. Kansier
explained this happens in older developed areas of the town i.e. Beach Street,
W atzl' sIRed Oaks, Shady Beach.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Roger Ferguson, 4500 Lord Street, said he and his wife Susie have been
working with the City on this project for 18 months. His house is two-levels and use the
lower level for storage. It is also located in flood plain. Ferguson felt they are restricted
on rebuilding and explained the 50% value regulation. He does not feel the road would
ever be moved to the exact easement due to the topography of the islands, therefore the
easement is not relevant. The impact of moving the road would impact all neighbors.
Ferguson explained the proposed home. He feels his new home would benefit the City,
FEMA and his neighbors. He would like the easement changed to meet his needs as it
would not be used by the existing road. Ferguson would then have the flexibility to use
his lot to meet his needs. He was not aware ofthe side yard variance until he received the
planning report and does not know his options. They will come up with a way to change
the side yard setback eliminating the need for a variance.
The neighbors have two-level homes built on hills. Ferguson felt he was restricted with
building due to the flat lot in the flood plain. By building a third stall garage he will
eliminate the need for additional storage. Ferguson presented pictures of the
neighborhood and explained his options for the design for his home. He believes his
requests are reasonable and all the hardships have been met.
Billington questioned Ferguson if there were any conversations of the side yard setbacks.
Ferguson responded there were conversations however, he did not know ofthe side yard
variance request until he received the planning report. Kansier said she had only met
with Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson a few days before they submitted the application and did not
see the extra setback at that time. They talked about the road elevation, road and lake
setbacks. Kansier said she found the setback on the survey review on the application.
Billington questioned Ferguson ifhe was aware of the requirements. Ferguson stated he
was aware of the easements from early on and understood all the flood plain regulations
and ordinances. His understanding was to stay out of the easements. Their original plans
showed the house next to the easements. It might have been a misunderstanding on their
part or what the Fergusons were asking. They moved the house intentionally to the street
to avoid a variance on the lake side.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI I 2805.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 18, 1005
There were no other comments and the hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Questioned City Engineer Larry Poppler on the easements and reconstruction of
the road. Poppler noted he has done a number of reconstruction projects in the
City and many of them on the lake. Poppler stated they have in fact tried to center
the roads in the easements. "Some places you can't do that. We won't know until
we see a topographical survey of the entire area and find all the property pins and
do a design." They have in fact had to fill into the lake to make a road work. "A
lot ofthe roads are widened as well. It's hard to say at this time without the
measurements of the street."
Stamson:
. Questioned ifthere is any reason the City wouldn't be able to center it. Poppler
explained driveways also dictate where they put the road. "We can't make
driveways any worse than they are if they are steep. The City will try to move the
road and center it as much as they can in the easement. There is nothing to lead
me to believe we can't at this time."
Perez:
. Questioned staff if there were any comments from the DNR. Kansier said she
spoke to Pat Lynch (DNR hydrologist) regarding the elevation of the road. Lynch
understood the situation and had no comments.
. Agree with the first variance request and approve the road elevation variance. It
is pretty straight forward. There have been other lots with this same situation.
. I looked at the property today. Mr. Ferguson brings up some good points.
However what Poppler is saying makes sense.
. Glad Mr. Ferguson is trying to be a good neighbor but that is not part of the
criteria for approving variances. There are several other two-story homes in the
area. Do not see any other problems with the visibility. There are no other lots
facing the Fergusons.
. As far as the hardship findings with the last two variances, I do have to agree with
staff that there is enough buildable area.
. It does not meet the hardships.
. Oppose the last two variances.
Lemke:
. Questioned staff regarding the easement, if the City knows the road is going to
stay where it is, is there a process for changing the easement? Kansier said it is a
different situation, because it's not a dedicated right-of-way or dedicated through
a plat. It is an easement document on file. At some point down the road, when we
know the exact location of the road and utilities, the applicant may ask the City
Council to consider vacating a portion of the easement.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI I 2805.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28, 2005
· Questioned if the 25 foot setback is common from the road. Kansier said it is 25
feet from the property boundary. The only other consideration may be from a
private street.
. Agreed to support the elevation road variance.
. The variance criteria is designed for reasonable use of their property. We've used
the definition of reasonable use for a single family two-car garage. Staff is right
that something reasonable can be built without the setback variances.
. Kansier explained the 10% side yard break setback.
. The applicant did bring up some good points however; the hardships have not
been met for the last two variances.
Billington:
. It is an interesting situation due to the lot configuration. I asked the applicant of
his knowledge ofthe regulations before coming before us. It was obvious. The
Commissioners are in a position of equitably applying the rules and regulations.
The staff has done a responsible job of analyzing this.
. The first variance regulation is acceptable.
. The second and third requests are not met. We have to apply those strictly and
there's a reason for a high standard here.
. The applicant has to come forward and offer hardcore problems with the
construction of the house. Staff acted responsibly enforcing the rules.
. Will not support the 2 and 3rd request.
Ringstad:
. I was going down the same road as Commissioner Lemke with respect to a
vacation. However if some point in time it may be determined there may not be a
need for it.
. We cannot handcuff the City in what is going to happen with the road in the
future. To ignore the easement is not something I am prepared to do.
. Agree the first variance request is warranted through hardship.
. The applicant does have reasonable use of his property. There is a building pad
established. It may not fit this home but will fit a different design.
. Voting against the other two variances.
Stamson:
. Agree with staff and fellow Commissioners on the requests. The road elevation is
what road variances were designed for. It is out of the applicant's control. It is
unique to the property and is necessary to have any use of the property.
. Also agree with staff and Commissioners on the other two variances. There is
reasonable use.
. Ringstad said it well. There's no reason to handicap the City. The applicant feels
the road has to be where it is. That's not the feeling we're getting from staff.
There hasn't been any study to verify the applicant.
. It is important to go back and look at the 20 foot variance from the front yard
setback is to go back and look at the fact that the road is too low. If the road is
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNI 12805.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 28, 2005
going to be rebuilt in the next few years we have to raise it and if we allow a
house to be built 5 feet from the easement, you pretty much handicap yourself in
the ability to do that because the house is sitting on the easement. It makes no
sense to do that at this point until the road is built.
. It still goes back to the lot size. There is sufficient space to build an adequately
size house for the property. It doesn't meet the hardship criteria.
. There is no reason the home needs to be over 80 feet - that is strictly design. It is
also important to note the lot is flat.
. Support variance number one and deny the other two.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY PEREZ, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 05-
2IPC APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
GRANTING A 2.25 FOOT ELEVATION VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM OF A VEHICULAR ACCESS OF NOT MORE THAN 2 FEET BELOW
THE REGLATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION WITHIN THE FLOOD
PLAIN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION
05-22PC DENYING A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND DENYING A 6.17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A WALL EXCEEDING 50 FEET IN
LENGTH.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal process.
C. -213 & 213 Giles Properties, Inc., have sqJf'fD.itted a preliminary plat
and planned u . development application for a dey-efupment to be known as
Hickory Shores. development proposes 80 ~ngle family homes and 38
townhomes. This is for lly the Clarenc~.e 0 O).B~ rien property located south of MN
TH 13, west of CSAH 23, ea of Sunray ~levard, and north of Rice Lake.
,;~'
The applicant has requested this item ,'continued until the meeting on December 12,
2005. This time will allow the appJ}tant rovide staff with additional information that
was missing from the original su f ittal. Th taff has sent a mailed notice of this delay
to the owners of property wit' 500' of this site.
MOTION BY PEREZ,
HEARING TO DEC
COND BY BILLINGTON,
BER 12, 2005.
Vote taken indi ted ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\05 FILES\05 PLAN COMMISSION\05 MINUTES\MNl12805.doc
7
~
z
-
a:
a..
~
o
o
u.
-
o
<0
><
-
o
LO
J:
~
-
~
w
a..
o
.....J
W~
>~
ZCL
W
{!J
Z
-
o
.....J
-
::l
CO
.....J
<(
CJ
W
.....J
~
<<i '"
" >>
O},
'"
.~
~l
,
,
\ ~''k\
'\<'~\
\
\
\\
a.
o
..
'"
0.
o
..
'"
a.
o
..
'"
'\
IJ.J
:J::
~
..J
'I
,; '" '~
"I'" ~
--i ~. \~
'<J .-
'1l~
liJ \\I
\l,1
ft \t '-J
~,\ ~
(j)
~
10
-Cl
t(
IlJ
~
~
u
J
~
"
~ . ,{,
~'.-6
''>-:
"",
~.
if]
\(
\~
. \0/'
I "I
/
i
.;:181- --
3,,00,0000 N
~
~
<ti.
~,-"
Ii.
4J{
~ ~ ~
:i";;j ""
~~"f..
c)1\
---
--
--
--
'0
<V ',"
+10
<ll 0 .
'O.Q",
Q)
0:: c:: Q)
UJ..,...j \...4
Cl +->
C>:'OUl
o Q)
'0 Vl
c: ..-
ZO'U
><t.: U ~
OJ 0
Q">-1
~
O'UVl
QI
+->
I 0
'" N c:
!::' - c:
QI 0
QI .-f
<0 +->
'0 QI <ll
" " '>
~
c-~:
r'
:.J
'"
-0
\J)
t1.1 U) O'l' tUo "OJ",-''i''
E-1 ......rl C ~ _
o .c..",,,,
z E-tO~Ol
:z;
o
H
f-<
'"
H
I>:
U
Ul
W
o
><
f-<
I>:
"-l
'"
o
I>:
'"
QI
... QlOJ
QI U U
~g' GI~ ~~
",..-f W d "'...
I 0 '+-4.00 U) U)
I >. c: O..cl U ,.-f..-f
>. '" OJ III ill '0 '0
"'C:~'" QlU
,~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 'B ~ <ll <ll
.cf-<UOJIll ...",,,,
f-< A....DlUlUl
QJ .. +..l 0.... co fU
C:O'>VlOJCII 'Oww
o c: .. OJ.... QI
..-f <ll 04-l Co 0'> oa Ul Ul
+JI>:.-; oa'O OJQ)
U """'"'"l:ECII.."''''
OJ - 0 '" III :J :J
l!l;;;-4-l~~~:l.~.~
-.-j Ul N '" 6 6-
~.-jn1<")..QlIII
0> - III Glo....
'O'Uoo1'O"o<")r
COJCa.C~ L
OJOJ.Qn1 OOCVlVl
C Q).rot lU ..... Q) OJ I
..-f......c.cQl. OJ OJ ,
z 4-l U ..... I: ....'
..-t to ~ 'M 0 Ol tfl I
... '" (I) 0 C....C (I) OJ,
o '0 c.... 'd'd'l
>-1'0 1.0 III
OJ ... +J ... ell CU',.....j ~..
.....<ll(l)""'..lIIoo<ou
'':; '0 +-> <ll C I<
<ll C 0 4-l .. QI Ol.c .r: j
2~~oo~U~~t1
.. eN III 00 (
<llillC .....cl"lUlZ;;
>C.~OO.iJCO
OO:EN OJOJ(
() NI<I:.cUU(
0.- QlO+JCC(
C..-f >. Ul C I< OJ OJ Q
...-f ...c: +J '';' ... .4J 0 ..c: .c .!
UlC OCZ"''''"
'0 C :J ... U'"
C ~ 0 <ll 0 QI " .. .
<tl OU.C4J a.U +J... "
.-jf-< "'''' CillillQ
+-> 11/ '0 QI ill OJ Q
4-1 ... -iJ.+J :J."".d 4-.i ~ ~
o ;;;- 8 .~ :5 = oJ 0 .... c
+-> <") Ul 0 '" '-"
()~ 0.0 -1IIO>Nr<'
<tl . C III tllN.-j ~
.. ill~ <tl QI 'O.-j.-j ~
'" > N QlI.o...
..-f N '" .c U 1.0 4-l 4-l 4_
~4-l~<tl..<(.QOOC
,
,
\
,-
\
C-
o
....J
W
>
Z
W
(!J
Z
-
o
...J
-
:::>
OJ
o
w
en
o
a..
o
a:
a..
,
,
\\ f{~\
,
\
'"
"-
1;
'1
'\
\ j
~
1 <::,
::::J ~
'., ~
~~.,.
~ ~I.\~ ~
~, .~-
~"~<')
- ,):
13'~,~~
~I
' ,
lJJ
~
<l
..J
i i
, ,
~
<<i '"
~ ~
."'-
.~
~ 0, ';\.
<>. ~
~?:. N
It) "
"'''':-
"" ~
\l _I
ff ii: ~
~~ c::l
(J)
i
a:
o
0::
Q..
'l:'
~
~
~
--- ",181---
3,,00,00.0 N -;}
-..;
~
~
~
~
II-
'" <It,
~ J ~
~.~ ;f
Q 11
--
----- -----...--
'0
lll-'"
+.> 0
<U 0 "
'OD+'>
III
O::Clll
Lij..,-4 \..4
o +.>
O::'OUl
o III
,'OUl
01-<-
ZO'O
<I: lJ I-<
III 0
01-<..1
;3'OUl
0:: C III
III
A< C
Hf"'I ::<
:0""0
U)O'\~
Z'-<-'"
~ ......,.
~.
I- 0
~ ~
III
.jJ
o
c
C
0
.....
+.>
(j) III C
'0 >
C C III 0
0> ..... .-< .....
0 .-< (j) +.>
.... I-< ctl
D +.> >
+.> (j) 0 (j)
c: ::< <1l Q, .-<
9! ~ .-< ." m
(j)
(j)
In
g
-
+.>
(l)
(j)
+.>
C
(j)
z
o
H
E-l
A<
H
0::
U
Ul
(il
o
o tr>
::< c
+.>.....
I 0..
I >< C (
>< +l OJ
+l~~t
.~ ::< 0 .
.cE-lUQ
E-l OJ .. .
c: C"tUl (1
o C ;3: IJ
..... III 0 ~
-ea;::f'
Q) .. 0 u
Ul~...
otl 0
.....-4 en C'
-.-trtj('
0'1-
~ '0'
e OJ I
lllOJ,Q.
C QI.....
.I""I~ ~J
Z'" U.
..-1 Ill'
+If<<QI
o '0
...:l'O
QI -,
,jJ1-<1ll
'l::'O+l
OJ e 0 I
S g~,
e c'
QlQIC
> e.....'
00 :E'
t:J.
Q, -
C.'.-I ><
..-1 .c +l
Ul C
'Oeo>
C ::< 0
ctlOU
'-<E-l+l
~, .. +I
o~ 0
otlU
+J'C'f)U)
o~
ctl
l-IOJ~
+l>N
..-IN
<I:"'~
><
E-l
0::
r.l
A<
g
A<
\
\
\
- ....
o!:lclg
Ztnw....
.. ;;I.:' ·
~~~.~
J
r
v
~
:
}
, .d!IlSUDWBIIOJ:> UO!ljSllj ~ ~ ~
PIQ ....SDaPI \MllO^ouu~ z
3~Vl ~O!~d 3N m~lS O~O-i OOSt -< ~\';
NOSn~~IJ NVSnS ~ ~1~0~ ZtSl-B>L ("6) ~ ~vl=~
10N301S3~ NOSn~~3j 3Hl ~ Ki!5 -
lL09(,1 Ni'i '3n~Y~d M3N ~;~~ <<<<
~~Oll V.^3TI u:.n J)! lH812:J .,S NIV"~tVO~' 'OS .O.d ~ offi >'llo
E SiJ3H1OtJ8 OlOtJ3t"l ~'=i~i3 ~~ 1~1~~ i ~ ~ 1~1
OVl::E
~
V)
W
::;;0
0
:r:
V)
<r
w
:r:
t-
O
<r
:z: (I)
0 Cl
>= --'
:z: <to 0
0 >
>= W <r
--' w
<to wb 0
>
~ w ~~ en
--' "-1"
w ~::::- 0
.. f-P 0
ili I Ii N
~ <:>\0 ('--
~ ir~
~
~
~
~
5
G:E]
GEl
g]
l!EJ
3XV"1 ~Wid 3N millS U~Ol OOSV
NOSn~~lJ NVsns 7i moo~
3JN30!S]o NOSnOo]3 ]Hl
NOll V!I]T:J dV3(] X? lNOd.::J
.d!4SlIOWllWlJ;)UO!lfSOj
PIO ....sr>>pI~!lor.ouuL
~
~
8
~
~i
~~
:.i'i
w'"
~'"
f<il
ZtrQZ-l}!OL (1:0;6)
tLOgg NI'i '3nSVMd M3N
"IS NIV" "B5lI~O~L xoe "O"d
StJ3HlOtJ8 OlOtJ3~
~
g
~ vf
~ ;
5 ~
~
~
. ._----'--...-----~......,.
Z
o
i=
<(
>
W
..J
W
"v.:
t-b
z'-
0.11
"'~
LL~
~
[!EJ
i
~ l>
~~ ~~ i
Z
o
i=
<(
>
W
--1
W
o::e
<( .11
woo
"':::-
~
i5
:il
1!
Il'
~~1
Ul
W
~
o
::r:
Ul
0:::
W
::r:
f-
a
0:::
CD
o
-'
a
0:::
w
G
LD
C)
C)
N
DATE: January 5,2006
TO:
Jane Kansier, Planning Director
FROM:
Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
;?f?
cc: Steve Albrecht, City Engineer
RE: Ferguson Variance (4500 Lords Street)
The Engineering Department has reviewed the Ferguson variance request for the
property at 4500 Lords Street. The Engineering Department does not support the
variance req uest.
Backaround - The applicant is asking for a 20 foot variance from the front yard setback.
This would place the structure within 5 feet of the roadway easement. The existing
roadway is not centered within the roadway easement and is actually over the property
line of the neighbor to the south.
Future Roadway Improvements - When this street is reconstructed, the design
engineers will attempt to center the roadway as much as possible within the easement.
This would move the roadway closer to the property. The width of Lords Street will be
increased during the reconstruction project, this will also move the roadway edge closer
to the property. Since the roadway is below the flood elevation, designers will attempt to
raise the future roadway elevation. If the garage is placed so close to the roadway, it
limits the design of the future roadway as any future roadway elevations must match the
garages and driveways. The exact location, roadway width and elevation will not be
known until the design and reconstruction is performed, however after visiting the
property it is clear that the roadway edge will move closer to the Ferguson property.
Utilities - During reconstruction projects the City upgrades the utilities. Moving the
structure closer to the underground utilities could be problematic when it comes time to
replace the utilities. The sanitary sewer in this area is 9 feet below grade and
depending on the location of this pipe, excavation limits could extend beyond the
roadway easement. Service repairs will also be necessary and the water service is
shown to be within 17 feet of the proposed garage.
The survey shows the overhead power located within the property limits of 4500 Lords
Street on the east side. The location of other private utilities are unknown and could
also become a problem should this variance be approved.
Hardship - It appears this variance is requested solely based on the house style which
the applicant is proposing. The lot appears to be large enough to build without variance.
G:\Developments\DRC\Ferguson Variance 01 0506.DOC
---.---_., ~_~~.M._.~.._M~....".,V"._,_>....".._",'.,..,w._.....~._,.~_.__,._'''_..,...~.,_~~.__~.___~".,.._.._.M~__._.~_._.__..______....___.".._,.._~._.,__.~""..__.,_____~._.~~_____._~______