Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.A.1. Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeal Denial of Setback Variance at 2460 Emerald Lane IS, fi. J. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-033 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II RE: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeal Denial of Setback Variance at 2460 Emerald Lane DATE: March 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION Leo and Cynthia Katzner have filed an appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of a side yard setback variance. The variance request from the Katzners was to allow approximately and 8.5 foot side yard setback where a 10 foot side yard setback is allowed. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing on the variance request at its February3, 2005, meeting, and by a 6-1, the Board denied the request. The Board determined that the request did not meet all of the criteria required for granting the variance. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the construction of an addition to their home. The property also has 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the side yard. The applicant has requested a vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easement that is proposed for the location of the home addition. The public hearing for this vacation is scheduled for City Council review on March 1, 2005. A copy of the staff report to the Board of Adjustment, which includes a draft recommendation of denial as well as address the initial request, is attached for the Council's reference. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant, thereby granting the requested variance, and direct staffto prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 3. Table the appeal for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution for action at the next meeting, and move its adoption. :l " ,ud rluvvt~ ul" lima PIa ner II g: \cc\2005\03-0 1 \appealkatznervariance. doc ~/~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-015 TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima, Planner IT SUBJECT: Setback Variance for 2460 Emerald Lane MEETING DATE: February 3,2005 REVIEW PERIOD: October 29,2004 - February 25,2005 SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Leo and Cynthia Katzner Property Owner: Leo and Cynthia Katzner Location: 2460 Emerald Lane Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone South: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone East: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone West: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone Compo Plan: Single Family Residential Lot Size: 12,480 square feet INTRODUCTION Leo and Cynthia Katzner have submitted an application requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback required to allow for construction of an addition to their existing home (please see Exhibits A and B). The proposed location of the addition would be along the west side of their property at 2460 Emerald Lane (please see Exhibits C and D). CONSIDERATIONS The Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone has a 10 foot minimum side yard setback requirement. This particular property also has a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along its side property lines. Setbacks are measured from property lines, so the easement area and setback area (in. this case) are the same. As a result, the applicant has also filed an application requesting the vacation of that portion ofthe easement in which the addition is proposed. The applicant has stfl.te.d that the variance is necessary because staying out of the easement/setback area would require the addition to be only 6 inches wide which is too narrow for a room. The applicant further notes that should the addition be constructed, the narrowest distance between the structure and the home next door would be approximately 23 feet rather than the 24 feet that currently exists. Staff believes that there is sufficient area on the property on which to construct an addition that could meet the setback requirements, and that the criteria required for the approval of a variance have not be met; therefore, staff is recommending denial of the request, as noted in the fmdings listed below. FINDINGS Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if aU of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: Criterion I The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding I.A. The property can and is being put to a reasonable use under the official controls, in that the property is being used for a single family residence which complies with the requirements of the City Code. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding J.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is not irregularly configured or encumbered by topographical elements which would create a hardship for the construction ofa home addition. l.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding J.c. The circumstances were created by the landowner due to the desired design, size and layout of the proposed addition. 1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding J.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding I.E. The considerations are not economic for this request. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning). Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request for a setback variance is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4 (Not applicable since no conditions are proposed.) Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria: ...... Finding 5 (Not applicable since the property is not within the floodplain overlay zone) ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 05-015, denying the variance to reduce the required setbacks to allow for construction of a home addition, with findings as proposed. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance with findings as proposed by the Board. 3. Continue the public hearing for additional infonnation. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that this request does not comply with required criteria and therefore, staff is recommending Alternative 1; approve Resolution No. 05-015, denying the variance to reduce the required setbacks to allow for construction of a home addition, with findings as proposed. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion approving Resolution No. 05-015, denying the variance with findings as proposed. RESOLUTION NO. PC05-0l5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS IN THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-lB) ZONE. WHEREAS, Leo and Cynthia Katzner, applicants and property owners, have filed an application for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section, n .89, to reduce the required setbacks to allow for construction of an addition to their home; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel ofland is presently zoned Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone; and WHEREAS, the legal description for the subj ect parcel of land for which the request is being made is: Lot 18, Block5, Hauer's lh Addition; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on February 3, 2005, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Variance is hereby DENIED, based on the following findings with respect to City Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances." Criterion I The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property uuder cousideration. Undue hardship means the following: l.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding LA. The property can and is being put to a reasonable use under the official controls, in that the property is being used for a single family residence which complies with the requirements of the City Code. 1.B. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding LB. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is not irregularly configured or encumbered by topographical elements which would create a hardship for the construction of a home addition. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1. C. The circumstances were created by the landowner due to the desired design. size and layout of the proposed addition. 1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding J.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitnte an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding I.E. The considerations are not economic for this request. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning). Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request for a setback variance is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Fil1ding 4 (Not applicable since no conditions are proposed.) Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria: ...... Finding 5 (Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone) Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of February, 2005. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. PCOS-OIS I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. PCOS-OIS, pres~nted to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of February, 2005, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of, 2005 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKO PEE 129 South Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1 6tH/B11 A _ \vr.-/\ \ I / 1"---- ~ ~^ ((/\ \ \ ~ i II ~ V /' ~ '- l / I ~ ,,'" \ .'" ............ l ,\/\ ,"'- \/~~'-I. I / ~ \ ,\ .,..""....,;oc-..",..,....,,",,""--. "'- l ' "- A \ > ) /(\ nn_- r--... ~- I I I . , \ "". \ .. ,,", ,......... I ,"" \~ Y /1]) \ ,I li(;~ / / [ .-/ ,~, /"" _..... r'1"~ --J. 1. I ....,.,.... -......... . ....... \ ~., --i' \ -- ...- ........ I ",......... / .(fI: .,../ _~ ....... f......... A~ \/" \ ~ll I~ I I 7'~ . /'" ~.\, ""......"", '-, \ - I ' "- " ~.... V);~ \ ~ 8M8. tlL I / 1 "r--L I r-... \. ..../- \ ~\ //...,)\ ./--- P t,-- I l........~ j / -\./\ \ j . ~ ~'ZJ / -~ \~v -z./ I" ---z../ I IT \ y-- I 1'- I ~' ," I / --!... / f''''-.... "-oJ................/.. I '. I.. .. I "'f .... I RIB I /~ / /.,.............~ _I I L- -...., ~..... I ...-1..___.... I .~RtB ,eL) 1'\- "/1-'" '- r~- ~-I I i 1-- I I I I ,/ A It---- ^' -\ '-'L I . ,.,., II _~ ~ ~ ..' _ Subject Property SHAKOPEE ...... Shakopee Boundary COMMUNrCYPRlOf.StNCE 1tI57 S c=J Zoning Boundary D Parcel Boundary Variance to side yard setbacks and Vacation of Easement },ttn' /Ia; s.lo!2:is.org/shakopee/locationmap/map.asp?tit1e=V ariance+to+side+yard+setback... 12/21/2004 1I'l PETERS. PRICE & SAMSON 'LAND SURVEYORS. LTD. 12400 PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTH. SAVAGE. MINNESOTA 55378. 612.890.9201 Certificate Of Survey !For B & D DEVELOPMENT --". --- . .--_...-...~~~::.:;;:.,.: ' - '~.>' .." --. -...-... - .. '-- , ~ 'N /WrJ . ,'""- . : I.~ I~' ----- /I~ Jot F~,' tll '-1- f - _ it I a' . I / 7 N. ;, Prop.s..!, '='-!//j ~..",.I<, .8<1M -, Ii ~~ f No 11..-. C G OI{Se.: -.:. \ . . :-h... )'1<1, ~~ I ::: . -J'"! Bea.ri.np,s are assumed ...;:j: I" 'Ig' ;1 ill ~4, 0 Denotes iron .IDonumen t : ~-... ~OQ..2 ~ \ ~ 10 cy~ ,0 I \ ~ & .!e""'~ ~ ~ ~'1i 'I. i ul;/i~/.f. / I ~ ~ I' .j~' (J '(\ ~o or e ' , ' ,. ~ , or {"p-\ / x '1'1'1.'+ Denotes eXlstlug elevat~on . V pc . J ~'a,g Denote. proposed elevatwn i 1 " ~ i b .'" L------ gOO.'"}'! 8,M. 'oF N~T 0 l-/jd. . c )I ~ $2 ,......_...,,0.1- ,N..v~.~::.:~.~,~~.~.~,.o~yY. +L)""'e~to\O'e. a ~,~ 70.00 I p\",o poSe;; d TDp~; \3 lock ~ N 89047'30"W Pro f".:sed. Ga.rase .s-IClb fl~tI, GiO;8j) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ... . "" .-~-~"- LOT 18~ BLOCK 5 HAUER'S 4TH ADDITION, - SCOTT COUNTY. MIN'SESOTA. We heretly certify thai this Is a true and correcl representation ot a survey 01 the bOundaries a/the abOve descritled land, an<! o! the location of all build"" lhe">OI\ ,,'" .11 VI'f~ ,",n,.el,me'18, " .ny, "om., on "'d "nd~ ~ / ~ l..S. As surveyed by us thi; 15;,.. day 01 Jv I?.L 19 ~ ~ Minnesota license No. /4890 FYHIBlr C- Leo & Cynthia Katzner 2460 Emerald Lane Shakopee,MN Lot 18, Block 5 ~ ..- ,,,- , .... .,...~ .-.' Hauer's 4th Addition - .. .... Emerald Lane M.~ I ...-- - - -- - - u ~ 'u ~ gj 't:l '" :s ..cl - ~ I '" '" .~ / '" Ii E 7 :.a ..... / 0 e / ::s '" / '" ;:J / ./ ./ ------ - "C %~ --- See Attached Enlargement I eXfllBrr D I I \ Bnla gement \ I Addi ion to House I 2460 Emerald Lane I Lot 18. Block 5 - L- ". . ,...~_._.- . ,- (l) Hau r's 4'" Addition . ~ I ~ I · ~ .~ I IH HI I~ ~l I 24 23 ft Q.)l I (1J I 001 I ~I I I I I 7.50ft I I I 22.77-E \ \ 13. Oft I I \ , \ I f \ \ II \ \ \ I \ II i \ II \ \ I ! II i I II '.