HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Paragon Homes Variance Appeal
HERITAGE
1891
COMMUNITY
1991
CUTJ.9rJ-.AI
2011
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 1990
The October 4, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting was called to
order by Chairman Kedrowski at 7:30 P.M. Those present were
Commissioners Loftus, Arnold, Kedrowski, Wells, Roseth, Assistant
City Planner Deb Garross, and Secretary Rita Schewe.
ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Corrections made to the minutes are as follows: Page two,
paragraph one, fourth line, insert the word "the" between
deteriorate and neighborhood; Page two, paragraph four, line two,
change the word "excessive" to "several", Page two, paragraph
four, line ten, change the word "can" to "had". Also add the
statement "that no comments were received from the DNR on the
Paragon Homes variance request."
MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS
CORRECTED.
Vote taken si9'nified ayes by Kedrowski, Loftus, Arnold, and
Wells. Comml.ssioner Roseth abstained as he was not present at
the September 20, 1990, meeting.
ITEM II - LANGFORD ADLER - LAKESHORE AND SIDE YARD VARIANCE
Chairman Kedrowski stated that due to business dealings with the
applicant through the Lions, he would turn the meeting over to
commissioner Arnold and abstain from any discussion and voting on
the variance request.
Langford Adler, 16640 Inguadona Beach Circle, stated' he was
una~are tha~ a building permit was needed to replace a deck.
When he appll.ed after the deck had been built, it was discovered
the deck was not in compliance with the setbacks and he is now
requesting a 20 foot lakeshore, 2 foot north side, and a 8.5
south side.
Deb Garross presented the information as per memo of October 4,
1990. The lot is a substandard lot and the structure was approved
when it was under the jurisdiction of another government. A
building permit can not be issued unless a variance is granted.
4629 Dakota S1. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 4474245
HERITAGE
1891
COMMUNITY
1991
19J.JfJ-.;V'
2Q91
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1990
The September 20, 1990, Planning Commission Meeting was called to
order b~ Chairman Kedrowski at 7:30 P.M. Those present were
Commissloners Loftus, Arnold, Kedrowski, Wells, Assistant City
Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner steve Hess, and Secretary
Rita Schewe. Commissioner Roseth was absent.
ITEM I - REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS
WRITTEN.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kedrowski, Loftus, Arnold, and
Wells, MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM II - PARAGON HOMES - VARIANCE
Representative for Paragon Homes was not present at 7:35 P.M.
Greg Schweich arrived at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Schweich stated that he
purchased Lot 50, Northwood and is requesting 3.35 foot north
side yard variance, 5 foot south side rard variance, 5 foot front
yard variance, 32 foot lakeshore varl.ance and a 120 square foot
minimum lot area variance for 3175 Linden Circle to construct a 2
story house
steve Hess, Associate City Planner, presented information as per
memo of September 20, 1990. The home is proposed to be built on
a vacant lot and staff has recommended that the applicant move
the structure as far from the lakeshore as possible.
The recommendation from staff is to approve the variances based
on the premise that the lot is a parcel of record and the Zoning
Ordinance states that such lots are buildable. In addition, the
City Council has interpreted the "separate lot under common
ownership" issue to be enforced at the time of building permit
application.
Harry Maudsley, 3189 Linden Circle, objected to the variance. He
is concerned that water drainage between lots will be a problem
and that the applicant is requesting too many variances. Mr.
Maudsley suggested that the home size should be reduced to
eliminate the need for variances.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1990
PAGE 2
Larry James,
stated that
one building
home on a 50
3147 Linden Circle, objects to the variance
the lots 49 and 50 have been sold several times
site. Mr. James felt that the construction of
foot lot would deteriorate neighborhood.
and
as
a
Dean Sutliff, 3162 Linden Circle, objected to variance because it
will create a precedent within the neighborhood to grant similar
variances for adjacent Lot 49. Mr. Sutliff feels that the
applicant created his own hardship.
June Lemke, 3201 Linden Circle, stated that their garage variance
was denied by the City and that she objects to this variance
because she feels that it will deteriorate the neighborhood
where homes are valued at $175,000.00.
Comments stated by the Commissioners were concern over the
cumulative effect of excessive variances being requested for one
lot; drainage issues related to an unimproved street; concern
over the Council interpretation that substandard lots of record
can be buildable if they are under separate ownership at the
building permit stage; the legal rights of the owner to build on
his lot of record; options of refunding assessments or the
possibility to remove a small lot from tax rolls; the amount of
variances requested should be reduced; the intent of the
Shoreland Ordinance can been circumvented by the interpretation
of substandard lot buildability; and that the applicant should
attempt to advise the neighborhood of his intentions and come up
with a compromise.
Mr. Schweich presented the plan of the proposed home stating its
value is $220,000.00 and has a sale pending. He felt that
the variances are not excessive and he would be willing to adjust
his plan to reduce variances.
Motion by Wells, second by Loftus, to deny the variance and to
request the City Council to review the buildablility of
substandard lots. Discussion followed on this motion.
MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY WELLS, TO RESCIND THE COMBINED
MOTION.
Vote' taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wells, Kedrowski, and
Loftus. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR LOT
50, NORTHWOOD. RATIONALE BEING, THAT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF
ALL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES WOULD NOT OBSERVE THE SPIRIT AND
INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT RESIDENTS HAVE STATED THAT
THEY FEEL PROPERTY VALUES AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED AND THE
COMMISSION CONCURS THAT SUCH VARIANCES WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1990
PAGE 3
Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Loftus, Kedrowski, and
Arnold. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY WELLS, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO
REVIEW THE COMMON OWNERSHIP ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO THE
BUILDABILITY OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
AND TO CLARIFY THE "NEST EGG" VERSUS HARDSHIP ISSUES RELATED TO
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wells, Loftus, Kedrowski, and
Arnold. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM II - JOHN TURNER III - REAR YARD VARIANCE
John Turner, 14137 Shady Beach Trail, stated he is requesting a
2.5 foot east rear yard variance. He was in the process of
building a new home and stated that he had made a measurement
error and the deck was built over the required rear yard setback.
Deb Garross presented the information as per memo of September
20, 1990. This hardshi~ situation was created by an individual
action not the provisl.ons of the Zoning Code. Had the deck been
built as proposed in Building Permit 90-109, no variance would be
needed. Staff recommendation is to deny the 2.5 foot variance
application due to a lack of hardship as defined by the Zoning
Ordinance.
John Turner II, 14432 Watersedge Trail, stated he was responsible
for the measurement error but wanted the Commissioners to know
his son had done everything possible to be within the setbacks.
Comments from the Commissioners concerned the following:
Definition of Hardship, that the individual had made an honest
mistake however, a dangerous precedent could be set if a variance
is granted after a structure has been built, and in the absence
of hardship as defined by City Code.
MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY WELLS,
VARIANCE FOR 14137 SHADY BEACH
HARDSHIP HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED
ORDINANCE.
TO DENY THE 2.5 REAR YARD
TRAIL. RATIONAL BEING THAT NO
WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING
Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Wells, and Kedrowski. Nay
by Loftus. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM III - ROBERT WALTERS - SIDE AND REAR YARD VARIANCE
Robert WaIters, 14407 Watersedge Trail, stated he is requesting a
5 foot south side and a 5 foot rear yard variance to construct a
22 X 24 foot garage. If he built within the setbacks, mature
trees would be lost and the driveway for garage would not be
functional.
qr, - aa
~-~
PID' ,;J.5" -/~/a:; -?- ~
Phone: 4.i:) - eo 76
rk Phone: 4"3;; - ~~
one Phone:
~rk Phone:
Purchase Agr~nt --r-
Phone: ~ - A:;>S'e;r
, I . .
Variance ~ested: !:' ~~^' . .f ~ ,rr ~U/. .;D /;2.0 <' ~ --\ r....~v.J.:~..'1:-'\";;.r.-\
Hasl{~ ;ppt~tPf~CUSI; sou~~:~ r~ne, tcl;~~~'~e)/~~ coD-iitional
use permit on the subject site or any part of it? _Yes No
What was requested:
When: Disposition:
Oeser ibe the type of inprovements proposed: i?.....< C - ~, <1
I
SUBMISSION REDUIJID.mNrS:
(A)Campleted application fo~. (B)Filing fee (C)Certified fram abstract fi~, r.ames
and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
subject property. (D)Camplete legal description & Property Identification Number
(PID). (E)Deed restrictions, if applicable. (F)An area map at lw=200' available
from the City Engineering Section showing: existing topography, utilities, lot
boundaries, building easements and soil test data if pertinent within 300 feet.
(G)A parcel map at P-20'-50' showing: The site developnent plan, buildings:
parking, loading, access, surface drainage, laOOscaping arrl utility service.
OOLY COMR.ETE APPLICATIOOS SHALL BE RENIElVED BY '!HE PLANNIOO CDMMISSIOO.
f?-! -f~
.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on
addi tion, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zo
requi rE!'llents for variance procedures. I agree to pr
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
Subnitted this "3/ day
9_
Fee
~IS SPACE IS 'ro BE FILLED OOT BY '!HE PLANNIOO DIRFX:roR
PLANNING CDMMISSICN _ APPRMD L DENIED ~ D.\TE OF ~F.ARm;
CITY <X:X1OCIL APPEAL _ APmOJID DENIED DATE OF HF..ARIN;
CDWITIOOS:
...........-.- ~~
~ ~ --..-- -. - -.- _.
-
-~...--.- - -
J.k~ Br.\"uu,n)
Dae
Signature of the Planning Director
20794~
/52539
N\~
GO
,--0:
o
..J
I-
::l
o
LOT ~
s uJ,'
Uect-
Srre
,,/
,-
1,/ 'I ~
NO:.K:llL SIC. .
\
'.
''/.
\~~. ./
r.
Ii ~
.; ~~
SCALE: I' = 3U.
LEGDlD
Corner Found
.
o Corner Set
o Hub Set
[ 'stillg Contour
9"1--- Xl
--. v' 3 Spot Elevation
x'jZ5,
1:')IE5
.,. is top nut
1) CenCI1::IJI" I n on
. SlOW
f hydrJnc _ 25 97
o '" Elev _ 9 ,
JrJ'/111j.
1 . is 7. 3CU
2i /\rell of o~ Arell of
- -a Feet.
:..qtl J I" "p 9J1'.)'10,
I. 'Jldill~ (llJUJ:, .~ 3iG
ul. k.) 1 s .
and dec t I"'recllt of
.." F ('I'. _
Sr;'1 JI - () -i, ];: '"
cu'.erJS_ -'
IES IIC.
. COIIP.. ,
JOH.SO
S.
SOT A '5420
10N ""HN~
.LOO"IN~.J1 ....S3.'
~HOH(: ..
OF SURVEY
~ f~
" ~~<M,
i',~,'1 ,,((.:'f~Z
", '\ . ~ './7/
'. " ()/
'" :,.. >~" ~
'" 9'43'1 '\!~ ~ ~<{'
924.4, _I' '~I. ~
I J"~o. .~
I 7__ <".s- " /"" '
00:/ "',-~, ~ ~
It[' '.~....."
66' . '- 92:3.0 ~i"~. t...
",P"~" ~-<:Cy~
I \I/J;--.............
~~ '922.5 ............. ...............
a.,; 922.4 \ ~
I
NoT&-: ~
/?>fA~/NbG ~:;:~.p 011 A
Itc"sUNE-(1
GARAGE
ELEV:925.5
o
.,
N
I
-Q
N"\
C:j
....
--
lZ
--"'-.J I
1
I
91:3.27 I
~ PROPOSED
'" HOUSE c:.
1ST FL00R:926.67 ~
WALKOUT:917.67
:...~
2
3bO
PHi{
;100
. --
u-
~( -:
- -, EA!.fnF-.HT r-
~. SHU~
;'-
I 1
I ; :::_~
~ . ,....." "or-
I J ~ C:
I ~ I '-.'
-~ 904~ /90&4
- - f---r..I___ ':"-=....__
'f'{ 8/' /O'33,r W ;006'/
~~~
It/OK LA/([" -= ~..v:,..., ~'ento tion of '0 ,urvey
d correct rep
. a true an
by certi fy that this 15 d plat th(!reof. Scott
I here d rie, of: recorde
of the boun a according to the tL.
UORTHWOOO. th is 2& 'I doy
Lot 50, H1 nne,oto , ,upervision
County. nder my direct.
d by me or u
AS~SoUrVeye 19~.
of 4':. · / 7
,
20794~
152539
L(-;.f
-
N\~
(,0
LOT 5
/
. .~ '~=-..-/ J'.f."acl" :, ~o.i~, (...~ j ':",:./ t: ..! ,4...; /. . .. .
. ".i._....~. "..... ."..1 ., _- - "", ... ~./.-,,: .", ~ f. \..
!a1:I.:"M.Mm ...a!D 4;. ~"..r.,....... v.u... Co ..... .,.. ~- ....". ~kl..I.. .... .._ ..... .....
~..,.... Of ''''''''Ip " ,.,,4 ~'''i1~ h '.
.lDlnd_I"~,.:: . f ."."l':~'~:'f~ r ('; -:' '~'l ~!'F ff] t R '--.~'
No dllllDqUent tuellIld ~.. eotlredi c.rtI1Icate
ot ReIIlltatl Vallll ( .~m.d ( '.,') Dot requlred .... of __ _
CertifIcate ot ~tI V. alue No '#70 IceCI Count" _
.~o! II ,19~ '_,'enIr.".'tIIo-_"".n'
.... ./. =_.......~:...
~~4-- o. ,. _~~~
Cqunt)' Auditor ...,... - -2702G 1 .
?J::~i:JhJ.- - ~ ~
CIolIIlr -
STATI DEED TAX DUE HEREON: .
..
-""""'-
Date:
MBy8
.19JL
\.
(rnerved tor recordIna datal
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, GW\DKlCI) Prot-~'.w>, IN:.
.. con:aration under th.lall'l ot
M1Nleeota ,Grantor, heRby conveYI and wurantl to ~ R. ~
an! Jl:MKU!:I!:N M. GmSMEa . Grantee (II,
reel property In SCott County, Mlnneaota, deacrlbed u toU01l'l:
Lot 49, ~, Soott COunty, MinnMota, acxx:rrc11nJ to the rec:ordec! plat thereot.
/\N)
'nlat part of the plat of N:JmHXD an:! thPt part of Gc:lYemtlslt Lot 5, Secticn 3,
Township U4, lllIrqe 22, Scol:t CoJnty, Minneeota adjoin.in3 Lot 49 lIIll! the _tea
edge of Prior Lake which lis northeutedy of the eaztheuterly lIXt:erIa1on of the
llO'1t:hweeterly line of Mid lot 49, and ~~terly of the eout:hauterly erxtsw1cn
of the I'lClrtheuterly line of said tot 49.
c~......1PICe II _. CIO"tI"......._1
tollether with aU heredltamentl and appurtenanc:ea belonllinll thereto, lubject to the rouc...tnc uceptlona:
Subject to :.tr1cticnl, reeervatiaw an:! eu&Dent:ll of record, if any.
"~"''-:.'' M STA":"'EOF =:
COU~ {~~'!.~_. innesota ~
DEED'~ =:
Sk"MM~,.".tQt~':,1,,:~ri"r,.1 Z Z. I 0 ~
TAX - r.l.lGm ~~
~nc.
By "'~~#
Ita !.dent
~
~
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF g:rrrr
} _.
The rOrtlloinll wu acknowledlled berore m~ thll
~:~. ~t. !':fo..n!rn.rim
of ~ ~.~. nc.
under the lawI or MinnesotA
8th
v=.
, 19ft_ ,
May
day or
NOTARIAL ITAMP oa IKAI.. (oa 01'Hla TITLI 0.........1:)
. . ocn:p:lrl!lticn
. on behelt ot the caq;JOrllticn
~~U~'~TA~!t~~lI&NT
Tu .........eo... for lb. ,.aJ pro..rt" d..~rtbe4 .. Ill'" &a.c.nu...t lboYld
M Mat to (Iaehld. -.me and addl'&. of aunt..)
il ME ~ OEVTSCH
IlCflllII'f NlIUC - _1ClTI\
SCOTT COUNTY
... _1_""" ,.
THIS INSTIlUM&NTWAI DaAFTI:DIV (NAMIANDADDRUSH
Lawrence R. Gensmer arr:l
Kathleen M. Gensner
7421 Gensner Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372
r/.... HUfMOEUER & SATES
M r i(}~\,\J[y'S ,H LAW
I ~::;'IJ fRANKLIN TRAIL
f'fllG,j LAKE, MN. 55372
~.~..:-':'c. S :! ":'lJ~D:::
':~ _ ~D..,
c.~~~::: :- :1 ,,:,.~~:':t
'~c.. ~:-":'
HERITAGE
1891
COMMUNITY
1991
CUTJ.5fJ_N"
2((g1
"VA20PN"
NOTICE OF HEARING
TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A
SIDE YARD, FRONT YARD, LAKESHORE AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE
You are hereby notified that a hearing will be held by the
Planning Commission in the Prior Lake Council Chambers at 4629
Dakota Street S.E. on:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1990
at
APPROXIMATELY 7:35
P.M.
PURPOSE OF HEARING:
To consider a variance appeal for
Paragon Homes.
3175 Linden Circle
Lot 50, Northwood
The applicant wishes to build a new
single family home on the subject
site. On September 20, 1990 the
Planning Commission denied the
following variances: a 3.35 foot
north side yard variance, a 5 foot
south side yard variance, a 5 foot
front yard variance, a 32 foot
lakeshore variance and a 120 sq.
foot minimum lot area variance. The
applicant has requested that the
decision of the Planning Commission
be reviewed by the City Council for
final action. The city council will
consider the appeal request on
October 15, 1990 at about 7:35 p.m.
If you desire to be heard in reference to this matter, you should
attend this meeting. Oral and written comments will be accepted
by the City Council. For more inforaation, contact the Prior Lake
Planning Department at 447-4230.
SUBJECT SITE LOCATION:
REQUESTED ACTION:
Prior Lake Planning Department
October 8, 1990
4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447.4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
HERITAGE
1891
COMMUNITY
1991
18J!X!)%
2Q91
I
TO:~I
FROM
DA T : ~
I
RE: '
ayor and Councilmembers
avid J. Unmacht, city Manager
October 15, 1990
Attachment To Variance Appeal For Paragon Homes
The city will be required to visit the Shoreland
Management Rules in the future. Timing of the revisit
will be either initiated by one of two scenarios: 1) At
the request of the Council before the DNR sends a formal
letter of review, or 2) When the City receives a formal
letter from DNR staff directing us to revisit our
existing regulations. The City staff anticipates
recei}?t of this letter sometime in November or December
of thl.S year (according to Pat Lynch).
In general terms when recommended by an advisory body,
it l.S consistent and prudent poI icy for the Council to
reconsider a past position(s). However, it is also wise
to reconsider a position(s) with the large picture in
mind, (i.e. the entire Shoreland Management document)
and not as a reaction to a specific request based on a
specific applicant.
Under the existing interpretation some form of variance
to this lot is consistent with previous actions.
Following that line of thought, then some form of
variance would not be considered under the "Common
Ownership" interpretation. Currently, although this may
be the intent of the regulations, our interpretation and
administration of the regulations is different.
Relating to the Planning commission request, it is my
recommendation that you retain your original
interpretation until such time that you revisit the
entire Shoreland Management Regulations. In fact, we
can start at your direction within the next thirty days.
Given this position, then the real issue becomes
consideration of "do we act on this application or
forestall a decision until our review is complete?" See
zoning Ordinance 7.3A pertaining to "reasonable time" as
a consideration in your deliberation. In consideration
of your previous decisions and the importance of this
document for long range planning and development, I
recommend that we act on the variance either for or
against, and move quickly to begin our revisit of the
Shoreland Management Regulations.
4629 Dakota 51. 5.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AGENDA NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
HERITAGE
1891
COMMUNITY
1991
18J$vN"
2Q91
5
DEB GARROSS, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER
CONSIDER VARIANCE APPEAL FOR PARAGON HOMES
OCTOBER 15, 1990
The purpose of this item is to consider a
variance appeal for Paragon Homes, represented
by Greg Schweich. On September 20, 1990, the
Planning Commission denied a 3.35 foot north
side yard; 5 foot south side yard; 5 foot
front ~ard; 32 foot lakeshore and 120 square
foot ml.nimum lot area variance for Lot 50,
Northwood. See attached Planning Commission
minutes dated September 20 and October 4, 1990
for details. Mr. Schweich submitted a written
appeal to the City on September 27, 1990
requesting that the City Council review the
decision of the Planning Commission. See
attached letter.
The Northwood subdivision was platted in 1911
under the jurisdiction of Eagle Creek
Township. It was annexed into the City in
1975. The subject site is a vacant lakeshore
lot approximately 66 feet by 166 feet. It is
zoned R-1/S-D and contains 7,380 square feet.
The subject site is 10cated in a neighborhood
that has a mixture of home styles and values.
Linden Circle, which provides access to the
site, is an unimproved private road that is 30
feet wide. All public utilities are
available. Linden Circle is a private road
and although there are no plans to improve the
road at this time, it is likely that it will
someday be improved to a public street. Future
improvements would require the street to be
u~graded to a blacktop surface. A minimum of
fl.ve feet of additional right of way adjacent
to Lot 50 would be necessary for the
improvements. The applicant has requested a
five foot front yard variance. The proposed
home location would not interfere with a
future upgrade of Linden Circle.
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447.4245
The applicant has also re~ested a 32 foot
lakeshore, 5 foot south sl.de yard and 3.35
foot north side yard variance to construct the
home as proposed. The applicant has located
the proposed home in the area that would
require the least amount of grading. The
subject lot contains several trees on the
property, but the location of the proposed
home will allow the lar9'est trees to remain.
The proposed home is bel.ng built in the area
that will have the least negative impact on
the lake and the surrounding homes.
Staff has researched and found that similar
variances have been granted for Lot 56 in
1986. Specifically, Lot 56 received a 36'
lakeshore, 2.2' west side yard, 2' east side
yard and 5' front yard variance. other
variances have been granted within this
neighborhood which are identified on the
attached map. The Planning Commission denied
the variances requested by the applicant on
the grounds that the cumulative impact of all
of the variances would be detrimental to the
neighborhood. There were several residents
who spoke against granting any variances for
the subject site. The Planning commission did
not have information related to other
variances that had been previously granted in
this neighborhood at the time of their
decision.
The subject lot is a substandard lakeshore lot
and does not meet the ml.nl.mum standards for
the Shoreland District. Records available
through the Scott County Recorder's Office
indicate that Lots 49 and 50, Northwood were
under one ownership. Attached find a copy of
the warranty deed for Lot 49 which indicates
that Grainwood Properties Inc, sold the lot to
Lawrence and Kathleen Gensmer in May of 1990.
Mr. Schweich stated at the Planning commission
meeting that he has since purchased Lot 50.
The Council determined after lengthy
discussion with DNR in}?ut, that in Hedberg,
the separate ownershl.p requirement of the
shoreland chapter of the Zoning Ordinance be
interpreted as separate ownership at the time
of building permit application. This
interpretation was intended to assist
residents who have more than one lot and to
allow them to sell off a lot "nest egg" for
buildin9' purposes. The Council felt that
strict 1nterpretation of the common ownership
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
provision would cause undue hardships to
people that own more than one lot. This
interpretation also coincides with Section
4.1C of the Zoning Ordinance which
grandfathers all lots of record as buildable
"even though its area and width are less than
the minimum requirements of this Ordinance.
The intent of the Shoreland District is to
combine substandard lots (reference Zoning
Ordinance Section 9.3B1.e), which is in direct
conflict with the Council interpretation of
separate ownership at the time of building
permit application. This interpretation on
seperate ownership enables the subject lot to
be a buildable lot. The Planning Commission
denied the entire variance application in
order to allow the Council the opportunity to
reconsider its position with re9'ard to
"separate ownership". It is the posl.tion of
the Planning Commission that the intent of the
Shoreland Ordinance should be realized, that
10ts should be combined and that separate
ownership should be applied as the date of
adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance
rather than at the time of building permit
application.
The Planning Commission has precipitated that
there be two issues that require consideration
by the City Council: the specific variance
appeal and interpretation of the separate
ownership issues related to substandard
shoreland lots of record.
Approve the variances as requested.
Table the item for further study and/or
redesign by the applicant.
Deny the variance application which would
render the lot non-buildable.
1. Confirm the interpretation that the
separate lot ownership be determined at
the time of building permit application.
In this case no action by the Council
could be a confirmation.
2. Find that separate ownership should be
determined as of the date of official
adoption of the shoreland regulations.
3. Table a decision on this matter and seek
additional information.
1.
2.
3.
The recommendation of the Planning
is that the separate ownership
commission
issue be
ACTION REQUIRED:
applied as of the date of shoreland ordinance
adoption and that this variance application be
denied for the following reasons: That the
cumulative effect of all of the re~ested
variances would not observe the spirl.t and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that the
resulting encroachment would be detrimental to
the health and welfare of the neighborhood.
The recommendation from staff is to approve
some degree of variance for the site to be
buildable. This recommendation is based upon
the language found in the Zoning Ordinance
that grandfathers all lots of record and upon
previous decisions of the Planning Commission
and City Council that have granted variances
for commonly owned lots to be built upon.
Specific cases include Hedberg (1987 Red
Oaks), Dellwo (1990 Grainwood Park), Ron
Clark ( 1989 - Kneafsey's Cove), John Johnson
(1988 - North Grainwood), and Marve Deutsch
(1990 - Boudin's Manor). The Council may
elect to act solely on the variance ap}?eal and
take no action on the Planning Comml.ssion's
recommendation to revisit the Code
interpretation.
Depends upon Council discussion.
~IZAGol\J 4"'8!> CR i4>4AT""'"
/4'804 k~AlAJ /t.-a~
aIJN S'()/(;..c.e- /lJ/lI /f) .:Sr3.3 7
(!, r ~ IllAJ4J A-Ge l<-
f, rv OF 1J(()A, i.A~(F
4bJ f /J~iA .5}A~""""'"
~/()~ u.,,~ /Jhl"l~ S-S-3/d--
,f- q32-d676
VV - Y3Z-ltJs'I
~cn- ~~ /ffc)
,
1?~ : l)AQIA+.\eW" ~I.A-<-
ne=-A-K rrl It. {/N/TlA<JHt
I
~ J'e:vr-.;b 4~ ~ ~rT
~d ~M~ ~~~~r 4 ~/~~
S~ ~~ ~r ?/'-../f~~
#r ~.
,t!;f7 ~~ ~~-d
~ ~ ~ ~~S ?J:f-L..
~ ~ ~~ .J ~ ~ %..~ $'~.4
-&(~~ ~~~y-- ~
~ A'-/ d:. L ~ ~ ~ ~A'~:P"
~~.
r~
~N 4.- C-..----'"
.,I~
l/~
,d
~qa
\0