HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Variance Denial for Property at 6082 150th Street
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
OCTOBER 18,1999
__ 78
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO LOCATE AN
ACCESSORY GARAGE BUILDING BETWEEN THE FRONT
BUILDING WALL AND THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD
History
On September 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing for a Variance request by William B. Lind to replace an
existing 24 ft. x 24 ft. detached garage with a new 24 ft. x 34 ft.
detached garage (accessory building) in the front yard area between the
principal building (house) and the front lot line. The property in
question is located at 6082 150th Street SE.
City Code 1102.800 (8): b. reads in part, No accessory building shall
be located between the front building wall and the front lot line. The
accessory building area as permitted by code only allows a rear and
side yard garage location, with one exception. Code 1102.800 (8) j.
Where the natural grade of a lot at the building line of a house is 8 feet
or more above the established curb level, a private garage may be
erected within any yard provided 1/2 or more of its height is below
grade level and it is located a minimum 10 feet from any street line
and 5 feet from any side lot line
In this case the average elevation across the front building line of the
existing house is approximately 7.3 feet below the established curb
level. The SW comer elevation is 926.4 ft. (5.8 ft.) and the SE comer
is 923.4 ft. (8.8 ft.) below the established curb elevation of932.2 ft. (as
shown on attached survey Exhibit A).
Considerable grading and some tree removal would be required to
attach or place a garage in front of the house to be considered part of
the principal structure and to be compliant with the City Code.
1620BJ<Hagtl5\~k\~t6.:fu~R1t.IiOOe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
considered part of the principal buildingfor the purpose of applying
provisions of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, setbacks and
other dimensional requirements. This may increase the cost of the
project but economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting
a vanance.
In addition, the Code allows for a detached garage in the side yard.
This location may not be practical because the existing building side
yard setbacks of 23 feet and 16 feet would at best allow a 13 foot wide
garage.
At the hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from the
applicants and their builder. They discussed the difficulty with storm
water drainage into their home by placing the garage adjacent to the
house front. They also expressed the need for a 3 car garage as a
standard for a lake home and to preserve vehicle condition and value.
The Planning Staff concluded that all variance hardship criteria had not
been met and recommended the variance be denied. The Planning
Commission concurred and denied the variance request. A copy of the
minutes to the September 13, 1999, Planning Commission meeting and
Resolution 99-20PC denying the variance are attached to this report.
Current Circumstances
On September 17, 1999, the City received a notice from Attorney
James D. Bates, appealing the Planning Commissions denial ofthis
variance (appeal notice attached). The notice was received within the
5 day timeline required for the appeal process. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 1109.400: Appeal to the City Council, the public
hearing was scheduled for the City Council meeting on October 18,
1999, and public notice was posted in the Prior Lake American on
October 2, 1999. Notices were also mailed to owners of property
within 350 feet ofthis site on October 8, 1999.
Issues
Variances must be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Code
Section 1108.406: Issuance (see attached). These criteria and the
suggested findings are discussed below.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission and staff concluded the variance did not
meet all ofthe required nine hardship criteria and that a legal
alternative exists for location of the garage to be attached or placed
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-062\CCREPORT.DOC
2
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
less than 6 feet from the principal structure. Therefore, the staff
recommends the Council uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission.
1. Adopt Resolution 99-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny this variance.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff
to prepare a resolution for approval of the variance.
3. Defer action on the appeal at this time and continue the agenda
item for a specific purpose.
Alternative # 1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 99-XX
upholding the decision ofthe Planning Commission to deny a
variance to permit location of an accessory building (garage)
between the front building wall (principal structure) and the front
lot line.
Frank Boyles, City Manager
L:\99FILES\99V AR\99-062\CCREPORT.DOC
3
RESOLUTION 99-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO LOCATE AN
ACCESSORY GARAGE BUILDING BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING WALL AND
THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD
ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6082 150th STREET SE
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on October 18, 1999, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by
William B. Lind of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a
variance to locate an accessory garage between the front building wall of the
principal structure and the front lot line for the property legally described as
Lots 8 & 9, Eastwood, Scott County, Minnesota; and
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 variances should be upheld, and said variances should
be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. William B. Lind applied for a variance from Section 1102.800 (8) of the City Code in order
to permit an accessory garage building between the front building wall and the front lot line
instead of the required side yard or rear yard as shown in Exhibit A on property located in
the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at the following location, to
wit;
6082 150th Street SE, Prior Lake MN, legally described as Lot 8 and 9 Eastwood, Scott
County, Minnesota.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File
#99-62PC, and held a hearing thereon September 13, 1999. The Planning Commission
denied the applicant's request.
3. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria
and denied the request.
J:\99fil~\99viir\99-062\ccres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTL'NITY E~lPLOYER
4. William B. Lind appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
Section 1109.400 of the City Code on September 17, 1999.
5. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all nine of the hardship criteria.
There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was
caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of the proposed
structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property which would constitute a
hardship.
7. The denial of the requested variances do not constitute a hardship with respect to literal
enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the
vanances.
8. The contents of Planning Case File #99-062 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission denying a variance to locate an accessory garage building between the
front building wall and the front lot line instead of the required side yard and rear yard for
applicant William B. Lind, as shown in Exhibit A, which exhibit is incorporated into this
resolution.
Passed and adopted this 18th day of October, 1999.
YES
NO
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
Mader
Kedrowski
Petersen
Schenck
Wuellner
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
I: \99fi les\99var\99-062\ccres .doc
Page 2
6082 150th Street
PRlCR LAl<E
Site Location
l
<J
. '
\
I
I
\
~
o
500
1000 Feet
~
N
Lot 7
Prior
=
Lot 10
Lot 9
o
e
e'
<I' \
\j
,EXHIBIT A
\' e
Survey In
Son MH
------
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(fo be Submitted with Building Pennit Application)
F or All Properties Located in the Shore land District (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address 6082 W IS- OTtt- <;\ s: 6
Lot Area 41, (,97 Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. r~ 8D'4
************************************************************************
LENGTH
WIDTH
SQ. FEET
i1 bJ
x
x
x
=
HOUSE
=
ATTACHED GARAGE
TOTAL PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...........-.......-
)/05
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
34
x
X
24
......
f:j )./,
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....--_......-..- 8\ ~
x
X
X
=
5 '-\ TI
DRJVEWAYIPAVED AREAS
(Driveway-paved or not)
(SidewalklParking Areas)
=
=
TOT AL P A YED AREAS...............-........-...--.......
~'-1SL
(Open Decks Yo" min. opening betw~n
boards. with a pervious surface below.
are not considered to be impefYio~)
X mllO)' = "2.5~
X =
DG-c.K. ~C)f
X =
PA TIOSIPORCHESfDECKS
TOT.U DE CKS...-.-.-.-.....---.--....-...-....-.. g 4- b
X
X
=
OTHER
=
TOTAL OTHER..-..-...-....----....--.----..........
UNDER/OV:::R
Prepared By rY-~ )rg.;/,~-~
()
I
Company 13R~JDI Sf! t.'1'l Effij"t4. r
~ U RV€'''f'IIt-
I 6' gr:;7
jtJ CSR...\ :::;052-
Date 'Gl 'J\)L I <1C8
J
1
TOTAL l1'1ll'ERVIOUS SURFACE
Phone # gC)) '3 3 j-b
REV ) 3 Ai)? \1<1q
~ ..
e,y.- 0". .
I~
,
'II
.
t.)
0
J'
-:r
ill
~
IJ1
"' III
~ ~
N) cL
i r
,.
.
:
:!
~,--' .s~
IG~ OYHO. DR.
3- e.... lLi HOR. OYE.R
\\~,
v /
r-"
....) ,/
J ,
-
'CQUC.. A~O~
-
-FLOOR -PU\N
S~L.E.: 1/1..('" ['.0"
...
.~,
,'\,
I
r-
j
o
)
:I
u
:1
<{
~
.3
o
~
f _
:/-
r
q1/930
. . )11
III
SI DE. E LE Y AT! OtJ S{.ALE IN _1'_0'1
..
J
~ ... -= --
-=
FROf-JT ELEVATlON
-
.~--
5C.A L~ '/48. r.'-O"
H U EMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
September 16, 1999
Telephone (6121 447.2131
Telecopier (6121 447 -5628
Donald Rye
Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek A venue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Via fax (447-4245) and US Mail
Re: William Lind - Appeal of Variance Denial
Planning Case # 99-62PC
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is submitted on behalf of William Lind as notice of his appeal from
the action of the Planning Commission on September 13, 1999, denying his request for
varIance.
We request a copy of the minutes of the September 13 hearing and the staff
report for the City Council meeting as they become available. Once we have the
opportunity to review the minutes we will submit a supplementary letter in support of
the appeal.
Yours truly,
c\~1~
James D. Bates
JDB:ab
cc: William Lind
Zoning Ordinance
against the proposed Variance and it may continue that hearing from time to time
if a continued hearing is reasonably required. Final action on the proposed
Variance shall be taken within 120 days after the date the complete application
was received by the City.
,/_ T--..
?
!
1108.406 Issuance. The Board of Adjustment shall consider 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 public safety, the
effect on the character and development of the neighborhood and the values of
property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon
the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from
the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance, provided that:
(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 or 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.
(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.
(3) The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and r,
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 public safety.
(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.
(6) The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The granting of a Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
(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.
(9) Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall
not be grounds for granting a Variance.
City of Prior Lake
May I, 1999
l108/p12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Cramer:
. There is questionable access and lake level concern.
. Deny rezoning request at this time. Cannot support anything at this time. The
applicant is not present.
V onhof:
. Concurred with Cramer, there is no need to rezone at this time.
Kuykendall:
. Concurred with staff to rezone to Rl.
. Does not want to deny because there are still issues that need to be addressed by the
developer.
. Either table or continue.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1999.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all, MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case #99-062 William B. Lind is requesting a variance to locate.an accessory
structure between the front building wall and the front lot line for the properly at 6082
150th Street SE.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13,
1999.
William Lind has applied for a variance application for the replacement of an existing
detached garage and concrete pad for recreational vehicle parking. The property is a
Riparian lot in the Shoreland District. The DNR had no objections to the request.
Staff determined all hardship criteria had not been met. There are other legal alternatives
and'recommended denying the variance request.
Comments from the public:
William Lind, 6082 150th Street, did not disagree there was adequate space on the lot for
an additional garage, Mr. Lind presented pictures of the existing structures and explained
his proposal. His concern is the elevations from the house to the existing garage and the
runoffproblems he has experienced. Adding an addition to the garage or home would
create additional problems. Lind said both he and his wife were in sales and it was
important to keep their cars in good working condition. They have 3 cars and a 2 car
garage. His proposed garage will have an appealing design.
John Guzman, 1700 126 St., Blaine, Western Construction, the builder for this project,
explained his concern with rebuilding and repairs to the existing garage. Guzman felt
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin \rnn091399 .doc
7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
there was a significant drainage problem. He also said the existing garage is in need of
repair with the expenses being significant.
Connie Lind, 6082 l50th Street, said when they purchased the property 4 years ago they
planned on adding on to the garage. She pointed out an article in the Parade of Homes
indicating a 3-car garage was almost standard for any home on the lake.
Kansier read the ordinance pertaining to repairs of a structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
V onhof:
· The Commissioners have had similar requests in the Shoreland district.
· It is a deep lot and a different situation. The ordinance was designed to prevent
someone from putting an accessory structure in front of their house on a standard lot.
There is a great deal of distance between the residence and street and it is not
umeasonable to have a detached garage. This is the only building on the lot for
storing vehicles.
· Variance hardships could apply in this matter. Especially in reference to the first
hardship criteria which talks about the dimension of the lot or topography. The
hardship criteria has been met.
Kuykendall:
· It seems more reasonable and added value to have a garage closer to the home.
· It is a nonconforming use. The intent of the ordinance has sound rationale behind it.
It would add more value to the neighboring properties to keep the garage closer to the
home.
. Cost is not a hardship.
· Agreed with staffthere are other alternatives. Want to hold firm.
Stamson:
· The applicant did a great job in redesigning the garage.
· It is not an umeasonable use. The use of the garage in that space is not umeasonable.
However, the variance hardships are not met.
· Support staff s recommendation of denial.
Cramer:
· Understands Vonhofs concern with the lot depth as a hardship.
· It is a Riparian lot. People think the lakeside is their front and the road their back.
More inclined to support based on that hardship alone, but there is a large lot area to
build.
· Should address this issue at another time.
· Appreciate what the applicant is trying to do, cannot support the request based on the
lack of hardship.
. Support staffs recommendation.
I :\99fiIes\99plcomm\pcmin\mn091399.doc
8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Rye reviewed the Commissioners' conversations which proposed the ordinance.
There was a brief discussion between the Commissioners on the ordinance and the
hardship criteria.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY ST AMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
99-20PC DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY GARAGE TO BE
LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING WALL AND THE FRONT LOT
LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD BASED ON
THE COMMISSIONERS' FINDINGS THAT THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAS NOT
BEEN MET.
V onhof said the ordinance fails in this particular case. He fully supports the City's
zoning and regulations and explained why it falls short of what the ordinance is meant to
do.
Stamson agreed the zoning fails but did not create a compelling reason for a variance.
Kuykendall disagreed stating the ordinance is in place and this matter does not fit the
legal hardship criteria in any way.
There was a brief discussion on the ordinance and hardship criteria.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Cramer. Nay by V onhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal process.
E. Case #99-067 Mark Liesener is requesting a variance to permit lot area of
34,628 sq. feet rather than the minimum lot area of2 acres to permit an existing lot of
record to be a buildable lot.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13,
1999, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mark Liesener to allow
the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot
area requirement in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential Use District). Liesener is
requesting a 52,496 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet rather
than the minimum lot area of2 acres required to be buildable in an R-S District.
Titus Second Addition is not in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is not
served by public sewer and water. A private well and septic system are required and must
meet all applicable standards for private systems.
1:\99fi1es\99plcomm\pcmin\mn091399.doc
9
. uu_;:e-
16'...
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
October 13, 1999
Telephone (612) 447-2131
Telecopier (612) 447-562B
Prior Lake City Council
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
c '
OPy
Re: Appeal of William Lind from Decision of Planning
Commission Denying Variance for Replacement of Garage
Dear Council Members:
We request that this letter be made part of the record for this appeal, which again
deals with the unwillingness of City Staff and the Planning Commission to accept the
current status of State law regarding the meaning of "undue hardship" in the review of an
application for a variance under the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance.
William and Connie Lind own a single family home on a riparian lot at 6082 150th
Street. Their lot is approximately 114 feet wide and 425 feet deep and as can be seen from
the survey drawing submitted as part of the record, their deck is approximately 85 feet
from the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake.
Linds propose to replace their detached 24 by 24 foot garage, which is in need of
substantial repair, with a new garage in the same location, having dimensions of 24 by 34
feet. Linds are and have been parking three vehicles in and next to the existing garage,
so the new garage will not affect traffic congestion or safety but rather allow protection
from the elements for their third vehicle.
In order to build the new garage, Linds must seek a variance from the new zoning
ordinance provision which prohibits accessory buildings in the front yard of a lot, defined
as the area between the house and the street. In Linds' case, the front yard is more than
260 feet deep.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 2
October 13, 1999
Since Linds' "back" yard, between their house and the 75 foot setback line, is only
about 10 feet deep, only one alternative exists to Linds' proposal. The staff report
presented to the Planning Commission acknowledges that considerable grading and tree
removal would be required to attach or place a garage directly in front of the principal
structure to become the front building wall of the structure. Linds' builder, John Guzman,
estimated to the Planning Commission that the cost of the garage as proposed would be
approximately $20,000, while the cost of building it as an attachment to the home would
be approximately $50,000, which figure does not include modifications to the existing
house that would be necessary. As should be apparent from the enclosed photograph of
the front of Linds' home, forcing them to attach a new garage to the structure is not only
unreasonably expensive but would substantially diminish the attractiveness of the home
itself. Both Mr. Guzman and Mr. Lind testified that attaching the garage to the front of
the house is likely to worsen drainage problems that have already been experienced.
The alternative presented by staff is a detached garage in the side yard, but staff
acknowledged only a 13 foot wide garage would be allowed and this is thus not a
reasonable alternative.
No objections to the variance application were received from the DNR or members
of the public, to our knowledge. As is also apparent from the photographs submitted with
this letter, neither the existing garage nor the proposed garage is at all visible from the
street because of several mature trees that are present near the front lot line.
It apparently continues to be the position City staff and the Planning Commission
that variances should not be granted if any alternative, no matter how expensive,
impractical, or aesthetically deficient, exists. It is Linds' position that this defeats the
statutory aim of allowing municipalities some flexibility in the application of their zoning
codes. Rather, Linds believe the correct analysis includes an examination of whether the
applicants propose to make a reasonable use of their property that conflicts with the zoning
ordinance as written. There are at least three Minnesota Court of Appeals cases since
1989 that give the City Council authority to evaluate the proposed use and grant the
variances if the proposed use is determined to be reasonable, even if the land has other
possible uses without the variances.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 3
October 13, 1999
Minnesota cities have authority to grant variances in cases of "undue hardship",
which under Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2), exists where:
"[T]he 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 Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated three times, in Rowell v. City of
Moorhead, 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), Minnesota DNR v. Cottonwood Board
of Adjustment, 1992 WL 333585 (Minn. App.), and Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529
N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995), that the reference in the state statutes to "cannot be put
to a reasonable use" should be construed to mean that the landowner would like to put the
land to a reasonable use but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict
provisions of the zoning code.
The Sagstetter and DNR cases show how the statute is applied. In Sagstetter, S1.
Paul wanted to build domed softball fields in a city park and needed a variance from the
maximum allowed height under the zoning ordinance. Although the park could have been
used for other public and recreational purposes without issuance of a variance, the court
found that the domed softball fields were a reasonable use and upheld the variance. In the
DNR case, a landowner owned a lakeshore lot with a house and boathouse. The owner
wanted a building permit to construct a second floor storage area on his boathouse, but
needed a variance from the 75 foot lake shore setback. The owner could have constructed
the storage area within the house without a variance. The court upheld the grant of the
variance on the basis that the proposed improvement was a reasonable use stating:
"The provision defining "hardship", which requires that the property cannot be put
to a reasonable use, does not mean the property cannot be put to [any] reasonable
use without the variance. The intention of the statute is to give local governing
boards flexibility." [Emphasis added]
Prior Lake City Council
Page 4
October 13, 1999
Based upon the principles set forth in the Rowell, Sagstetter and DNR cases, we
believe that the City Council should find as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance will result in undue
hardship with respect to the Lind property because it will preclude construction of the
proposed garage, even though the proposed garage is a reasonable use of the property.
2. The undue hardship results from circumstances unique to the property because
the lot, unlike standard city lots at which the ordinance is directed, is 425 feet deep and
allows for replacement of the existing garage which is more than 55 feet from the lot line.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinance and is not the result of actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed use
of the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such
reasonable use.
4. The variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the proposed
garage is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the
neighborhood, does not increase traffic or endanger safety, and provides an enhancement
to the neighborhood as a whole.
The new zoning ordinance, going far beyond the statutory standards and obscuring
the reasonable use doctrine stated by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, purports to create
nine extra requirements for a variance applicant in addition to the four statutory factors,
and suggests that all factors must be satisfied before a variance may be granted. Linds
have a substantial disagreement with staff s application of these factors in its report to the
Planning Commission, stated as follows.
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 or 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.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 5
October 13, 1999
This is an exceptionally deep lot, unlike the standard size city lots at which the ordinance
is presumably directed. Rather than placement of a new structure where one never existed,
this is replacement of an existing structure which permits the house to stand on its own as
originally designed. Requiring the new garage to be attached to the house is inordinately
expensive, which while not determinative is a factor to be considered; and attachment of
the garage to the house would cause much greater inconvenience to the family and would
adversely affect the attractiveness of the home.
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 inconvenience, expense, aesthetic degradation and drainage problems to be caused by
attaching the garage to Linds' house, where this deep lot has an existing structure that
should be replaced where it is, are peculiar to Linds' property.
3 . The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The property owners have a right, under the variance statute as interpreted by the Court
of Appeals, to make a reasonable use of their property without being forced to an
expensive and impractical alternative simply because one exists.
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 public safety.
The net change to the property is a ten foot extension of a 24 foot wide garage which will
be slightly taller. As is evident from the photographs, trees already block the view of
neighboring property and there will be no increase in the number of vehicles kept at the
Lind property. Thus there is no danger to public safety.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably affect 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.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 6
October 13, 1999
Again, rather than placement of a new structure, this is essentially the replacement of an
existing one.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of this ordinance appears to be solely aesthetic and directed toward keeping
garages and other accessory structures a reasonable distance from streets; in fact it appears
to be primarily directed to standard size residential lots rather than one more than 400 feet
deep. Here the garage is, at minimum, more than 55 feet away from l50th Street and it
cannot be seen from the street.
7. The granting of a variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
This factor appears to be substantially the same as factor 1, and the same response is made.
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.
It is demonstrably unfair to dictate to a homeowner who owns a lot more than 400 feet
deep, with a home located near the lakeshore, that he may not use any of the more than
260 feet between his home and the road to place a garage. Linds did not build the home
or the garage and their present locations are appropriate for this property.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not
be grounds for granting a variance.
Far from being the sole reason, the additional cost, exceeding $50,000, is merely one
factor, along with all the others stated above, that demonstrate the unfairness of strictly
applying the ordinance in question to this property.
Prior Lake City Council
Page 7
October 13, 1999
When, as here, a citizen proposes to make a reasonable use of his property, the
Planning Commission is obligated to determine whether the proposed use is in fact
reasonable rather than deny it simply because an expensive and wholly unsatisfactory
alternative exists. It is only in this context that the flexibility in administration of local
zoning codes that is contemplated by the state zoning statute and the cited cases can be
achieved. Linds respectfully suggest that the Planning Commission did not fulfill its
responsibility in this regard, and ask the City Council to determine that the proposed
garage is a reasonable use of the Lind property and exercise its statutory authority to
approve the requested variance to permit construction of the garage.
~
James D. Bates
JD B: bj
Enclosure
cc: William and Connie Lind
View of Lind home, facing north to Prior Lake
View of existing garage facing south toward 150th Street
View toward existing garage, facing north from 150th Street
PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99-XX UPHOLDING
THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A
VARIANCE BY WILLIAM LIND TO LOCATE AN ACCESSORY GARAGE
BUILDING BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING WALL AND THE
FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD
AND REAR YARD.
***
October 18, 1999
RESOLUTION 99-20PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY
GARAGE BillLDING TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING
'VALL AND THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIDE
YARD OR REAR YARD.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. WILLIAM B. LIND has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit garage construction in the front yard located in the R-1 (Low Density
Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
6082 150TH STREET SE, PRIOR LAKE, MN, legally described as LOT 8 AND 9
EASTWOOD, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #99-62PC and held hearings thereon on SEPTEMBER 13, 1999.
3. The Board of Adjustment 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrolmding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. It is possible to construct an accessory structure on this lot in a location meeting the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The grade and existing structure locations do not constitute a hardship since a
reasonable use of the property does exist without the granting of the variance. The
proposed structure may be relocated and constructed without a variance.
I :\99fi1es\99var\99-062\20pcres.doc 1
16200 Ea.gle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a
convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
8. The contents of Planning Case #99-62PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for:
1. Permit an accessory garage building to be located between the front building wall and
the front lot line instead of the required side or rear yards.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 13, 1999.
An~
1:\99files\99var\99-062\20pcres.doc
2