Loading...
Variances - 2401 Black Lake Road - 5/28/2021 (2)OCT-30-2002 13:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.01iO3 dM W= NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE® CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suits 556, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile_ 952-595.9837 plannersQo nacptanning.corn MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Weeks FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 7Octobe'r-30�2002 RE: Spring Park — Non -Conforming Lot on Black Lake Road FILE NO: 175.01 — General Per our discussions on October 29th, you inquired as to what the expandability option for the house located on a Parcel B along Black Lake Road may be. Apparently, some interest has been given to the acquisition of the lot with inquiries regarding the expansion of the house or the replacement of the house as exists today. I have reviewed the survey that you sent and offer the following comments. The site is zoned R-1 which requires a 30 foot front yard setback from Black Lake Road, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Additionally, the building must be setback 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Black Lake. Exceptions to the front yard setback may be given where existing buildings along the same block fail to meet the required 30 foot setback. Then the setback shall be the average setback of those homes within the same block. This may make the existing house conforming in relation to the properties to the south. Before we give any recommendations or direction to a potential property buyer, we should receive a new survey that illustrates the following: 1. Property lines. 2. Setback from the Black Lake Road right-of-way. 3. Setback of other homes within the same block from Black Lake Road. 4. Designation of the ordinary high water mark for Black Lake with the required 50 foot setback. 5. Illustrations of existing easements that may encumber the property. 6. We should also see topographic contours that would illustrate any limitations to the property use. �In Poor Quality Document Disclaimer The original or copy of a document or page of a document presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or faxing needs. OCT-30-2002 13:57 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02iO3 I believe there are opportunities for this property to be purchased and renovated in accordance with the City ordinance, however, any expansion plans would have to illustrate future setbacks. Please call me with any further questions. 2 Date Z- 21-03 Fee ($100) �tlee -= APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF SPRING PARK Name of Property Owner CZRAfIAM IV EVE Address of Property Owner ssc,o 6ASry1EwAvg. MOUND, fiN ss36t Phone Street Location of Property 2 4o l BLAc - cAI_ Rp, s F tN(;rPa ex , MN ss 39¢ Legal Description of Property SEE ATT,4cHMENT Description of Request ';_c�,- c;JA P X,5 .,�� rfa✓sue �;,��( ��E/� cih r.� Reason (Hardship) For Request 7!C ! �,� C_c 5;9,%w rl; .,:yC' ,F L �r :;ice i E.- -terr ly% ,� I t\ tnc+ (et 4 a,:_ Lcl",ie ihL h0Us e- HARDSHIP: "A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT IS UNIQUE TO A PARCEL OF LAND, NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, THAT PROHIBITS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL UNDER CONDITIONS ALLOWED BY THE OFFICIAL CONTROLS. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP IF A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE." Has a request for a variance on the subject site of any part thereof been previously sought? Yes or No X If yes, when? Requirements: Application, Survey, Fee Paid Processing Time: Approximately Six (6) Weeks Attach a survey showing the location of the proposed building in relation to lot lines, other buildings on the property and buildings on adjoining properties in relation to lot lines, locations of street(s), location(s) of all easements on the property. Survey must be current (depicts all existing structures apd includes above information). 11 Applicant's Signature = Approved or Denied Reason (if denied) by the Planning Commission on Approved or Denied by the City Council on Reason (if denied) Special Provisions A building permit must be applied for within one (1) year from the date of approval of this variance or it becomes null and void. z400 W- tj �- � i oo�' i \ t� co 0 0 13, 50.20 S 87024 00 W — 0 1 0 3— �` , J I l r ,;;: cn a0 N � o 2s70 of 1 I 1 4 I. — q (� t,AvJrl 83 2 g 3101w r ao,, i 5. 10 `� cj r ; 'yid• rb',i;:.•:. `7 S8jo50'491E-- onka and the North Half of—70•67 `'= Allows: All that .part of said Lot -- � • .: . $0 feet south of the northeast T... Y :h line thereof and'that art of - - Nam.. CITY OF SPRING PART{ SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PI ANNING`ICOMMISSION = f�MAiZCII=2G,: 2003:.: a?�, 7:30 P.M. — CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Karpas called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Karpas, Klein, Hughes, Adrian and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Nelson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy Clerk gave the oath of office to Gary Hughes, and Mike Adrian. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 12, 2003 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: NOTICE hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday March 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Planning Commission — 3/26/03 1 possible at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request to demolish a nonconforming house and rebuild on the same foundation. Graham Neve 2401 Black Lake Road PID 18-117-23-43-0185 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted at the meeting March 1, 2003 the rescheduled public hearing would be March 26, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC — 3/7/03 Paul Fadell was present representing Graham Neve because Neve is out of town. Karpas asked the exact variances from the street and the water. Hughes said they are approximately 18 feet from Black Lake Road and approximately 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Karpas pointed out the lot is an unusually shaped lot. It was noted the variance request is to tear down the existing structure and build a new structure on the footprint. Adrian asked if it would be built on a concrete slab and was told it will be. Fadell commented it is possible some walls may be reused if they are salvageable. Karpas read the recommendation from Planner and gave an overview of the proposed variance request. It was noted the Planner stated the lot is not a buildable lot. Klein asked if there were plans to build a deck. Fadell said not at this time because there is no place to go without a variance. Klein asked the square footage of the structure and was told 880 square feet. Hughes asked if there was a reason his name is not on the application. Fadell said Neve has done most of the work so far. Klein noted the application states the previous owner was told by an engineer that the existing structure is not safe to build on and this was known when the house was purchased. William Bartell, 2398 Black Lake Road asked what Fadell was going to do with the existing well on the property because it should be capped. Adrian asked if anything was going to be done by the retaining wall. Fadell said they hope to put in some landscaping but right now posts are placed there by the City. Klein asked how much higher the structure will be and she was told approximately 5 feet. Hughes asked if there was going to be a bedroom upstairs. Fadell said there would be a loft bedroom. Adrian referred to the garage door and asked if a Plannirgg-Commission� 3/26/0� 03� 2 garage is there and will it be used. Fadell said there will be no garage and the current garage door will be refinished for character. Adrian also asked where the parking would be. Fadell said there is room in the driveway for two cars. Anderson verified the structure would go on the same footprint. Klein asked if a walkout is being considered and was told yes. Having no further discussion the public hearing was closed. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Karpas seconded by Adrian to close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Karpas said he is in support this variance request because of the planner's statements and feels the best plan for this structure is the one presented. Klein asked what the neighbors think and Fadell said they support it. Hughes said he is concerned with the time frame because he has looked at the unkempt property for 4 years. Fadell said they hope to have it finished by August. Hughes referred to the Zoning Ordinance Section 7, page 80, Subd C, 7. "Notifications to the Department of Resources". He said if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to the Council he would like this segment of the ordinance researched before any Council approval. Motion by Anderson seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council approval of the variance request for Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road, to demolish the house and rebuild on the same footprint with the above -mentioned condition. In discussion Karpas noted the variance: will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; it will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion; it will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Variance Request — Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell Avenue 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: PlanningCommission - 3/26/03 Apr. 7, 2003 - 2002 - 2003 - Spring Park Page 2 of 7 O Full Site b) Council Special Meeting — 4/1/03 O This Section $Faint Tics Printer -friendly Version Motion by Stone seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting April 1, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carved unanimously. Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Planning-Commission.Minute3/26/03 -- t Variance Request — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road a) NAC — 3/6/03 Graham,Neve and4Paul Fadellwerew present. Rockvam read the Planning Commission's discussion on the variance request from the minutes of their meeting. Rockvam asked Neve if he is going to save a wall. Neve said he is if possible. Rockvam said the variance request is to tear down the structure and now Neve stated he wants to save one wall. Neve pointed out there may be an 8-foot wall that is the only wall to code and if it is not to code (with 12' block) it will be tom down. Rockvam said if the variance request is to tear down the structure then if granted it would have to be torn down. Neve stated access has to be dug two feet around the old foundation to put in a new foundation. Rockvam asked if this was what the variance was based on or is it based on the old foundation and what is going to be done with the old foundation. Neve said the old foundation will be hauled away and the new foundation will be in the current location but to access it to build a new one, it will have to be dug 2 feet out. He also inquired about the well on the property. Neve said the realty company paid to have it capped and he will obtain the receipt with the number for it. Rockvam asked what the setback is for the variance request. Neve said the request is to tear down the current structure and build on the same footprint. Rockvam asked what the setback differences were. Weeks explained that rather than itemize them the request was to build on the same footprint. Williamson said after the tear down the footprint will not be seen. Weeks said it is on the survey. Williamson stated he is concerned that exact descriptive measurements are needed and a variance request approval must be precise. Rockvam pointed out the structure is 38.5 feet from the lake. Weeks said if the Council sees fit the staff will figure exact measurements. Rockvam said exact figures are needed on the variance request. The Council briefly discussed the distances of the structure to the street and the ordinary high water mark. Rockvam asked if hardcover is an issue. Weeks said it has not been calculated but the structure is 840 square feet, which is 12% of the lot. Rockvam said we should have exact measurements and need hardcover calculations. He also stated this was supposed to go to the DNR and we were not aware of this. Weeks said the reason in the Planner's analysis is to replace http://www.ci.spring-park.nm.us/index.asp?Type=B BASIC&arnD SEC=IODEED270-E... 11 /21 /2013 Apr. 7, 2003 - 2002 - 2003 - Spring Park Page 3 of 7 what is there and not enlarge the structure. Rockvam said a variance couldn't be granted without specific measurements. Hoffman asked the Council if in theory they had a problem with the variance request and there seemed to be an agreement there was no problem except for the wording without measurements. Rockvam asked Neve to have his surveyor get the exact measurements and hardcover calculations. Weeks askedifahisFctiriiitrria�nn`tio_R �rn�^ rd_nf R �e;., the house. 2. Recommendation Re: Planters Weeks stated he has received a written quote from Often Brothers and another quote is being sent from Dundee Nursery. Weeks said he is satisfied that Norling's proposal is the most competitive. Rockvam said Noriing was asked for a breakdown of costs if we purchased the planters from the factory ourselves. It was learned if the City purchased them directly, the City would have to arrange shipping, coordinate loading and unloading, and any breakage would be our responsibility, and we would have to hire someone to unload the planters when they are delivered, etc. Rockvam pointed out the City has three planters now and is looking at other locations on Shoreline and three other locations have been identified, Bayview, Edgewater Apartments and Black Lake Road. He reviewed the proposal has been discussed with budget restraints particularly considered and a decision, if any, has yet to be made. Rockvam asked the Council if they were ready to vote on the proposal. Widmer said she is ready to move forward on the proposal but would like to see it cut back to 6 new planters instead of 9 new ones, two on the west end by Bayview and then by Black Lake Road. Williamson pointed out plantings are placed around the City welcome signs that also add color. (Weeks pointed out the new surface flowerbeds are marked on chart.) Motion by Widmer seconded by Hoffman to approve the purchase two of each size planter for a total of six. In discussion Williamson asked if we could get them for the same unit price with a reduction in the quantity and he was told yes. Stone said she would prefer to wait one full season of maintenance on the first three and to see what is going to happen with state aid cuts. Williamson said not all costs are proportionate but it is fair to think the figures are close and he agrees with Widmer that efforts should be in high visibility areas and that is why we have done what we have so far. He added Stone raises a good point and we have to be watchful of how we spend our dollars and keep in reasonable parameters. He said he is supportive of the motion. Stone noted not all residents are aware the City receives funds from the http://www.ci.spring-park.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&amp; SEC= {ODEED270-E... 11 /21 /2013 c) Close Public Hearing Motion by Widmer seconded by Stone to close the public hearing and adjourn the Board of Review at 7:50 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam noted the roll remained the same for the remaining Council business. 5. MISCELLANEOUS a) Approval of Council Minutes — April 7, 2003 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting April 7, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 1. Variance Request Continuation, Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road a)_ Resolution 03-10 Approving Variance for 2401 Black Lake Road Subject to Conditions Weeks said the Council asked for specific measurements and the applicant submitted a revised survey showing those measurements. Rockvam read the conditions in the resolution that reflects all of the dimensions. He clarified to Neve the structure will be totally replaced. Widmer asked the status of the capped well. Rockvam said the receipt for the capped well should be one of the conditions. Motion by Hoffman seconded by Stone to approve Resolution 03-10, approving the variance for 2401 Black Lake Road subject to conditions with the addition of the receipt for the capped well. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Establish Workshop Date With Engineer Re: Water Tower Weeks said possible dates for this meeting are April 23rd or 30a'. Hoffman suggested coordinating this meeting on the same day as the Adjourned Board of Review. Weeks will coordinate this and notify the Council. In another matter Rockvam asked if there was anything new from the legislature regarding budget cuts and was told no. He inquired about parking at Bayview Apartments. He said they have one extra parking place and all the other spaces are designated for parking cars not for storage of boats and trailers. Weeks noted the Police Commission Meeting is cancelled as both Sgt. Erickson and Chief Good are out of town. Rockvam asked for an update on the trailer in the parking lot on the corner of Sunset and Shoreline. Weeks said he has spoken with the owner and Board of Review — 4/14/03 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, NIINNESOTA RESOLUTIONL 1�0 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 2401 BLACK LAKE ROAD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHEREAS Graham Neve (the applicant) has requested a variance to property at 2401 Black 'Lake Road to demolish a deteriorating non -conforming residential structure and rebuild a new residential structure on the same footprint in an R-1 District; and WHEREAS the Spring Park Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 26, 2003 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS the City Planner in a memo dated March 6, 2003 recommended approval; and WHEREAS a current survey dated April 8, 2003 has been submitted; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve this variance request and the applicant may construct.(after securmg_necessary..pfM its) a WW reSidimlial Ruch re 2124.01 Black Lake Road subject to the following conditions: A) Structure shall be built on same footprint of existing structure. B) Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%) may not be increased. C) A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on northeast corner and 15.7 feet on southeast corner is approved. D) A setback variance of 0.7 feet from west elevation (sideyard setback) is approved. E) A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (Ordinary High Water Mark setback) is approved. F) Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK ON THIS 14th DAY OF April , 2003. ADM ZSTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Fee $250 Date Paid - I - 0 ro APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF SPRING PARK Cry v `� °M� 4349 WARREN AVENUE SPRING PARK, MN 55384 Name of Property Owner XrC4 � Cn 1nA N z.V e, Address of Property Owner Ac::. i L�J a Ck I cc J=e Phone Q-, 1 ` - Street Location of Property Legal Description of Property S Et A Tr, 4 c Description of Request IJ a_ L.JaL , /6c4 ct doc-/c Reason (Hardship) For Request �if �.S �iu ail L1 a vt �I f+L� 1 Azle. v.�vC r• r .i k- a; HARDSHIP: "A PHYSICAL HARACTERISTIC THAT IS UNIQUE TO A PARCEL OF , NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, THAT PROHIBITS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL UNDER CONDITIONS ALLOWED BY THE OFFICIAL CONTROLS. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP IF A REASONABLE USE OF ` THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE." Has a re`uest for a variance on the subject site of any part thereof been previously sought? Yes h or No If yes, when? F, 6 . -s Requirements: Application, Survey, Fee Paid Processing Time: Approximately Six (6) Weeks Attach a survey showing the location of the proposed building in relation to lot lines, other buildings on the property and buildings on adjoining properties in relation to lot lines, locations of street(s), location(s) of all easements on the property. Survey must be current (depicts all existing struc .eludes�above information). / Applicant's Signature - 7— ?y ­ o Approved or Denied by the Planning Commission on Reason (if denied) Approved or Denied by the City Council on Memo Date: August 22, 2006 RE: Variance Request To: Property Owners within 350 Feet of 2401 Black Lake Road Dear Property Owner, This notice is being sent to you to comply with the provisions of the City Ordinance that written notification of a hearing shall be mailed to all owners of land within 350 of the boundary of the property in question. Your property is within that 350 foot radius. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE APPLICATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 7 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request for: Lot area, setbacks, and impervious surface for a proposed addition of an attached deck and an unattached garage to the residence at 2401 Black Lake Road. Graham Neve & Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road 118-117-23-43-0185 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Published in the Laker Newspaper August 26, 2006) MEMO Date: 08-02-06 To: NAC, Al/Dan From: Sarah/Wendy RE: Variance Application 2401 Black Lake Road Al/Dan: Jessica Neve, wife to Graham Neve, property owner at 2401 Black Lake Road, dropped off an application for variance request on 7-21-06 for 2401 Black Lake Road. Neves are proposing to build an attached deck to the residence and an unattached garage. Attached to the application is a survey with the proposals hand drawn in blue ink. As noted by the Neves in the application, the location that works best for the proposed garage is on top of a sewer line easement. The present home at 2401 Black Lake Road is a recent build (2003) after a tear down of an old structure. At that time, a variance was required due to the non -conforming lot. Attached you will find several documents as they relate to the original variance request and resulting resolution 03-10. I believe the attached application and various documents will explain what Neves are proposing at this time. (Preliminarily, when DJ was asked his opinion whether a variance would be possible for the unattached garage, without seeing the application or paperwork, DJ's initial thoughts were it would be highly improbable due to the difficulties presented earlier with the tear - down and re -build.) Thank you for looking this application for variance over and we look forward to your opinion. SF/WL 0_4 '_2 I ti S C r" CO s N0R,TH.W'k4T ASSOCIATED CONSIJI.TANT,S_, INC., 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan nersCnacplanning.com MEMORANDUM DATE: August -28,j2Q063 TO: Spring Park Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien RE: 2401 Black Lake Road- Variance Request NAC FILE: 175.01-06.08 DATE RECEIVED: July 21, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE:September 19, 2006 BACKGROUND Graham and Jessica Neve have submitted an application for a variance to construct a deck and a detached garage on their property, located at 2401 Black Lake Road. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirements, impervious surface requirement, and to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. ANALYSIS The subject site is a 6,926 square foot lot with a storm sewer easement extending from east towest along the south portion of the property. The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a 333 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck on the southeast corner of the home. The lot is legally non -conforming with a total buildable area of 6,034 square feet. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for single family homes in the R-1 District. The site contains a single family home which was constructed in 2003 with the approval of variances to the street setback, the ordinary high water mark setback, and the side yard setback. Said variances were approved on April 14, 2003 through Resolution 03-10 (Exhibit D). According to the resolution, this variance as approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure shall be built on the same footprint of existing structure. 2. Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%), may not be increased. 3. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner is approved. 4. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback) is approved. 5. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback) is approved. 6. Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. The City Council minutes (April 7, 2003) and Planning Commission minutes (March 26, 2003) related to this approval reflect concerns regarding any future construction of a deck or garage. The applicant responded by stating that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The conditions of the site, including the amount of surface parking, have not changed. Easement. The City's policy is to prohibit any encroachments into easements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 333 square foot detached garage within a storm sewer easement. Storm sewer easements are granted by property owners for the use of a portion of land for the benefit of others. In this case, the easement is occupied by a City storm sewer easement. The construction of a garage within this easement would prohibit the City from having direct access to the storm sewer facility. Any maintenance or construction would require that the garage be torn down at the expense of the property owner in order to access the facilities. Setback Requirements. The following table illustrates the setback requirements of the R-1 District. The proposed garage deviates from these requirements, as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Front Yard/Street 30 feet 9.5 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 5 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 38 feet The southwest corner of the site has approximately 55 feet of shoreline along Lake Minnetonka's Black Lake and thus, the garage must adhere to the ordinary high water mark setback. The applicant is requesting setback variances in addition to what was originally approved in 2003 (Exhibit D). Resolution 03-10 approved the following setback variances: A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). The applicant is now requesting a more significant variance to the side yard setback, as well as the front yard/street setback. The proposed front yard setback would require a variance of 20.5 feet, as opposed to the 17.8 feet originally approved. The side yard setback would require a variance of five feet, an increase from the 0.7 foot variance approved in 2003. No deck or garage was proposed with the original application. If the City were aware of the future intentions at the time of approval, they may have recommended an alternate design. In addition to requiring a number of setback variances, the proposed garage location presents safety concerns. The garage is proposed a mere 9.5 feet from Black Lake Road. This location is too close to the street to allow for safe access, and does not provide adequate space for any car to be parked in front of the garage. The garage would also encroach into the south setback toward the neighboring property to the south. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Placing the deck in any alternate location would require additional setback variances. The proposed location is consistent with the setbacks of the existing home and appears to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Impervious Surface. In the R-1 District, as defined by the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. The applicants' lot size, including the area under the ordinary high water mark, allows for a maximum of 2,090 square feet of impervious surface. The site currently contains the maximum 30 percent surface coverage. The majority of the proposed garage structure will be located on the existing bituminous drive. However, a triangular portion of the garage, approximately 57.7 feet in area, will be located to the south of the driveway, increasing the impervious surface. The surface of the proposed deck is assumed to be constructed of slatted flooring, allowing water to drain through the surface. Thus, the deck will not have an impact on the impervious surface. Impervious surface on the lot includes: Impervious Surface Proposed Area House 858 sf Detached garage 58 sf Driveway & walks* 1,232 sf Total 2,147.7 sf Allowed 2,090 sf Variance requested 57.7 sf Based on the elements listed above, a lot coverage variance would also be required. The existing single family home was approved via Resolution 03-10, adopted on April 14, 2003 (Exhibit D). Condition B of this resolution states that approval of the variance request was subject to the condition that the total existing hardcover of the site, which was at 30 percent, may not be increased. The addition of the garage would increase the total impervious surface of the site to 31 percent, exceeding the maximum requirement and violating the conditions of approval in Resolution 03-10. However, the garage may be positioned in an alternate location to avoid the need for a variance. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. In order to approve a request for variance, the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make a finding of fact that the granting of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Summary of Variance Issues The subject site is a small, non -conforming lot which required a number of setback variances for the construction of a single family home in 2003. The applicant has now requested additional variances to the setback requirements, a variance to the maximum impervious surface requirement, and is requesting to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. The lot is a typical Spring Park lot and does not appear to have any unique conditions to justify the granting of a variance. The existing home on the site is non -conforming, and was approved with variances. As a condition of approval for these variances, the total hardcover of the site may not be increased. The applicant is proposing to increase the hardcover of the site by 1 %. CONCLUSION The following variances have been requested: • Side yard setback variance- 5 feet • Front yard setback- 20.5 feet • Ordinary high water mark setback- 12 feet • Impervious surface coverage- 57.7 square feet • Construction within a storm sewer easement In order to grant a variance, it must be determined that an undue hardship exists. The circumstances of the property do not seem to indicate a hardship. When the existing home was approved in 2003, the Planning Commission was concerned with the potential future construction of a deck and/or garage. At that time, the applicant stated that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The applicant is now requesting both a deck and garage on the site. The proposed garage requires all setback variances listed above. Both the side yard variance and the front yard variance would be significantly greater than what was originally approved for the site. The proposed garage would also be located within a storm sewer easement. It is the City's policy not to allow any structures within such easements, as they would create a significant obstacle for any maintenance of the storm sewer facility. Furthermore, the garage would increase the impervious surface of the site and a present safety concern, as it is proposed a mere 9.5 feet from Black Lake Road. RECOMMENDATION The proposed deck meets all code requirements and is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the deck as proposed. However, staff has a number of concerns relating to the proposed garage. The detached garage violates condition B of Resolution 03-10, in that it would increase the impervious surface of the site. The garage also requires variances to the shoreland setback, front yard setback, and side yard setback. The requested front yard and side yard setbacks are more non -conforming than the setbacks approved with the construction of the existing home in 2003. The front yard setback proposes safety issues with no convenient access onto Black Lake Road. The side yard setback encroaches onto the neighboring property, leaving only five feet between the garage and the property line. The garage is also proposed within a storm sewer easement. A storm sewer pipe currently runs under the proposed garage location. Any maintenance or construction to this pipe would require that the garage be removed at the owner's expense. Staff believes that it may be appropriate for the applicant to pursue an alternate location on the site that would locate the garage closer to the existing home, or possibly attach the garage to the principle structure. Staff is not familiar with the details regarding the design of the home, or how an attached garage would function in relation to the principal structure design. However, relocating the garage to a location closer to the home may reduce the impact on the neighboring property and the storm sewer easement, and allow for a longer driveway to eliminate safety concerns. An alternate location would also allow the garage to meet setback requirements and may allow the applicant to remove a portion of the bituminous driveway to reduce the impervious surface. Any alternate design would be evaluated on its own merits. The proposed garage requires a number of variances and no hardship has been proven. As such, staff does not recommend approval of .the variances for the detached garage as presented. If the City finds that a hardship has been proven and the variance requests are appropriate, staff recommends that any recommendation of approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard surface on the site shall be reduced to 30%. 2. The garage shall be relocated outside of the easement in a manner that also reduces the impact on the neighboring property owner to the south. 3. The garage shall be downsized to meet the setback variances previously approved for the site. Exhibits A. Site plan/survey B. City Council minutes from April 7, 2003. C. Planning Commission minutes from March 26, 2003. D. Resolution 03-10 -4WW. � "- -- - - c z N O O w 0 C W A Ap- , 440 49 U low f ��h l �S � r f +K 0: ;�, ��` .- � .-'�- . . � '` fin' :�: - '� - `, !! ', ,�' •r. ;r a %� , �'- .;- � , :..� -` .� - �t ���-.. �,. � �-, �,�--.� .�, .� ` r -� r .'t.4� ._ iiiago son .1�74L I ■E .+ J i {�� �� \ ♦ � � �' �j/�i _ 1 ,�` f � - a yor &d�r- ;�D w4lam / -VO5;? ' ZAIP/ 13 ar- ZA54C AzO fie, xrl,,vwze- z-et& ( v e-r- Ap � tvR- 1 7/ 41P 3-- - ,25;vl';Le� .4 v ,.w u _ � � -.�, ,_ _:a fib► ti .°�• .^.yam �� ��' ,� � t,� 'r� k „ew '34t- e-r— pp 5COAI MOW” 310"Vo Y'� � , � ��I!! � ' - }I . ' � �' � � • i.; 1' 1 . � �� ; � i _. : � > qvl AO .�A 66L 4�-)b 0 I ♦ a A `or a RM t• w s • w r r- i r _ � �` ; t _ � � �O ��� ALL. _""'�•� �. �~ 41 � ;• i ~a�4e�•- � ` ��� t.. tom' ?r'"'r y 1 4val i1 ( , t •y :,♦ � � 3 Y1 - id 4i�. i �t 11��`. , s � `F ,W*_ �. I ft , AV -- J• . -, . r`7!; �'• � '� .a �� ``� � � =.�. y-. , `� - -, s � __. ��,� �', s., u • J � � �a R • � .�" � • l el .j � ���� .,d_r•~ ,vim. i�.i � � » r 0, ~ _ ` a " ''F�fC+ ,,• I, JAL, A .. .qy �: oha �. Aft 16 `�� • lVWnEw—mrU. iNIM , pws-� 4bw. Zs ph �► .. �• ' �. .� 1 , • ��.� A � �� � h�l� '.`� L ? "`' fy c ` � ` w � 1 ��� " �R� _-ziG' ;_ _ a _ Sri 3 w ". y,� y� . ,� �. �• .. t �+' y;� .. ��� Y � E-A 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 703.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM DATE: SSeptember 1.4,,32006 4 t20" TO: Spring Park Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien RE: 2401 Black Lake Road- Variance Request NAC FILE: 175.01-06.08 DATE RECEIVED: July 21, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE: September 19, 2006 BACKGROUND Graham and Jessica Neve have submitted an application for a variance to construct a deck and a detached garage on their property, located at 2401 Black Lake Road. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirements and to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. ANALYSIS The subject site is a 6,926 square foot lot with a storm sewer easement extending from east to west along the south portion of the property. The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck on the southeast corner of the home. The lot is legally non -conforming with a total buildable area of 6,034 square feet. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for single family homes in the R-1 District. The site contains a single family home which was constructed in 2003 with the approval of variances to the street setback, the ordinary high water mark setback, and the side yard setback. Said variances were approved on April 14, 2003 through Resolution 03-10 (Exhibit D). According to the resolution, this variance as approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure shall be built on the same footprint of existing structure. 2. Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%), may not be increased. 3. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner is approved. 4. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback) is approved. 5. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback) is approved. 6. Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. The City Council minutes (April 7, 2003) and Planning Commission minutes (March 26, 2003) related to this approval reflect concerns regarding any future construction of a deck or garage. The applicant responded by stating that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The conditions of the site, including the amount of surface parking, have not changed. Easement. The City's policy is to prohibit any encroachments into easements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot, two -stall, detached garage within a storm sewer easement. Storm sewer easements are granted by property owners for the use of a portion of land for the benefit of others. In this case, the easement is occupied by a City storm sewer pipe. The construction of a garage within this easement would prohibit the City from having direct access to the storm sewer facility. Any maintenance or construction would require that the garage be torn down at the expense of the property owner in order to access the facilities. Setback Requirements. The following table illustrates the setback requirements of the R-1 District. The proposed garage deviates from these requirements, as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Front Yard/Street 30 feet 12 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 8.25 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 45 feet The southwest corner of the site has approximately 55 feet of shoreline along Lake Minnetonka's Black Lake and thus, the garage must adhere to the ordinary high water mark setback. The applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in addition to what was originally approved in 2003 (Exhibit D). Resolution 03-10 approved the following setback variances: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast comer. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). The applicant is now requesting a more significant variance to the front yard/street setback. The proposed front yard setback would require a variance of 18 feet, as opposed to the 17.8 feet originally approved. A more significant side yard setback is also proposed, increasing the required variance to 1.75 feet. A variance of five feet from the ordinary high water mark setback would also be required. However, this variance is less significant than what was approved in 2003. In addition to requiring a setback variance, the proposed garage location presents safety concerns. The garage is proposed a mere twelve feet from Black Lake Road. This location is too close to the street to allow for safe access, and does not provide adequate space for any car to be parked in front of the garage. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Placing the deck in any alternate location would require additional setback variances. The proposed location is consistent with the setbacks of the existing home and appears to meet the requirements of the ordinance. No deck or garage was proposed with the original application. If the City were aware of the future intentions at the time of approval, they may have recommended an alternate design. Impervious Surface. In the R-1 District, as defined by the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. The applicants' lot size, including the area under the ordinary high water mark, allows for a maximum of 2,090 square feet of impervious surface. The site currently contains the maximum 30 percent surface coverage. Impervious surface currently on the lot includes: Impervious Surface Proposed Area House 8 Driveway& walks* 8 sf 1,252 sf Total 2,090 sf The existing single family home was approved via Resolution 03-10, adopted on April 14, 2003 (Exhibit D). Condition B of this resolution states that approval of the variance request was subject to the condition that the total existing hardcover of the site, which was at 30 percent, may not be increased. The proposed garage is located entirely on the existing drive, and will not increase the impervious surface of the site. The applicant is also proposing to remove approximately 200 square feet of the existing driveway. Removal of this hardcover will decrease the amount of impervious surface to 27%. Building Height. The applicant has indicated that the proposed garage will be two stories, with the second floor utilized for storage. The applicant has not provided a floor plan or elevations for the garage. Structures in the R-1 District are restricted to a height of 35 feet. The proposed garage shall be required to adhere to this standard. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. In order to approve a request for variance, the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make a finding of fact that the granting of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Summary of Variance Issues The subject site is a small, non -conforming lot which required a number of setback variances for the construction of a single family home in 2003. The applicant has now requested additional variances to the setback requirements and is requesting to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. The lot is a typical Spring Park lot and does not appear to have any unique conditions to justify the granting of a variance. The existing home on the site is non- conforming, and was approved with variances. CONCLUSION The following variances have been requested: • Front yard setback- 18 feet • Side yard setback- 1.75 feet • Ordinary high water mark setback- 5 feet • Construction within a storm sewer easement In order to grant a variance, it must be determined that an undue hardship exists. The circumstances of the property do not seem to indicate a hardship. When the existing home was approved in 2003, the Planning Commission was concerned with the potential future construction of a deck and/or garage. At that time, the applicant stated that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The applicant is now requesting both a deck and garage on the site. The proposed garage requires all setback variances listed above. The front yard variance and side yard variance would be more significant than what was originally approved for the site. The proposed ordinary high water mark setback is less severe than what was originally approved, but still not in compliance with the Ordinance. The proposed garage would also be located within a storm sewer easement. It is the City's policy not to allow any structures within such easements, as they would create a significant obstacle for any maintenance of the storm sewer facility. RECOMMENDATION The proposed deck meets all code requirements and is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the deck as proposed. However, staff has a number of concerns relating to the proposed garage. The garage requires variances to the side yard setback, ordinary high water mark setback, and front yard setback. The requested front yard and side yard setbacks are more non -conforming than the setback approved with the construction of the existing home in 2003. The front yard setback proposes safety issues with no convenient access provided onto Black Lake Road. The side yard setback encroaches onto the neighboring property, leaving just over eight feet between the garage and the property line. Additionally, the garage is proposed within a storm sewer easement. A storm sewer pipe currently occupies this easement, and runs under the proposed garage location. Any maintenance or construction to this pipe would require that the garage be removed at the owner's expense. Staff believes that it may be appropriate for the applicant to pursue an alternate design that would locate the garage outside the easement, and create more significant setbacks from Black Lake Road and the property to the south. At 480 square feet, the proposed garage also appears to be too large to function well with the site. Staff would encourage the applicant to pursue an alternate garage design, considering a smaller structure that allows for more significant setbacks and functions more appropriate on the site. Any alternate design would be evaluated on its own merit. The proposed garage requires a number of variances and no hardship has been demonstrated. As such, staff does not recommend approval of the variances for the detached garage as presented. If the City finds that a hardship has been proven and the variance requests are appropriate, staff recommends that any recommendation of approval be subject to the following conditions: I. The garage shall be relocated outside of the easement in a manner that reduces the impact on the neighboring property owner. 2. The garage shall be downsized to create more significant front yard and side yard setbacks. Exhibits A. Site plan/survey B. City Council minutes from April 7, 2003. C. Planning Commission minutes from March 26, 2003. D. Resolution 03-10 XF28NO PARK Oh Lake A41meto4a Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam September 15, 2006 (952) 471-9515 Council Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson Graham Neve (952) 471-1029 Paul Fadell Sarah Reinhardt 5560 Eastview Avenue (952) 471-0767 Mound, MN 55364 Gary Hughes (952) 47 I -7867 RE: Parcel 18-117-23-43-0185 / 2401 Black Lake Road Administration Dear Mr. Neve and Mr. Fadell: Sarah Friesen Administrator You are hereby notified of the City of Spring Park's extension of the D.J. Goman initial 60-day time period for acting upon your variance application Utility Superintendent dated July 21, 2006. This extension is permitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subdivision 3(f). The time period is extended Sharon C until November 17, 2006. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin This extension is necessary to allow additional time for city staff and Office Assistant consultants to review and comment on the changes made to your initial application. Changes made include but are not limited to a reduction in the size of the garage and a redesign of the deck. If you have any questions concerning this letter please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk Clt� of c5p g )Palk 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 e (952) 471-9051 o Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin [wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: ,.F—ddaiT�E epteax ber�.i 6,k2006 9:36 AM To: `Kirnberly:Hol.ien' Subject: Update on variance request for attached deck and unattached garage to 2401 Black Lake Road Attachments: SD000159.pdf; SD000160.pdf .IM-7 A SD000159.pdf SD000160.pdf (167 KB) (572 KB) Kimberly, attached are two new drawings as they relate to the current variance request for 2401 Black Lake Road. As you know, you put together a summary memo and opinion for this variance request of an attached deck and an unattached garage. Also attached is the portion of the minutes from Wednesday, September 13th's Planning Commission meeting and public hearing as they relate to the variance request. As you will notice on the two new drawings attached, one drawing shows just the attached deck, without a garage. However, Mr. Neve has presented a new concept for an unattached garage that shows an oversized one car garage (other drawing). This latest drawing showing the oversized one car garage seems to address some serious issues with some positive solutions. Sarah and I thought the applicant worked hard to come up with a new plan for an unattached garage that better addressed setbacks, esthetics, and potential easement issues. We've asked Mr. Neve to come to Monday night's Council meeting with engineered drawings that would address drainage issues to the lake. (Mr. Neve, I believe, is an architect and works with engineers.) Mr. Neve stated he studied the NAC opinion/recommendation and based his new drawings on your suggestions as to what could possibly work. If you have any questions, please feel free to call myself or Sarah. I know this is last minute. Unfortunately this is crunch time as the Council meeting is this Monday the 18th and that's when the applicant has to defend his variance request. We would hope we could get an update from you on this as soon as possible. Wendy -----Original message ----- From: wendy [mailto:wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:05 AM To: wendy Subject: This E-mail includes attached file(s) sent from 11RNP6F97C9" (Aficio 1232C). Scan Date: 09.15.2006 09:05:21 (-0500) 1 �I PROPOSED DECK o PROPOSED GARACxE is (�o � Y, e, Li ed s e veal o N&-� ra o sal CLS v � � • � S" • � � ,�.,eivLVQJ ( 30.0% LOT AREA) BEET AVErrnc+E bETaeac TO aoJACEIiT ugyE X �ec.�L Qro-�osal QS 0� �i •IS.OL EXISTING HOUSE •2401 PROPOSED DECK EX. RETAINING EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY �X EXISTING k k HOUSE P24137 ?uni &kV- LV.- eJ A�- 0'. ir.Ob Q 2Qt,�CN.d Si 2� e 0� I�CwGUVt��e �Y'��50.� 6,s a �, 4(V-lkki ')(,^1 N EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF 0 20 40 60 DRIVE = 116 2 SF TOTAL = 2090 SF (30.0% LOT AREA) Q SCALE IN FEET NOT INC PUBLIC STREET O xge1y = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. r X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE f.--r Z m P Qj C) - ro agwN W¢g� o < O M O 0 N Qo�r 0 N N LOT LINE5 WITH FR0F05ED DECK LA1'OUfi NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 783.231.2555 Facsimile: 783.231.25e1 planners@nacplanning.com TO: Spring Park City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien DATE: September-1-8—.-2006 SUBJECT: Variance Request for 2401 Black Lake Road CASE NO: 175.01-06.08 The Planning Commission heard a Variance request for a detached garage and deck for the subject property at their September 13, 2006 meeting. At this meeting, the applicant presented revised plans which had not been reviewed by planning staff. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the deck, pending planning staffs approval of the plans presented. Regarding the garage, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the plans as presented. The applicant submitted a second set of revised plans on September 15, 2006. The revised plans call for a reduced one -stall garage located entirely upon the existing bituminous drive, reducing the overall impervious surface of the site to 27%. The proposed garage is 352 square feet (22x16). A 200 square foot, second story deck is also proposed for the site. Said deck extends approximately two feet beyond the south wall of the existing home. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Setbacks. The proposed setbacks for the garage are as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Original Plan Proposed Revised Plan Front Yard/Street 30 feet 12 feet 18 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 8.25 feet 15.5 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 45 feet 35 feet Setbacks approved for the site with the construction of the single family home in 2003 are as follows: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast comer and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). Thenproposed-variance°tCthe ordinary high water marks gKtly`ezceedwwhat-was:. worigir lhy approved -for -the -site —Section 3 Subd. E-7 refers to yard requirements for accessory structures. This section states that where structures exist on the lots adjoining both sides of a proposed building site, the minimum setback from the ordinary high water level for the proposed structure shall be the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. The setback for the single family home on the property is 38.5 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The home to the south is setback 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Thus, the average setback is 34.25 feet. The proposed setback would be appropriate under this averaging technique. However, averaging may not apply in this case, as one structure used in this calculation exists on the same lot. Regardless, this technique is utilized to ensure that the proposed structure will not interfere with sight lines. InAny$case,a-/eriance-would be still-be-necessaryas fihe°setback of�the single.family,.home,has n�,o,�t been maintained. All other proposed setbacks have been increased from what was originally presented. The front yard setback of 18 feet may relieve some of the safety concerns associated with the original garage design. While the garage will still be close to Black Lake Road, the 18 foot setback may allow room for a smaller car to be parked in the driveway, without encroaching on the street surface. The side yardssetbackymeetsrthe requirement. The.revised,plan is=less=offensive;to the neighbonng�propertyto`the'south; and"may provide an adequate�settiackEfrom the storm sewer pipe. The original design placed the garage within the storm sewer easement, directly on top of the existing pipe. The.applicant.h�as:,now,reduced, the.sizq the garage.,andrnoved: itao.the=north;: potentially avoidi-ngthe easement. The easement has not been recorded in the property file, and is to be verified by the utility superintendent. Driveway. Due to the fact that the proposed garage limits the driveway length, staff has evaluated the design of the driveway. The existing driveway has a 25 foot curb cut, the maximum allowed by ordinance. As designed, the driveway flares out on both the north and south sides. The north side of the driveway abuts a retaining wall. The height of this wall is not known. In order to alleviate ,safety concerns,_ th_e applicant must illustrate ;-that-the,height'of'th° dtaining wall -does not-interfere°with-proper sight_lines. Staff is also concerned with the close proximity of the south driveway line to the storm sewer pipe. As it exists, the driveway comes within two feet of the storm sewer pipe. Staff, recommends .,that, alongrwith,any.recommendation of,,apprcval,,the,City,require the applicant`to-eliminate-tlie'southern firre'in`thiFdnvewayzandvredesign to run perpendicular-with-therstreel. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The City must find that an undue hardship exists when considering the variance request. �,It,.:may=,beKdetermineda"that—egarage `isa necessary component to a�aingle family,homef#or-the.�Minnesota�xclimate The City1Council�must;determine this:=finding. CONCLUSION The applicant has made a number of revisions to his original application to create an improved site plan. =As,presented;-the:proposed,:garagei,would-only:require,one additional -variance -to -what -was approvedsforA,the-sitein,2003. The proposedKordinary f gh water,marksetback would...requ re:a variance,,for ;fouradd itional :feet. Using an �> averaging technique with the setbacks of the neighboring structures, the proposed garage is compliant. The garage is compliant with the side yard setback requirement, the impervious surface requirement, and appears to be located off of the storm sewer easement. T'he=deck- also,appears-to.,meet..all,requirements,..and :does..noterrequire a __yariance:-,.,, ,. As presented, the proposed garage is markedly superior to what was originally proposed. Regarding the request for a Variance, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the variance for a detached garage, based on a finding that an undue hardship exists, subject to the following conditions: a. The flair in the south driveway curb cut shall be eliminated to create more significant setback from the storm sewer pipe. b. The applicant must demonstrate proper sight lines to the north, over the retaining wall. c. The applicant must comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. d. The garage must be located outside of the utility easement, as verified by the Utility Superintendent. 2. Motion to recommend that the revised plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission, prior to any action by the City Council. 3. Motion to deny the plans as presented, based on a finding that no hardship exists. After reviewing the original application, staff recommended that the applicant make a number of changes to the site plan to create a more conforming structure. The applicant has now reduced the,number.of.,variances--requiredrvand-submitted-a-more appeal na g_design. An existing hardship must be determined by the City/ IfAhe-Gouncil .finds th� at a garagedis--a_necessary.component-for-thehome; "staff. recommends,.approval of,.the revised .plans, subject -to the -conditions-outlined-above. �, (�J lv ',� .-��.....; fir. ., .,-�' c �, c. • ,; :,�� .J . a� CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING September 13, 2006 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL, Anderson, Klein, Mason, Maloney and Bill Tyler present. Excused, Sippel. Staff present, Administrator Friesen, Office Assistant Lewin, Ex-Officio Hughes, Advisor Reinhardt. Mork-Bredeson, absent. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. Friesen said there will be additions to the Miscellaneous part of the agenda regarding Planning Commission attendance, the upcoming volunteer appreciation dinner and a beautification letter to be added to the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 9, 2006 Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION ca)—Variance Application w. Graha hFNeve 240'1 B1 ck Lake Road 3�-�- 1. Open Public Hearing 7 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a) Application for Variance The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Graham Neve approached the podium and said his proposal is to put a detached garage and an attached deck at 2401 Black Lake Road. Neve passed out a full set of plans and explained the first page was a full survey. He said this survey was done in '03 when house was built. He further explained the next page shows a partial survey and there is a proposed deck and proposed garage footprint. He said the garage proposal is 20 x 24, the smallest two car garage he could get on the property. Neve admits he wants to get something on the property due to harsh Minnesota winters. He said the next page is the deck layout and the proposed garage. He said it shows it from each lot line. He said the best he could do was 45 feet from the lake and a 12 feet from the road. He said compared to the average houses on Black Lake Road, he is pretty close. He said ten feet was approved because of existing footprint. Neve said in some cases there are homes less than 10 feet from the road. He said 20 feet is the minimum so, if going 20 feet back it gets him 45 feet from the shoreline. Neve said he was able to decrease the existing hardcover from 30% to 27%. He said what's important is the new garage would improve water and sediment runoff. Neve said right now everything is going from the road to the lake. Neve said basically what is needed is 20 x 24 for the garage and that's the smallest he can go and all he could figure out. If there is something else someone can suggest he is willing to listen. Plan p jNEMinutes,z0-�143-06. 1 �. Neve showed a pamphlet put together by his realtor which states comparable sale prices are about $663,000. He said without a garage they'd be loosing about $63,000 on the sale. He said the house has been on the market for 136 days and there hasn't been a lot of interest and the lack of a garage is the deterrent. He said he started at $699,000. He said even a one car garage would help. He said one of the reasons why they didn't build the garage when the house was rebuilt in 2003 is there was 1860 square feet and if a one car garage had been planned they would have lost about 600 square feet and they felt they didn't have that to lose. Neve said some people have asked him why they didn't go up a level and Neve said he didn't believe it would fit in the neighborhood. Anderson asked Neve if he built the house to sell and Neve responded that he built the house to be on the lake. He said he built the house with another guy and they've each gotten married and now they need to sell this house. Klein asked if Neve lived nearby and he said he lives next door. He currently rents the house but hopes to buy it but it's dependent on this house selling. Maloney asked Neve how he thinks a garage will improve water and sediment runoff. Neve said right now it runs down the driveway and right into the lake. Neve said with the new garage they would lift it up and create a barrier from the lake. He further explained there would be a type of swale below the garage. He said right now there's nothing stopping it. Neve said he's aware that the drainage is not good now and going right into the channel. Mason asked if he was concerned about environmental issues. Neve said he's concerned about selling it. Mason said he looked at the property and at the shoreline and said it has never been rip rapped. Maloney asked if the original submittal had the storm sewer illustrated. Neve said he would be interested in working on getting the drainage changed. Tyler asked where the water would go. He wondered how a garage would help it. Neve said the water isn't the problem, it's the sediment that they could deter. Mason said he noticed the surrounding garages are mostly attached garages. Mason referred back to when they originally built the house in 2003 and Neve didn't want to build the garage at that time. Maloney said she doesn't see the easement line on the plan. Neve said the ten foot dimension is the property line. He said the drainage goes between the 10 foot mark. Hughes asked that Neve put the drawing up and point out the markings. He points out the south property line and points out the drainage going into the lake. He said there's about five feet in between. Neve wondered if there were any recommendations on this property line. Maloney said it's a really important point because building within the easement would be critical. Friesen said the planner's report came back and now there's something different being proposed. Maloney suggested that the planner hasn't seen the correct plan. Neve said he hasn't had enough notice. He said he was told he'd get calls back from the engineer. He said he hasn't had a returned phone call. Maloney said she feels the planner needs to review the new plan. Maloney said what will be needed is the utility easement dimensions. Maloney said the public hearing can be tabled until the next meeting. Hughes stated hardship will have to be proven and there is specific language as to proving hardship. Klein thinks she heard $63,000 but said it can't be financial. Friesen read the language regarding the hardship. Friesen read the recommendation of the planner regarding changing the location of the garage. Mason said Neve's hardship is economic and Neve responded saying it's more than that; it's the Minnesota winters. Maloney read a letter from Steven and Pauline Erickson, neighbors. Hughes said Plan. Comm. Minutes — 9-13-06 2 regarding previous requests there have been car ports that have been denied. Mason referred back to the Planning Commission minutes in 2003 where it was suggested then that they put a deck on. Neve said at the time they were more worried about getting the house built rather than getting a garage. Klein asked about when they first bought the property and was he aware that this was a difficult lot. Tyler asked why when the first variance request came forward it was deemed an unbuildable lot. Friesen stated it was because the lot was undersized. However there was an existing house on the property. Mason asked how many variances it took to build the house and Neve thought three or four. Klein asked what if he got the deck but not the garage, would it change the deck. Neve stated it would stay about four feet from the corner of the deck. Klein asked why it would stop short and Neve said because that's where the header was. Friesen asked if they'd do anything below the deck and Neve stated wood chips. Friesen wondered if they would consider a one stall garage and they'd be away from the storm sewer. Neve said they've considered it but didn't think they'd gain a lot. Friesen said we could let Neve know about the storm sewer. Hughes said it could be ten feet on either side. The NAC letter doesn't spell out the correct material as the plan was changed. Friesen asked with the garage proposal here, was a basement underneath it. Neve said it is a built in storage shed. An audience member asked how close to the street would they be with parking in front of the garage. Klein wondered if parking would be worse if the garage was allowed. Neve said yes, it would. Klein said she is concerned that the house is for sale. Maloney said to approve variance, hardship has to be proven. Neve said he's looked at every option and he wanted to keep it as far away from the lake as possible and 45 feet was the best he could do. Hughes said he thinks the sewer is further in on the property than Neve thinks it is. Mason wonders about the rip rapping of the lakeshore and runoff. Hughes said the City is looking at updating the drain as soon as the Meyer property has determined the driveway location. Hughes said there will be a clean out installed. Mason wondered about screening and a silt fence. Maloney asks for other comments from the public. Neve wants to say if it was considered there could be a provision stating the shoreline could be rip rapped. Maloney doesn't know that it's relevant. 3. Close Public Hearing Maloney closes the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC Memo — August 28, 2006 i) Site Plan/Survey ii) Council Minutes, April 7, 2003 iii) Planning Commission Minutes, March 26, 2003 iv) Resolution 03-10 Hughes said there needs to be a recommendation to the Council whether to deny the request or approve. Friesen said there could be two motions, one approving the deck and a recommendation to approve the garage. Tyler said it's a different plan presented tonight. Hughes said they could recommend for approval on a redesign of the deck. Anderson makes a motion and Maloney seconds to approve the deck in the second drawing subject to the dimensions to the Council. Hughes thinks it needs to be redesigned as a stand alone. Mason said we could approve a deck pending a redesign. Friesen says to put a condition on the deck so it's 6.7 x 19.9. Mason asks how different the second deck is to the submitted proposal. Neve said it's similar. 9' x 19.9 feet. Tyler said looking at the diagram, there is a door that leads from the house to the deck. Neve said yes. Maloney wonders what variance the deck would require. Friesen said Plan. Comm. Minutes — 9-13-06 3 it's the 50' setback. 38.5 feet from the lake is the shortest distance. The deck requires a variance. Anderson withdraws his motion. Klein said she is inclined to table the variance request it. Friesen stated she believes the City can suspend it and give the applicant notice in writing. Maloney said it gives another month to work with the planner and hardship will still have to be proven. Tyler said in fairness to the resident there isn't much that can convince him that the garage is warranted. Tyler thinks the deck is workable but it bothers him that he still will need a variance. Tyler said as far as the garage is concerned it just isn't going to work. He feels there's nothing that can be done. Tyler said the garage proposal would need to be built up. Tyler's recommendation be that the garage be denied and work with the planner before Monday so there isn't a variance request for the deck. Tyler makes a motion and Anderson seconds to recommend approval to the Council for the variance on the garage.i Moll call, Tyler no, Maloney no, Anderson, no Mason, no Klein no. Mdtion<failed. Klein said regarding the deck it is suggested Neve work with the planner to minimize or eliminate the need for any variance requirement. Hughes said on page 44, paragraph 6 and 7 there is language where if there is (using irrelevant numbers) two to three structures 25 feet from the high water mark and the middle property is further back, there is language that there can be a variance granted. Klein recommends approval of the deck pending NAC's approval based on discussions here tonight. Mason seconds, all votes ayes. Motion carries. Hughes suggested the deck be redesigned and brought to the City in order to get it in the Council packet for Friday. Friesen asked if Neve can get us the material to get to the planner by Friday and Neve said yes. b) Sign Permit App Permanent — Scott Sternitzke, 4420/4400 Shoreline Drive Mr. Sternitzke currently rents office space from Chester Yanik and Yanik informed him that he would need a sign permit in order to display a sign. Scott read in the applica that there is a recommended color scheme but his signs have been the same color eme as his business cards. Mason asked where the sign would go and Sternitzke s ' Yanik doesn't want it too close to his sign. Sternitzke said the position was ma d on the attached illustration of approximately where the sign would be placed ason asked about a sign board and Sternitzke said he didn't believe so becaus anik recently had a stand alone sign made. Klein asked if the sign application me the City's perimeters. Maloney asked if he's considered sharing Danberry's post. aloney said they don't want it to look temporary. She said keeping in the pro sionalism of building companies it might look better to tie them all toget . Sternitzke said he didn't believe there'd be anyone else going in the building. on said Yanik indicated there wouldn't be construction trailers and he wondered w he trailers belonged to. Sternitzke said they belong to Danberry. Klein asked a t parking and Mason asked how many vehicles they planned on parking. S said two. Friesen asked how the sign will be attached. Scott said he illustrate on the application consisting of 2 pieces with a 4x4, post in the center, it will y ou . aloney asked about the temporary stakes like Danberry. Maloney said a concern is for things to look nice. Sternitzke said it's his intent too. Mason wo ers if the posts can be sided in order to make them look nicer. Sternitzke said he inks that would make it more difficult to maintain. Klein said it seems to meet a requirements. Friesen said she's reading the code. Friesen said the amount of s have exceeded the amount according to code if you consider the Yanik sig�Zottype side of the building. Maloney thought the one sign on the building is more - of sign. Maloney thinks the City would be very happy if he got together ith Danberry and to think about a combination sign. Maloney thinks a flashier nice Plan. Comm. Minutes — 9-13-06 4 5. a) 7. MEMO e Date: September 15, 2006 To: Spring Park City Council Members From: Sarah/Wendy RE: Variance Request for Attached Deck and Unattached Garage 2401 Black Lake Road, Graham Neve and Paul Fadell The following is a synopsis of the above referenced variance request as numbered in the Council agenda of September 18, 2006. Hopefully this will serve as clarification to the subsequent events from the original application submitted. 5. a) 1. Variance Application — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road Mr. Neve's wife brought the application into the City on 7-21-06, not allowing enough time for office staff to prepare the proper publications and surrounding notification of property owners in time for the Planning Commission meeting of August 9tr, 2. Submitted with the variance application was a hand sketched drawing on a survey of the applicants' proposal of an attached deck and an unattached garage. 3. At the public hearing held September 13th, the applicant brought to the Planning Commission a packet consisting of a full survey dated February 21, 2003; a partial survey with proposed garage and deck; a document illustrating lot lines with proposed garage and deck layout; and a document showing elevations of the proposed garage from all sides. This packet presented at the public hearing was a diversion from what was originally presented in the application for variance dated 7- 21-06. (See Planning Commission meeting Minutes dated 9-13-06 for discussion.) 4. As a result of discussion at Planning Commission meeting of 9-13-06 and after applicant's review of NAC's opinion dated August 28, 2006, applicant Neve presented to City staff on the morning of September 15 a further revised proposal for the Council's review at their meeting of September 18. This revised proposal shows an unattached garage that was scaled down from a two car garage to an oversized one car garage. Also presented to staff, as requested by Planning Commission members, is a separate drawing (without the garage) of the revised, proposed attached deck. 5. Memo from Kimberly Holien of NAC dated August 28, 2006 as it addresses the original application for proposed deck and proposed unattached garage. 6. Updated memo from NAC as it addresses the revised, submitted drawings. 7. This is the staff memo. 6�IMa transformer and, at the back of the transformer it needs to be dug down. Goman said it's all part of the restoration. He said Xcel Energy is aware of it. Rockvam said there were two other items, one for permission to put a variegated dogwood bush and they want to be certain it won't be in the City's way. Goman said as long as they're behind the street lights and close to the fence. Rockvam said what about the two trees they are asking for, some type of a globe tree. Goman said, as previously discussed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the illumination of the street lights. Rockvam said one tree was removed because it was on City property. They are wondering if there is something that can be put in to fill in the void. Goman said there will be some sort of landscaping. Shoreline Place homeowner said the light was moved so they assumed the tree would stay. Instead the tree was removed. Homeowner asked why the tree couldn't have been trimmed instead of removed. Goman said the tree was leaning. Rockvam said Storlie has a desire to have some green space in that area. Goman said the entire corner would be incorporated into a landscape design. The retaining wall needs to be brought up. Rockvam said the other thing is they want to be kept informed. Goman said the Council has been reassured that there have been decisions made in the field but as best as could be done, they've been kept informed. The fact is, it's the road right-of-way. Goman apologizes and said he thought they were informing them. Homeowner said e-mail addresses were supplied and there hasn't been any communication. They were surprised by the six street lights when they didn't have any. Homeowner said they'll try the shields but they have a big problem with all of these lights. Goman said there's been numerous on -site meetings and numerous phone calls and e-mails. He said there's only so much that can be done without shutting the project down. Other homeowner said she thinks it would be nice if from the beginning there could be input. She said before they order shields for the lights they should just try one. Rockvam said there are only three. Reinhardt added that Shoreline Place is looking great with the new siding. Homeowner said it took two and a half years because of a class action lawsuit with Masonite. Other homeowner said they have an excellent contractor and there are some window problems but it will be complete soon. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes (unapproved) — September 13, 2006 2. Survey/drawing submitted with variance application 3. Survey/drawings submitted at Public Hearing, 9-13-06 4. Survey/drawings revised for Council meeting, 9-18-06 5. NAC memo for 9-13-06 public hearing 6. NAC memo for revised drawings 7. Staff memo Rockvam said there was an original application then an amendment and now a new one. Rockvam said it should be spelled out, appropriate documents submitted and there should have been a to -scale drawing request. Rockvam said now there are two applications, one for the deck and one for a smaller garage. Rockvam said the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the garage that it be denied. Reinhardt said the plan the Planning Commission saw is different. Reinhardt said it's not known what the Planning Commission recommendation would be on the new plan. Rockvam said the deck has changed too. It originally wasn't extending on the west side and now it extends on the west side. Rockvam wondered where we're going with this. He asked which one is being considered, the Planning Commission, the modified one or the new one tonight. Friesen said there was an extension of the 60 days and the option could be to go back to the original, allowing them to read the planner's new report. Williamson said those were the thoughts he has had reading through the adjustments and revisions. Williamson said the applicant should design it and make an offering. Williamson said what's before the Council now is very different. Williamson makes a motion and Reinhardt seconds that the variance (garage) application be returned to the Planning Commission for a new analysis. CCouncil =Minutes74-'9/z'18/ 2 Rockvam said Neve better come up with a reason for the hardship. Rockvam said so far all he's heard is financial. Rockvam said the hardship was created by the owners and it can't be financial. Rockvam said there was a choice made to expand in the first place and they decided they wanted more living space. Neve said he has the hardship worked out regarding special conditions including the water and existing topographical site due to narrowness, etc. Rockvam thinks the best recommendation is for it to go back to the Planning Commission. Rockvam said there were inaccuracies on the part of the planner. Hughes thinks he would like Brixius to review this rather than Holein. Reinhardt also said with something this complicated the planner should be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Reinhardt said she has some problems with the language because it's difficult to understand. Reinhardt was disappointed that the planner didn't require more information in the first place and the 60 days should have been more than enough. Neve said he thought NAC's recommendation was very confusing and didn't tie together. Neve asked about the 60 day deadline. Rockvam said once the application has been received the City has 60 days to act on it. Friesen said the letter sent requesting another 60 days was sent on Friday. Williamson asked if it's unilateral and Friesen said Neve did not have to sign off. Williamson wondered if that process is sufficient. Siefert said that's what's been used in the past. All votes aye, motion carries. Rockvam asked if we should look at the deck. Seifert wanted to say the hardship means there has to be no known practical use for the property. In other words there's nothing that can be done with it. He said the language refers to the physical attributes of the lot and they are so unique and you would need a variance. Rockvam said that's one of the reasons why these things go to the planner. Hughes thinks the deck ties together with the garage and they should go as one. Neve said they don't have to; they could be separate or together. Williamson makes a motion and Hughes seconds that this variance (deck) request be returned to the PC for a new analysis. Rockvam said the house really looks nice but Rockvam wondered if there ever was a certificate of occupancy issued especially with the patio door that leads to a 10 foot drop. All votes ayes, motion carries. Rockvam said to notify Neve when the next Planning Commision meeting is and it should be republished and Hughes said the application should be revised with clear cut dimensions. Construction Update Lakeview Lofts 1. Lakeview Lofts landscaping plans (Resolution 06-28 see item 6a below) Rockvam said he doesn't know that they've ever seen a landscape plan. Seifert said Frostad presente plan in 2005 but it wasn't approved because of language about the city being responsible for the cost o e globe trees, instead he did some things and then gave an as -built plan. Rockvam asked Seifert if he as satisfied. Seifert said with the two exceptions, the planters and the reference to the escrows. Seife ants something in writing so if they're talking to the County they have something to document. Rocky wanted to know how the gutters should be addressed. Williamson said this is specific to landscape an a gutters are on a separate punchlist. Williamson makes a motion and Hughes seconds it to adopt olution 06-28. All votes ayes, motion carries. 2. Lakeview Lofts punch list Goman said 13 out of 28 have been completed. Most of the 13 are utility items such as manholes, water gait valves and one item is the down spout, the gutters. He id as of this afternoon there's been nothing more done on the punchlist. Rockvam asked how many are and Goman said 15. Seifert said the approval of the resolution does satisfy one of the items. Rockva sked what will make this complete and Goman said for Frostad to return as he's currently out of the c ntry. Rockvam said the escrow accounts are going to expire. Williamson said the escrows have been a nded to December 22"d of this year so for now, we're okay. Seifert said it's always difficult because a le r of credit only secures municipal improvements and that's what is extended to December. The oth is the color escrow and that has been extended. The final is the landscape plan and he's not sure exact here that one stands. He thought it was resolved regarding the planters. Hughes said he and Wil ' mson met with Frostad. He said the purpose was to approve the concept and the plan. Williamson s ' the escrow shouldn't go away until the planters are in place. Seifert said yes but he thinks it does a ire. Williamson said we should take some action. Seifert said it's a condition of the approval. i liamson wondered what is the security if he fails. Seifert said he would think Frostad wouldn't want a her default in the development agreement. Rockvam asked Seifert if he was sure about the security. R vam said he thinks the TIF should seriously be considered about being pulled. Frostad has left town and e doesn't seem to be too worried. Rockvam said granted the project has gone pretty well except for the color. <Council$Minutest ,97,I8%0610 3 2 ST FR HOUSE #4343 EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF.(27.0% LOT AREA) NOT INC PUBLIC STREET 12"CMP CULVERT INV ELEV V =930.6 0 20 40 60 Q O SCALE IN FEET �40' = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE BENCHMARK TNH = 944.8 DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA",. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PART Or SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE THEREOF. LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA"EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC tr ) LZ Et a o a > Z � N W C � � O j W J (o EXISTING HARDCOVER ui >> HOUSE = 858 SFQj DRIVE = 1032 SF 0 20 40 60 m TOTAL = 1890 SF ( 27.0% LOT AREA) Q o v o NOT INC PUBLIC STREET Q SCALE IN FEET *q"' = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. z C J X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION co L� = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE � o - EXIST. Flo' � ll1r \ CH I , i MOSSo xu :�3 Q ST0 E STILL NEW GARAGE WOULD IMPR❑VE WATER AND SEDIMENT RUN-OFF, W U / wme YARD BELOW GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY �\ m Q WOULD Qj� BE ENGINEERED FOR IMPR❑VED RUN-OFF. Z13 LU m Q g O �� REMOVAL OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY C) N EXIST.� z"' `• � WILL DECREASE THE PROPERTIES HARDCOVER AND o INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM Aga HARDCOVER TO 0 n`W� SHORELINE TO 40'-0'. '> n =go 0 i O _- V m ui > > IiJ - rc W �a u J u a� LOT LINES WITH PROPOSED GARAGE AND DECK LAY❑UTm o EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF NOT INC PUBLIC STRE 0 1V 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION s� = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE Wv J � jWi� NK Ql�Q- IZKo �N EXISTING HARDCOVER -- HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1162 SF 0 20 40 60 TOTAL = 2090 SF (30.0% LOT AREA) Q T— NOT INC PUBLIC STREET Q SCALE IN FEET 0 +q9" = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION <� = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE i 41 Zi � o op a � .v aWN o �< Wir�o U AMA ry ry (n U yQwo3 '_- LL®T LINES UJITI-4 FROFOSE® NECK LA 'OUT z W m x W". w==o Memo Date: September 21, 2006 RE: Variance Request To: Property Owners within 350 Feet of 2401 Black Lake Road Dear Property Owner, This notice is being sent to you to comply with the provisions of the City Ordinance that written notification of a hearing shall be mailed to all owners of land within 350 feet of the boundary of the property in question. Your property is within that 350 foot radius. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE APPLICATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a variance request for: Lot area and setbacks variances for a proposed addition of an attached deck and an unattached garage to the residence at 2401 Black Lake Road. Graham Neve & Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road 118-117-23-43-0185 Please note, at the request of the Planning Commission and City Council this is a resubmission of the original variance request dated July 21, 2006 due to lack of clarity in the size of the proposed unattached garage. All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Published in the Laker Newspaper September 30, 2006) Tyler would like the lighting issue with signs put on another Planning Commission agenda. c) Variance Application — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road Present: Graham Neve & Paul Fadell, property owners. 1. Open Public Hearing a) Notice of Public Hearing Chair Maloney opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and read the notice regarding the public hearing that was published in the Laker Newspaper. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC Memo — September 18, 2006 i) Site Plan Survey ii) Planning Commission Minutes 9-13-2006 (refer to #4 in agenda packet) iii) Council Minutes 9-18-06 iv) Erickson Letter Maloney read this letter into the minutes during the meeting. Neve stated he addressed the issue with the catch basin. He said the proposed garage is 16' by 22' wide and the deck is going off the south side of the house. He said the garage is 35 feet from the lake; it is 18 feet from the street to the corner of the garage and is in the average setback range. Neve said this was changed from 12 feet. He pointed out NAC was concerned with the flare in the south driveway curb cut. Neve said he can easily eliminate this if the variance request is approved. He read portions of the ordinance that applied to his request on pages 44, 45 and 76. He added the special conditions exist on this property. Maloney asked if any bituminous areas would be changed. Neve said he would be reducing the hardcover from 30% to 27%. Mason asked what the hardship is. Neve said it is the shape of the property. Mason noted Neve had pointed out at an earlier date that many houses on Black Lake Road do not have garages and that is not true. Neve said he was referring to attached garages. Hughes asked if the hydrant was on this property. Neve thought it was on 2413 Black Lake Road. Petrik asked where the elevation point is from the street level. Neve said it was a difference of 5 to 6 feet. Petrik verified it is lower than the main level of the house. Maloney asked Neve how he is going to deal with water drainage. Neve said now everything drains to the house. Maloney stated is going to be difficult to get run off not to go into the garage. Hughes pointed out the garage floor would be 2 feet lower than the house. Maloney asked Neve to consider raising the garage. Petrik said that would improve the site line. Petrik said Neve is asking for a front yard set back from the street. He referred to the ordinance and stated the proposed garage is within the 15% of the shoreline and within the ordinance. It was pointed out the hardship is in the slope of the lot and this proposal is reducing the hardcover. Mason said the hardship was created when the house was built. Neve pointed out the height of the house is close to what is required and if a garage was added when the house was built it would have increased that and he wanted it to blend in with the surrounding area but things change. Klein stated she is concerned the hardship was created and the garage would increase the density on the lake and there is overbuilding in that neighborhood. Hughes asked Petrik if Neve would need a variance to make a flat landing for cars and was told no. It was verified the easement is there but it was not recorded. Petrik said the property owner has to record the easement at his expense if the variance is approved. Mason expressed concern with problems of home owners passed on to the City referring to a swale. Maloney asked the average set back on that street and was told it is 18 feet. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Hughes asked how Neve is going to address the run off on the driveway and off the roof on the north side. Neve said with proper irrigation and proper drainage of the land around it. Petrik recommended installing a rain garden and that would also provide an improved situation for water quality. He added he encourages property owners to use water gardens for such solutions especially when water is flowing off of a public street. Mason pointed out additional rip rap on the shoreline would help improve erosion. Maloney said she does not see how that relates to the garage. Mason stated everything is open for discussion. Petrik said that depends where the erosion is coming from. Hughes asked if the property owners are going to construct the garage or obtain a variance for a future owner. Neve pointed out if approved he has a year to start a building after a permit is approved. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve an 18 foot variance from the street for a garage for 2401 Black Lake Road. Upon roll call Klein, Mason and Tyler voted no and Maloney voted aye. [-1VIo'ton�'declared fail 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Note: October Calendar addition, Moratorium Meeting 10-30-06, 7-9 pm b) Mound training workshop flier, October 14`' Maloney expressed apologies for not being able to attend. c) November Calendar d) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules e) Terms of office Klein asked if there was non conforming hardcover for Tony Pollock's property at 3916 Northern Avenue. Friesen pointed out he has a driveway next to the boundary and the question to Petrik was if this was conforming. Petrik said a driveway must meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks. Friesen said this was not possible because it would have to include the 30 foot setback from the street also. It was noted Pollock also has hardcover on the side of his garage to store his boat. Klein asked if his storage and hardcover have been addressed. Friesen said his addition to his garage meets ordinance requirements and he never came to the City for his additional hardcover when it was done but it meets setback requirements on his current application. Hughes asked if Pollock's hardcover has created water to run off onto the neighbor's property. rel October 12, 2006 2401 Black Lake Road Variance Request This variance request came on the Planning Commission agenda again last night and the request for the deck passed as it does not require a variance but the request for the down -sized one and a half garage failed again by a 3-1 vote. We as staff feel this request for garage variance could perhaps have passed the PC if the applicants had been more circumspect about their hardship. We as staff discussed the potential of one last stand in front of the Council. The arguments that could be made in favor of proof -of -hardship and the reasonableness of the request for variance are: 1. NAC's memo recommends the approving the downsized garage (16x22) because applicants have reduced their request of variance to one request, a reduced front yard setback, which is typical to their surrounding neighborhood and, at the same time, have reduced hardcover. 2. A facility in which to park a vehicle and other typical garage items will improve the overall general appearance of the neighborhood versus having these items out in the open or a stand alone shed being built. 3. By approving the downsized request for garage variance, it will improve safety from a resident standpoint. During winter months and inclement weather, the homeowner will eliminate hazardous approaches to the residence by being able to access the residence from the garage to the deck to the residence thereby eliminating potential slip and falls caused by improper drainage and freezing. 4. Runoff and sediment can be controlled and directed to a filtering type of garden that would greatly enhance the current state of silt flowing into Black Lake. 5. When the new house was built in 2003 it seemed to make more sense from a livability standpoint to build a house that accommodated living space versus losing that space to a tuck under garage. It's only after living in the residence for a couple of winters has the importance of having garage space been fu)), Ij 6. No problems with utilities easements encountered. 7. The proposed garage is properly scaled to the size of the residence and will enhance the neighborhood and will not look imposing in comparison to the previous proposed two stall garage. Suggestions: e 4 c Take photos of the potential of garage stuff set outside, not under cover. Take photos of the slope to the residence showing the hazardous approach. Draft and present a 3-D mock up of the proposed garage and deck into the residence. Draft and present a drawing of a drainage swale leading to a filter garden. See raingardens.org and perhaps print some of the material or show photos of what could be done on the property to filter the runoff. Emphasize the proportion of the proposed garage to the residence. Take photos of Black Lake Road garages and how your proposal will fit with the neighborhood. Your strategy should be to defuse some of the biggest arguments heard from council and pc members for not granting the request: ✓ You had the chance to build a garage in 2003 and you didn't think it was important enough at that time. ✓ That you can't sell the place without a garage. The Carpenter Strect rain Barden 140� Facsimile Transmittal: XMQ MD 0/f Luke N✓##eto1i3O Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Date: October 19, 2006 Councilmembers Joanna E. Widmer To: Graham Neve (952)471-9429 Fax: 757-229-8889 Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 From: Wendy, City of Spring Park, MN Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 # of Pages: 1 Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 Administration Comments: Sarah Friesen Administrator D.J. Goman Graham, sorry I didn't get this to you yesterday. I discussed the variance appeal Utility Superintendent process with Sharon and she can't recall every having a variance appealed. We Sharon Corl don't even really have an application or anything. We'll have to draft something Deputy Clerk that is suitable. Sarah, the city planner and myself still think you have a strong case and believe you are doing the right thing by appealing. Please contact me next week if you're back in town and hopefully we'll have some guidelines in which to follow for this variance appeal. Thanks Graham. Wendy Lewin Cit o f 1. dnJc ?park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384- 9711 (952) 471-9051 FAX (952) 471-9160 FAI 2K,27,2006 0# Late IW#wtoakA Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam Mr. Graham Neve (952) 471-9515 Mr. Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road Council Spring Park, MN 55384 Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 RE: 2401 Black Lake Road — Variance Request Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Dear Graham and Paul: Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 As you know, the City of Spring Park Planning Commission met on October th 11 to consider your request for variance to your property at 2401 Black Gary Hughes Lake Road, Spring Park. The motion to approve your variance for an (952) 471-7867 unattached garage request failed. Thus your variance request has been denied by the City Planning Commission. Administration Sarah Friesen Administrator Subsequently, to q y, the City of Spring Park Council met on October 16 to consider the recommendation by the Planning Commission for your request D.J. Goman Utility Superintendent for variance. The motion to approve your variance request failed. Thus your variance request has been denied by the City Council. Sharon Cori Deputy Clerk The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the Wendy Lewin literal provisions of the code in instances where their strict enforcement Office Assistant would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Findings: The lot meets minimum requirements established by the City's Zoning Ordinance and the lot's dimensions are not unique as other lots in Spring Park have similar dimensions. The lot dimension limits the size of the garage that can be built. Gify of cgpllg Park. 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Graham Neve Paul Fadell Page 2 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Findings: The circumstances of this situation were caused by the applicant's desire to build a new home, forgoing a garage at that time in order to gain more actual living space. 3. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Findings: The primary issue is the lot cannot feasibly accommodate the structure being proposed and allow for parked vehicles in front of the proposed structure. Because of a problem with the designation of the actual traveled road and the property line, there are only 16 +/- feet clearance and this is not enough to keep parked vehicles a safe distance from the traveled road. If you have any questions about the denial of your request for variance at 2401 Black Lake Road, please feel free to contact me. If you wish to file an appeal, the process is referenced on page 79 of the zoning ordinance. It reads in part, "...where it is alleged by the appellant that error has occurred in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the zoning administrator, building official or city engineer in the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall be timely only if filed within ninety (90) days of the date on which written notice of the zoning administrator's order, requirement decision, or determination is mailed to the applicant." Sincerely, L -�—L Wendy Lewin Deputy Clerk P.S.: Graham and Paul, I apologize for this letter not getting sent to you much earlier than this. It has been a hectic time at city hall with elections, etc. This letter is somewhat of a form letter that is sent to property owners who have been denied a variance request. I needed to customize it to fit your particular situation. wl Lb� A-r" CORCuMG PARK Oaf Lake Mlwetwko Mayor December 15, 2006 Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Council Joanna E. Widmer Mr. Graham Neve (952) 471-9429 2401 Black Lake Road Bruce Williamson Spring Park, MN 55384 (952) 471-1029 Dear Graham: Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 Enclosed is an application for planning commission. Please fill it Gary Hughes out and return it as soon as possible as I believe the Council will (952) 471-7867 attempt to interview candidates at one of the January meetings. Administration Also, as I understand it, you desire to appeal the denial of your Sarah Friesen Administrator variance request. Therefore, enclosed is an Application for A q PP Appeal of Administrative Decision. This form was something that needed D.J. Goman to be drafted by this office as there has never been an appeal of Utility Superintendent variance denial as far as we can remember. Please fill this out and Sharon Cori return it to us. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin As this is a new process for us, I would assume you will be required Office Assistant to resubmit your original proposal and be prepared to defend why you believe there has been an error in the interpretation or enforcement of the ordinance. It will be necessary for you to be specific in nature. Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Deputy Clerk Enclosure City of cgp liy Pavt 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:21 AM To: Subject: z 4ui tsiacK pare Rd... Attachments: VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST.DOCX Well, we had the council work session last night and your question about building a basic two car garage on the property came up for discussion. The short answer is no answer. I was mildly scolded for referring this to our city planner in the first place as we will get billed for his research on this. A council member was concerned there was nothing in writing to review so how could they make a determination? Another council member stated he was extremely opposed to any encroachment, of any kind, within the 50 foot lakeshore setback. Another council member and prior planning commissioner stated this property has come on for variance application multiple times and it's been denied. He maintains it's virtually impossible to build a structure on that lot given the size restrictions. Our city attorney advised that in the future when generic questions of this nature are presented to the city, we respond with the attached variance checklist. So, as you can see, this is clear as mud. It goes back to what I stated before, buy what you can live with not what you can change. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 952-471-9051 wlewin(cDci.spring-park.mn.us i May 8, 2013 2401 Black Lake Rd Thank you for your phone call today regarding your interest in 2401 Black Lake Rd. You were interested in setback restrictions and exploring an addition to the existing residence. You said your addition would be to extend the north side of the residence, turn the loft area into a second story (building height limited to 35 feet or 2.5 stories, whichever is least) and convert the walkout to garage space. I told you that there are issues with that lot specifically regarding the proper setback from Black Lake Road, hardcover calculations and a city easement on the north side of the property. This is what was revealed after spending some time looking in the property file: 1. The existing structure is considered to be "Legal non -conforming." What that means is it is legal because it's existing and has been for a long time but it is non -conforming according to current ordinances in place, particularly front yard setback (30 feet is required). According to the attached survey (Doc. 1), the existing structure looks to be set back less than 30 feet. I indicated in our phone conversation that a variance process would have to be considered. 2. You indicated you would be considering an addition to the north side of the house (on the right when looking from the road). I stated I knew there was some sort of city easement on that side but I wasn't sure where it was located as it wasn't spelled out on the survey (Doc 1). Upon discussion with our utility superintendent, we were able to locate the easement. We also were able to consult a survey of a neighboring property (Doc 2) that illustrates the sewer easement (see red hash marks on Doc 2). It is a difficult measurement and more of a guess but it looks like the allowable space for an addition towards the north would only be around 10-13 feet. 3. Lastly, you did ask about parking a boat at a dock in the cove. The LMCD is in charge of docks on Lake Minnetonka and this is a question for them to answer but, in consulting with the owner of 4343 Shoreline Drive, he is under the impression that a dock would probably not be allowed if following the LMCD guidelines. He stated the present owner of 2401 Black Lake Road currently shares a dock space with him. I hope this information helps you with your decision. Please be advised that this information provided is from a cursory study of what's in the property file and is only a generic interpretation of what could and could not be allowed. This has not been reviewed by our city planner nor our city attorney who are ultimately the experts on these matters. I understand that you need some sort of direction because your purchase depends upon this. Without seeing specific drawings and plans however, it is difficult to truly determine whether your ideas are doable or not. I would advise you proceed with utmost caution before committing to a purchase of any property, especially when your purchase involves a footprint change and your satisfaction with your purchase would be dependent upon that. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk i 2STFIR HOUSE #4343 IDCOVER ti EXISTING HA HOUSE = 851 SF DRIVE = 11 2 SF L ' WALK = 10 SF w TOTAL = 2jD90 NOT INC PUFC SF ( 30.0% STREET LOT AREA) k N 83°26',31•• W o 25. Y� 10 ov Q7l&, G� axe.sR"1 F AA 12"CMP '^ PV CULVERT—q;_0 f °� INV ELEV / A;{-Nk 1+/ ', ,v — Q� =930.6 ti 16.7 °yam N 81 °31'24' .Ah °�h 3 41 ° gyp` Z of 1724'00 Wd I Q CHLwc O FENCE - OHL-_-- 10"CEDAR ti ac N 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET - F00' = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ­&" = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE — PROPOSED HOUSE TO FIT EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA", a8 f MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT �. PART OF SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A - - - J.5 �V POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE THEREOF. °w� LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA"EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE fK' ti(rl' V SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING 1 MINUTES WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY OU HERGLYYELSI NE OF SA I D8 A4DSI STANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES ii `CCJJ 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF ` — - BENCHMARK BEGINNING. TNH = 94-4.8 LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC NOTE —This survey subject to change on reciept of title / easement information o c O N 0 N N w U_ NEW CONCEPTS Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAMS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North 612-560-3093 Paz No. 680-9688 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 bururgors (Orrtif iratr ('Lr)LA K�� .G10• . r,.l a ti� r\ C e p ` ,� *N,' 1(902 , $ a QZ� t,AG, �70 N A -DADS! A`K ANf- ic v ---- --i----- - - o ),—SD,2L:`-- L CY 'i� INVOICE NO. 52818 F.B.NO._ a2� 60 SCALE: 1 0 Denotes Iron Monument o Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000 o Denotes Proposed Elevation •-�— Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of son tests. Proposed building Information must be checked with approved building plat and devaktpment or grading plan before excavation 95 I .and aortstructton. Proposed Top of Block D Proposed Garage Floor 2 0 Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building II a IICr,u 8 d Property located in Section 18, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota ZS ►4- �7 0 The Lott 13.00 Beat ofLot 3 and a8 ofLot 4, "Rose Lawn Waletould" and the Borth half of s Lot S; "Rote L.aalla ivltaboa ; more p�cularly described as .follows: All that part of said Lot 1; dot * of:a lice *am. $tuft a point of the eat Bw of sad tot and 30 feet south of the northeast . oalirser drer+eofto-* .wee be o(odd lot. and petslle vkh the "o Rae thereof and that part of this dludvoed Lag000.ait 4e ed rtnd `ote plat of "Rose Latfvn " tytog nalmtterll► oftLe.hot+�na:oftbe aratei"s o fake id: sand Lagoo.hiiogbetwea�a.tht soberly ,0 areal ha-af the aatt. t0b feet of tied iAt 3 td its Inte6ec�n with the,-.. . sitaM+bb of th�a.wiliter�.of'Laice s i�rncg.rortfiedy imd ,aresterly. of the fhllowieg ' dfsa lbed 1 H alabe sow o0 r� ofsald lux 4; �bence NctO 83 .2� 3t a.Watt, a line drevv�it bgtweo� said sowatheast oornesr to the aouthsrest cansrei� oifaW Lot d, 2110'� thenoe Sbu* -10 de�!ees 54 ntiaiwtes 48 sdconds West 20" feet. uhl o f lees,.to ita ino ec�foa virrith the ahoreli w oFthe waters ofLalce 11A�imtetonlsa, according to the piff-d eroof ftffie.:snd of record, Ha nq& Cry, Mhusota. The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 28th day of April t9 99. f� r qq , Signed Charies F. Anderson, Mnn. Reg. No.21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Mm Reg No. 24992 Wendy Lewin From: Alan Brixius [abrixius@nacplanning.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:40 PM To: Wendy Lewin Subject: RE: 2401 Black Lake Rd This lot requested a garage variance in 2006 and was denied. I believe that the reasons at that time were the number of variances needed to accommodate the garage, the encroachment on a storm sewer easement along the south lot line and the total lot coverage. The new variance standards require the council to make the following findings. 1. Is the use reasonable. This request should be tested with the council to determine if they are open to reconsidering this issue for this lot. 2. Are there practical difficulties unique to this lot that prevent the property owner from meeting the city standards. The lot size and configuration do present a unique practical difficulty. 3. The difficulty must not be economic in nature or have been created by the property owner. The site plan would have to demonstrate that the garage can be located on the property without encroaching on the utility easement , can be safely accessed and egressed. They will have to address site drainage and storm water management. Before responding to the property owner, we may wish to get some reaction from the council next Monday night. I don't want to encourage an application that may be denied. Alan Brixius, AICP Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 4800 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 202 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: 763-231-2555 Fax: 763-231-2561 abrixius@nacplannine.com From: Wendy Lewin [mailto:WLewin(@ci.spring-park.mn.us] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:20 PM To: Alan Brixius Subject: 2401 Black Lake Rd Al, a potential buyer of the above referenced property came to city hall today to inquire about adding a detached garage. This property has a history with the city in that it is oddly shaped and virtually impossible to add a garage without multiple variances. The potential buyer is wondering if there is likelihood to be granted variances in order to put a 21x22 foot detached garage on the property. The two obvious variances needed would be a street setback and a lakeshore setback. Possible hardcover variance would be needed as well unless the potential buyer agrees to permeable pavers for a driveway. See attached drawing illustrating what is being proposed. Obviously, this is so preliminary and nothing is guaranteed and the potential buyer has been informed of this risk. Now that variance law has changed from hardship to practical difficulties, do you see this as having any potential? Wendy Lewin, City Clerk City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 4367 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 February 7, 2014 Spring Park Planning Commission Spring Park City Council Spring Park, MN Re: Variance requests by owners of 2401 Black Lake Road We have great concerns as to the precedent that would be set by granting this variance. Although it's unfortunate the owners were unable to sell the property for the price they would like to have achieved, one could easily argue they were trying to obtain a sales price above current market values. Our major concern in regard to this request is allowing buildings to far exceed minimum setbacks from the lake in today's code. A 50' setback for lakeshore is a minimum throughout Lake Minnetonka and many cities require 75' to 100' setbacks. In our opinion this is a minimum that should not be violated. It would appear to us this variance request is based on personal financial reasons and this is not a legitimate consideration for variance. The owners of this property no longer live there. We question their concern for future lake quality. The City of Spring Park clearly notified them at time of purchase they would be unable to obtain this sort of variance but they proceeded to close anyway and have been denied numerous times thereafter. No means No. City ordinances should not be abused to mitigate personal life choices. Respectfully, Stephen and Pauline Erickson May 8, 2013 �t w 2401 Black Lake Rd PhillipaCHartley@hotmail.com Thank you for your phone call today regarding your interest in 2401 Black Lake Rd. You were interested in setback restrictions and exploring an addition to the existing residence. You said your addition would be to extend the north side of the residence, turn the loft area into a second story and convert the walkout to garage space. I told you that there are issues with that lot specifically regarding the proper setback from Black Lake Road and a city easement on the north side of the property. This is what was revealed after spending some time looking in the property file: 1. The existing structure is considered to be "Legal non -conforming." What that means is it is legal because it's existing and has been for a long time but it is non -conforming according to current ordinances in place, particularly front yard setback (30 feet is required). According to the attached survey (Doc. 1), the existing structure looks to be setback less than 30 feet. I indicated in our phone conversation that a variance process would have to be considered. 2. You indicated you would be considering an addition to the north side of the house (on the right when looking from the road). I stated I knew there was some sort of city easement on that side but I wasn't sure where it was located as it wasn't spelled out on the survey (Doc 1). Upon discussion with our utility superintendent, we were able to locate the easement. We also were able to consult a survey of a neighboring property (Doc 2) that illustrates the sewer easement (see red hash marks on Doc 2). It is a difficult measurement and more of a guess but it looks like the allowable space for an addition towards the north would be around 10-13 feet. 3. Although you did not ask for this information, I thought it might be helpful for you to know. Please reference attached Doc. 3. When consulting the Hennepin County Property Tax records and map overlay, there is a parcel of land illustrated in red that is not recorded. According to the owner of 4343 Shoreline Drive, when he bought his property in the late 90's he had to do quite bit of title work in order to get clear title. Once this quiet title action took place, he made sure it was recorded with Hennepin County. He said this also affected 2401 Black Lake Rd but they must not have had this recorded, therefore the parcel of land circled in red does not show its attached to 2401 Black Lake Rd. Since this is the lakeshore access, it would be important to have that parcel of land recorded to 2401 Black Lake Rd. According to the owner of 4343 Shoreline Drive, that parcel does belong to 2401 but it hasn't been recorded as such. 4. Lastly, you did ask about parking a boat at a dock in the cove. The LMCD is in charge of docks on Lake Minnetonka and this is a question for them to answer but, in consulting with the owner of 4343 Shoreline Drive, he is under the impression that a dock would probably not be allowed if following the LMCD guidelines. He stated the present owner of 2401 Black Lake Road currently shares a dock space with him. I hope this information helps you with your decision. M May 8, 2013 2401 Black Lake Rd PhillipaCHartley@hotmail.com Thank you for your phone call today regarding your interest in 2401 Black Lake Rd. You were interested in setback restrictions and exploring an addition to the existing residence. You said your addition would be to extend the north side of the residence, turn the loft area into a second story (building height limited to 35 feet or 2.5 stories, whichever is least) and convert the walkout to garage space. I told you that there are issues with that lot specifically regarding the proper setback from Black Lake Road, hardcover calculations and a city easement on the north side of the property. This is what was revealed after spending some time looking in the property file: 1. The existing structure is considered to be "Legal non -conforming." What that means is it is legal because it's existing and has been for a long time but it is non -conforming according to current ordinances in place, particularly front yard setback PO feet is required). According to the attached survey (Doc. 1), the existing structure looks to be s tb ck less than 30 feet. I indicated in our phone conversation that a variance process would have to be considered. 2. You indicated you would be considering an addition to the north side of the house (on the right when looking from the road). I stated I knew there was some sort of city easement on that side but I wasn't sure where it was located as it wasn't spelled out on the survey (Doc 1). Upon discussion with our utility superintendent, we were able to locate the easement. We also were able to consult a survey of a neighboring property (Doc 2) that illustrates the sewer easement (see red hash marks on Doc 2). It is a difficult measurement and more of a guess but it looks like the allowable space for an addition towards the north would only be around 10-13 feet. 3. Lastly, you did ask about parking a boat at a dock in the cove. The LMCD is in charge of docks on Lake Minnetonka and this is a question for them to answer but, in consulting with the owner of 4343 Shoreline Drive, he is under the impression that a dock would probably not be allowed if following the LMCD guidelines. He stated the present owner of 2401 Black Lake Road currently shares a dock space with him. I hope this information helps you with your decision. Please be advised that this information provided is from a cursory study of what's in the property file and is only a generic interpretation of what could and could not be allowed. This has not been reviewed by our city planner nor our city attorney who are ultimately the experts on these matters. I understand that you need some sort of direction because your purchase depends upon this. Without seeing specific drawings and plans however, it is difficult to truly determine whether your ideas are doable or not. I would advise you proceed with utmost caution before committing to a purchase of any property, especially when your purchase involves a footprint change and your satisfaction with your purchase would be dependent upon that. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk I I I I 2 ST FR HOUSE #4343 I 30.0 S87024' 00' 50.20- - �ONC BLKI RETAINING WALL EXISTING HA )COVER °� — — — — — O HOUSE = 85SF / oil °p DRIVE = 1 1 2 SF L I I I Qa NALK TOTAL 20F� 90SF (30.0� LOT AREA) N ,to NOT INC PUBLIC STREET N 83°26'31" W 25.10,___ A / F%-.38.5 �kza.s O /( ti ry0 b* / \ / IV a / w\\` rr�. 1211CMPCULVERT— o4f,, h� �y9 INV ELEV / -# ' - / F 0+ V� 16.73----_-' H 81131'24' W 2 CHLNK O FENCE (� - °OHL Q N 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET .,00 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE - PROPOSED HOUSE TO FIT EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT DESCRIPTION Y..7 ry•" THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA", MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT '8e 9.tig PART OF.SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A - - - 13.5 , POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET pS� SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST �,ab i e�1S LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE THEREOF. ° V. LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN M I NNETONKA" EXCEPT THAT ((' PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE �� ry V tCN SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED CP BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS INNz� gP WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE '11 SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF - - BENCHMARK BEG I NN I NG . TNH = 944.8 LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC NOTE —This survey subject to change on reciept of title / easement information Qc Co J Q _ Q) QC �N Wendy Lewin From: Jim Bletzer Ubletzer@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:51 AM To: Wendy Lewin Subject: Re: 2401 Black Lake Rd... You're the best. I hate that you got scolded!!! I'm sure you're a tough cookie and will scold them back when you get your chanceM Loll Thank you for everything. I may come back to you if I can buy the house properlyM Thanks again. You go above and beyond for your people. Don't ever change!! It's a tremendous asset and an asset for the town of Spring Park. Thanks again!!! 1B Jim Bletzer 6020 Loring Drive Minnetrista, MN 55364 Cell 203.940.2840 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Wendy Lewin <WLewin@ci.spring-park.mn.us> wrote: Well, we had the council work session last night and your question about building a basic two car garage on the property came up for discussion. The short answer is no answer. I was mildly scolded for referring this to our city planner in the first place as we will get billed for his research on this. A council member was concerned there was nothing in writing to review so how could they make a determination? Another council member stated he was extremely opposed to any encroachment, of any kind, within the 50 foot lakeshore setback. Another council member and prior planning commissioner stated this property has come on for variance application multiple times and it's been denied. He maintains it's virtually impossible to build a structure on that lot given the size restrictions. Our city attorney advised that in the future when generic questions of this nature are presented to the city, we respond with the attached variance checklist. So, as you can see, this is clear as mud. It goes back to what I stated before, buy what you can live with not what you can change. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk City of Spring Park 4349 Warren Avenue Spring Park, MN 55384 952-471-9051 wlewin@ci.spring-park.mn.us <VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST.DOCX> 13111f 0 FULFILLING OUR PROMISES TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED �/ZOIGCI ����,2GP/L S (� L& -Le R e G Ma i L o "o h^ t vx Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 Interac e Property Maps� Map b �f 41 f ' - j -f---------------------- = -----------, �4 --�------------- NOTES: Map Scale: 11 - 50 ft. N Print Date: 5/8/2013 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT© HENNEPIN COUNTY 2013 -7vnf. Green! http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/Property/print/default.aspx?C=450020.715058813 74,4975885.... 5/8/2013 -"" •.Y• OCT-30-2002 13:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.01iO3 fkl= NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 577e5 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone_ 952.585.9636 Facsimile: 952,595-9837 planners@nacpianning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Weeks FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: October 30, 2002 RE: Spring Park -- Non -Conforming Lot on Black Lake Road FILE NO- 175.01 — General Per our discussions on October 29th, you inquired as to what the expandability option for the house located on a Parcel B along Black Lake Road may be. Apparently, some interest has been given to the acquisition of the lot with inquiries regarding the expansion of the house or the replacement of the house as exists today. I have reviewed the survey that you sent and offer the following comments: The site is zoned R-1 which requires a 30 foot front yard setback from Black Lake Road, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Additionally, the building must be setback 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Black Lake. Exceptions to the front yard setback may be given where existing buildings along the same block fail to meet the required 30 foot setback. Then the setback shall be the average setback of those homes within the same block. This may make the existing house conforming in relation to the properties to the south. Before we give any recommendations or direction to a potential property buyer, we should receive a new survey that illustrates the following: 1. Property lines. 2. Setback from the Black Lake Road right-of-way. 3. Setback of other homes within the same block from Black Lake Road, 4. Designation of the ordinary high water mark for Black Lake with the required 50 foot setback. 5. Illustrations of existing easements that may encumber the property. 6. We should also see topographic contours that would illustrate any limitations to the property use. OCT-30-2002 13:57 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02iO3 I believe there are opportunities for this property to be purchased and renovated in accordance with the City ordinance, however, any expansion plans would have to illustrate future setbacks. Please call me with any further questions. 2 Date 2 - V - 0 -r Fee Paid .0 ($100) le `r APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF SPRING PARK Name of Property Owner CZEAflAM NE-VE Address of Property Owner ssc,o EA5TV1gw4vg. MovNA, FiN sS3 e t Phone Street Location of Property 2-4o l BLAc.k LAk.F jtp. S AQt4(;r RA ek- MN Ss 39+ Legal Description of Property SEE ATtAcHHENT Description of Request 7`_,o- cic-:, :g '_X1S-hnu ilo:ue, 4k)d nr ti h A n, w V! SUS e- On e xes C f Footerm t Reason (Hardship) For Request -��L2 +zrNih ,.,L1\ lnc+ I t lYl (e,-c",ie_ tip. huu..S e. HARDSHIP: "A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT IS UNIQUE TO A PARCEL OF LAND, NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, THAT PROHIBITS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL UNDER CONDITIONS ALLOWED BY THE OFFICIAL CONTROLS. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE WELL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP IF A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE." Has a request for a variance on the subject site of any part thereof been previously sought? Yes or No X, If yes, when? Requirements: Application, Survey, Fee Paid Processing Time: Approximately Six (6) Weeks Attach a survey showing the location of the proposed building in relation to lot lines, other buildings on the property and buildings on adjoining properties in relation to lot lines, locations of street(s), location(s) of ail easements on the property. Survey must be current (depicts all existing structures apd includes above information). Applicant's Signature Approved or Denied by the Planning Commission on Reason (if denied) Approved Reason (if denied) _ Special Provisions or Denied by the City Council on A building permit must be applied for within one (1) year from the date of approval of this variance or it becomes null and void. . . . . . . . . . . . . A r2 1/0 w Ik mm 6 aDs , I o o V N V 2'4 0 50.20 �. o o 1. _-- o -� o o) N83.26�31"yy I `� }� �` °D' ` 25.10 Z=t=9" V •CIS y W.1,�lll $ Y,; ' I O .- .... _ 911 3�11•' tones' and the North Half of —70.67 r .,ev follows: All thit .part of said LotAlF ,d. $0 feet south of the northeast rth line thereof and that past of l" ` CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES CPLANNING_COMMISSI0ND CM KC-H`26; 2001:: � D 7:30 P.M. — CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Karpas called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Karpas, Klein, Hughes, Adrian and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Nelson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. OATH OF OFFICE Deputy Clerk gave the oath of office to Gary Hughes, and Mike Adrian. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 12, 2003 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1., Open Public Hearing Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: NOTICE hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday March 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Planning Commission — 3/26/03 1 possible at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request to demolish a nonconforming house and rebuild on the same foundation. Graham Neve 2401 Black Lake Road PID 18-117-23-43-0185 All oral and written continents for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted at the meeting March 1, 2003 the rescheduled public hearing would be March 26, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC — 3/7/03 Paul Fadell was present representing Graham Neve because Neve is out of town. Karpas asked the exact variances from the street and the water. Hughes said they are approximately 18 feet from Black Lake Road and approximately 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Karpas pointed out the lot is an unusually shaped lot. It was noted the variance request is to tear down the existing structure and build a new structure on the footprint. Adrian asked if it would be built on a concrete slab and was told it will be. Fadell commented it is possible some walls may be reused if they are salvageable. Karpas read the recommendation from Planner and gave an overview of the proposed variance request. It was noted the Planner stated the lot is not a buildable lot. Klein asked if there were plans to build a deck. Fadell said not at this time because there is no place to go without a variance. Klein asked the square footage of the structure and was told 880 square feet. Hughes asked if there was a reason his name is not on the application. Fadell said Neve has done most of the work so far. Klein noted the application states the previous owner was told by an engineer that the existing structure is not safe to build on and this was known when the house was purchased. William Bartell, 2398 Black Lake Road asked what Fadell was going to do with the existing well on the property because it should be capped. Adrian asked if anything was going to be done by the retaining wall. Fadell said they hope to put in some landscaping but right now posts are placed there by the City. Klein asked how much higher the structure will be and she was told approximately 5 feet. Hughes asked if there was going to be a bedroom upstairs. Fadell said there would be a loft bedroom. Adrian referred to the garage door and asked if a Planning Commission — 3/26/03 2 garage is there and will it be used. Fadell said there will be no garage and the current garage door will be refinished for character. Adrian also asked where the parking would be. Fadell said there is room in the driveway for two cars. Anderson verified the structure would go on the same footprint. Klein asked if a walkout is being considered and was told yes. Having no further discussion the public hearing was closed. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Karpas seconded by Adrian to close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. All votes. were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Karpas said he is in support this variance request because of the planner's statements and feels the best plan for this structure is the one presented. Klein asked what the neighbors think and Fadell said they support it. Hughes said he is concerned with the time frame because he has looked at the unkempt property for 4 years. Fadell said they hope to have it finished by August. Hughes referred to the Zoning Ordinance Section 7, page 80, Subd C, 7. "Notifications to the Department of Resources". He said if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to the Council he would like this segment of the ordinance researched before any Council approval. Motion by Anderson seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council approval of the variance request for Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road, to demolish the house and rebuild on the same footprint with the above -mentioned condition. In discussion Karpas noted the variance: will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; it will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion; it will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Variance Request — Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell Avenue 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: Planning Commission — 3/26/03 3 Apr. 7, 2003 - 2002 - 2003 - Spring Park Page 2 of 7 O Full Site b) Council Special Meeting - 4/1/03 J This Section Sear�-�- ch Motion by Stone seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting April 1, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Printer -friendly Version Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public. PETITIONS, REQUESTS 8, APPLICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes - 3/26/03 Variance Request - Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road a) NAC - 3/6/03 Graham-Neve-and-Paul-Fadell-were-presept. Rockvam read the Planning Com issim"onion's discussion on the variance request from the minutes of their meeting. Rockvam asked Neve if he is going to save a wall. Neve said he is if possible. Rockvam said the variance request is to tear down the structure and now Neve stated he wants to save one wall. Neve pointed out there may be an 8-foot wall that is the only wall to code and if it is not to code (with 12' block) it will be torn down. Rockvam said if the variance request is to tear down the structure then if granted it would have to be torn down. Neve stated access has to be dug two feet around the old foundation to put in a new foundation. Rockvam asked if this was what the variance was based on or is it based on the old foundation and what is going to be done with the old foundation. Neve said the old foundation will be hauled away and the new foundation will be in the current location but to access it to build a new one, it will have to be dug 2 feet out. He also inquired about the well on the property. Neve said the realty company paid to have it capped and he will obtain the receipt with the number for it. Rockvam asked what the setback is for the variance request. Neve said the request is to tear down the current structure and build on the same footprint. Rockvam asked what the setback differences were. Weeks explained that rather than itemize them the request was to build on the same footprint. Williamson said after the tear down the footprint will not be seen. Weeks said it is on the survey. Williamson stated he is concerned that exact descriptive measurements are needed and a variance request approval must be precise. Rockvam pointed out the structure is 38.5 feet from the lake. Weeks said if the Council sees fit the staff will figure exact measurements. Rockvam said exact figures are needed on the variance request. The Council briefly discussed the distances of the structure to the street and the ordinary high water mark. Rockvam asked if hardcover is an issue. Weeks said it has not been calculated but the structure is 840 square feet, which is 12% of the lot. Rockvam said we should have exact measurements and need hardcover calculations. He also stated this was supposed to go to the DNR and we were not aware of this. Weeks said the reason in the Planner's analysis is to replace http://www.ci. spring-park.nm.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&arnp;SEC={ ODEED270-E... 11 /21 /2013 Apr. 7, 2003 - 2002 - 2003 - Spring Park Page 3 of 7 what is there and not enlarge the structure. Rockvam said a variance couldn't be granted without specific measurements. Hoffman asked the Council if in theory they had a problem with the variance request and there seemed to be an agreement there was no problem except for the wording without measurements. Rockvam asked Neve to have his surveyor get the exact measurements and hardcover calculations. Weeks -asked -if -this -could -be -on -the -Board -of -Review Fadell are the property owners the house. 2. Recommendation Re: Planters Weeks stated he has received a written quote from Often Brothers and another quote is being sent from Dundee Nursery. Weeks said he is satisfied that Norling's proposal is the most competitive. Rockvam said Norling was asked for a breakdown of costs if we purchased the planters from the factory ourselves. It was learned if the City purchased them directly, the City would have to arrange shipping, coordinate loading and unloading, and any breakage would be our responsibility, and we would have to hire someone to unload the planters when they are delivered, etc. Rockvam pointed out the City has three planters now and is looking at other locations on Shoreline and three other locations have been identified, Bayview, Edgewater Apartments and Black Lake Road. He reviewed the proposal has been discussed with budget restraints particularly considered and a decision, if any, has yet to be made. Rockvam asked the Council if they were ready to vote on the proposal. Widmer said she is ready to move forward on the proposal but would like to see it cut back to 6 new planters instead of 9 new ones, two on the west end by Bayview and then by Black Lake Road. Williamson pointed out plantings are placed around the City welcome signs that also add color. (Weeks pointed out the new surface flowerbeds are marked on chart.) Motion by Widmer seconded by Hoffman to approve the purchase two of each size planter for a total of six. In discussion Williamson asked if we could get them for the same unit price with a reduction in the quantity and he was told yes. Stone said she would prefer to wait one full season of maintenance on the first three and to see what is going to happen with state aid cuts. Williamson said not all costs are proportionate but it is fair to think the figures are close and he agrees with Widmer that efforts should be in high visibility areas and that is why we have done what we have so far. He added Stone raises a good point and we have to be watchful of how we spend our dollars and keep in reasonable parameters. He said he is supportive of the motion. Stone noted not all residents are aware the City receives funds from the http://www.ci. spring-park.mn.us/index. asp?Type=B_BASIC&amp; SEC= {ODEED270-E... 11 /21 /2013 c) Close Public Hearing Motion by Widmer seconded by Stone to close the public hearing and adjourn the Board of Review at 7:50 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Rockvam noted the roll remained the same for the remaining Council business. 5. MISCELLANEOUS a) Approval of Council Minutes — April 7, 2003 Motion by Williamson seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting April 7, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Variance Request Continuation, Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road . a) Resolution 03-10 — Approving Variance for 2401 Black Lake Road Subject to Conditions Weeks said the Council asked for specific measurements and the applicant submitted a revised survey showing those measurements. Rockvam read the conditions in the resolution that reflects all of the dimensions. He clarified to Neve the structure will be totally replaced. Widmer asked the status of the capped well. Rockvam said the receipt for the capped well should be one of the conditions. Motion by Hoffman seconded by Stone to approve Resolution 03-10, approving the variance for 2401 Black bake Road subject to conditions with the addition of the receipt for the capped well. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously_. b) Establish Workshop Date With Engineer Re: Water Tower Weeks said possible dates for this meeting are April 23`d or 30' . Hoffinan suggested coordinating this meeting on the same day as the Adjourned Board of Review. Weeks will coordinate this and notify the Council. In another matter Rockvam asked if there was anything new from the legislature regarding budget cuts and was told no. He inquired about parking at Bayview Apartments. He said they have one extra parking place and all the other spaces are designated for parking cars not for storage of boats and trailers. Weeks noted the Police Commission Meeting is cancelled as both Sgt. Erickson and Chief Good are out of town. Rockvam asked for an update on the trailer in the parking lot on the corner of Sunset and Shoreline. Weeks said he has spoken with the owner and IB__oard of Review-4/r14/03 an CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION 03-10 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 2401 BLACK LAKE ROAD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHEREAS Graham Neve (the applicant) has requested a variance to property at 2401 Black 'Lake Road to demolish a deteriorating non -conforming residential structure and rebuild a new residential structure on the same footprint in an R-1 District; and WHEREAS the Spring Park Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 26, 2003 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS the City Planner in a memo dated March 6, 2003 recommended approval; and WHEREAS a current survey dated April 8, 2003 has been submitted; THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED that the City Council approve this variance request and the applicant may construct .(after securing. necessary..pEzmits) a new residential _ stn c hze -9 2401 Black Lake Road subject to the following conditions: A) Structure shall be built on same footprint of existing structure. B) Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%) may not be increased. C) A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on northeast corner and 15.7 feet on southeast comer is approved. D) A setback variance of 0.7 feet from west elevation (sideyard setback) is approved. E) A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (Ordinary High Water Mark setback) is approved. F) Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK ON THIS 14th DAY OF _April , 2003. WV IN Uwrnayd J!/�s --Meld IN - ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF SPRING PARK 4349 WARREN AVENUE SPRING PARK, MN 55384 * Fee $250 DatePaid Y'c v � I- 7 • 1 1- 0 to Name of Property Owner rah C& 1/1n N ey Q, Address of Property Owner ?14c> 1 L31 aCk- L q Jc=r__2cl Phone (o 1 Z - 2-15-- Street Location of Property 2-40 f 61CkCk Lakp- Rd Legal Description of Property S EE AT7-,qcNE� Description of Request tj t WOL,1 rJ hk,r fC�, a f7�i+c� CA dy-r-/c Reason (Hardship) For Request -Tln.e & t iS &u ei aI'/Gt _, tc7 'rxdhe S+rpv-f- -FhaCk a -7-he Ioczifrn;., +k,,f rLt),t , ,o,- [ f:,r --L,b- Qa,-aa o ! C or, -t-t:I ('i+ tL. -�,L'_LiC,r //P)V_ P-t4S4e ✓elv77. 4y Aaal 7i0el HARDSHIP: "A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT IS UNIQUE TO A PARCEL O A , NOT, CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER, THAT PROHIBITS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL UNDER CONDITIONS ALLOWED BY THE OFFICIAL CONTROLS. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ALONE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP IF A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS PERMITTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LAND USE CONTROL ORDINANCE." Has a re`uest for a variance on the subject site of any part thereof been previously sought? Yes ez or No If yes, when? Fe h . �703 Requirements: Application, Survey, Fee Paid Processing Time: Approximately Six (6) Weeks Attach a survey showing the location of the proposed building in relation to lot lines, other buildings on the property and buildings on adjoining properties in relation to lot lines, locations of street(s), location(s) of all easements on the property. Survey must be current (depicts all existing struc - inek ea above information). g/ /o ff Applicant's Signature 7— Z­0 U C� Approved or Denied by the Planning Commission on Reason (if denied) Approved or Denied by the City Council on Memo Date: August 22, 2006 RE: Variance Request To: Property Owners within 350 Feet of 2401 Black Lake Road Dear Property Owner, This notice is being sent to you to comply with the provisions of the City Ordinance that written notification of a hearing shall be mailed to all owners of land within 350 of the boundary of the property in question. Your property is within that 350 foot radius. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE APPLICATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 7 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request for: Lot area, setbacks, and impervious surface for a proposed addition of an attached deck and an unattached garage to the residence at 2401 Black Lake Road. Graham Neve & Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road 118-117-23-43-0185 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Published in the Laker Newspaper August 26, 2006) Memo Date: September 21, 2006 RE: Variance Request To: Property Owners within 350 Feet of 2401 Black Lake Road Dear Property Owner, This notice is being sent to you to comply with the provisions of the City Ordinance that written notification of a hearing shall be mailed to all owners of land within 350 feet of the boundary of the property in question. Your property is within that 350 foot radius. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE APPLICATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a variance request for: Lot area and setbacks variances for a proposed addition of an attached deck and an unattached garage to the residence at 2401 Black Lake Road. Graham Neve & Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road 118-117-23-43-0185 Please note, at the request of the Planning Commission and City Council this is a resubmission of the original variance request dated July 21, 2006 due to lack of clarity in the size of the proposed unattached garage. All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Published in the Laker Newspaper September 30, 2006) MEMO Date: 08-02-06 To: NAC, AUDan From: Sarah/Wendy RE: Variance Application 2401 Black Lake Road Al/Dan: Jessica Neve, wife to Graham Neve, property owner at 2401 Black Lake Road, dropped off an application for variance request on 7-21-06 for 2401 Black Lake Road. Neves are proposing to build an attached deck to the residence and an unattached garage. Attached to the application is a survey with the proposals hand drawn in blue ink. As noted by the Neves in the application, the location that works best for the proposed garage is on top of a sewer line easement. The present home at 2401 Black Lake Road is a recent build (2003) after a tear down of an old structure. At that time, a variance was required due to the non -conforming lot. Attached you will find several documents as they relate to the original variance request and resulting resolution 03-10. I believe the attached application and various documents will explain what Neves are proposing at this time. (Preliminarily, when DJ was asked his opinion whether a variance would be possible for the unattached garage, without seeing the application or paperwork, DJ's initial thoughts were it would be highly improbable due to the difficulties presented earlier with the tear - down and re -build.) Thank you for looking this application for variance over and we look forward to your opinion. SF/WL qv G ()-- ILt s- c f I NO7ff HJWE' A$PrCli��rE'DQNJ4UJ4TPp►KTIS�,., tNiC, 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 2006 TO: Spring Park Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien RE: 2401 Black Lake Road- Variance Request NAC FILE: 175.01-06.08 DATE RECEIVED: July 21, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE:September 19, 2006 BACKGROUND Graham and Jessica Neve have submitted an application for a variance to construct a deck and a detached garage on their property, located at 2401 Black Lake Road. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirements, impervious surface requirement, and to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. ANALYSIS The subject site is a 6,926 square foot lot with a storm sewer easement extending from east to west along the south portion of the property. The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a 333 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck on the southeast corner of the home. The lot is legally non -conforming with a total buildable area of 6,034 square feet. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for single family homes in the R-1 District. The site contains a single family home which was constructed in 2003 with the approval of variances to the street setback, the ordinary high water mark setback, and the side yard setback. Said variances were approved on April 14, 2003 through Resolution 03-10 (Exhibit D). According to the resolution, this variance as approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure shall be built on the same footprint of existing structure. 2. Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%), may not be increased. 3. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner is approved. 4. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback) is approved. 5. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback) is approved. 6. Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. The City Council minutes (April 7, 2003) and Planning Commission minutes (March 26, 2003) related to this approval reflect concerns regarding any future construction of a deck or garage. The applicant responded by stating that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The conditions of the site, including the amount of surface parking, have not changed. Easement. The City's policy is to prohibit any encroachments into easements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 333 square foot detached garage within a storm sewer easement. Storm sewer easements are granted by property owners for the use of a portion of land for the benefit of others. In this case, the easement is occupied by a City storm sewer easement. The construction of a garage within this easement would prohibit the City from having direct access to the storm sewer facility. Any maintenance or construction would require that the garage be torn down at the expense of the property owner in order to access the facilities. Setback Requirements. The following table illustrates the setback requirements of the R-1 District. The proposed garage deviates from these requirements, as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Front Yard/Street 30 feet 9.5 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 5 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 38 feet The southwest corner of the site has approximately 55 feet of shoreline along Lake Minnetonka's Black Lake and thus, the garage must adhere to the ordinary high water mark setback. The applicant is requesting setback variances in addition to what was originally approved in 2003 (Exhibit D). Resolution 03-10 approved the following setback variances: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). The applicant is now requesting a more significant variance to the side yard setback, as well as the front yard/street setback. The proposed front yard setback would require a variance of 20.5 feet, as opposed to the 17.8 feet originally approved. The side yard setback would require a variance of five feet, an increase from the 0.7 foot variance approved in 2003. No deck or garage was proposed with the original application. If the City were aware of the future intentions at the time of approval, they may have recommended an alternate design. In addition to requiring a number of setback variances, the proposed garage location presents safety concerns. The garage is proposed a mere 9.5 feet from Black Lake Road. This location is too close to the street to allow for safe access, and does not provide adequate space for any car to be parked in front of the garage. The garage would also encroach into the south setback toward the neighboring property to the south. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Placing the deck in any alternate location would require additional setback variances. The proposed location is consistent with the setbacks of the existing home and appears to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Impervious Surface. In the R-1 District, as defined by the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. The applicants' lot size, including the area under the ordinary high water mark, allows for a maximum of 2,090 square feet of impervious surface. The site currently contains the maximum 30 percent surface coverage. The majority of the proposed garage structure will be located on the existing bituminous drive. However, a triangular portion of the garage, approximately 57.7 feet in area, will be located to the south of the driveway, increasing the impervious surface. The surface of the proposed deck is assumed to be constructed of slatted flooring, allowing water to drain through the surface. Thus, the deck will not have an impact on the impervious surface. Impervious surface on the lot includes: Impervious Surface Proposed Area House 858 sf Detached garage 58 sf Driveway & walks* 1,232 sf Total 2,147.7 sf Allowed 2,090 sf Variance requested 57.7 sf Based on the elements listed above, a lot coverage variance would also be required. The existing single family home was approved via Resolution 03-10, adopted on April 14, 2003 (Exhibit D). Condition B of this resolution states that approval of the variance request was subject to the condition that the total existing hardcover of the site, which was at 30 percent, may not be increased. The addition of the garage would increase the total impervious surface of the site to 31 percent, exceeding the maximum requirement and violating the conditions of approval in Resolution 03-10. However, the garage may be positioned in an alternate location to avoid the need for a variance. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. In order to approve a request for variance, the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make a finding of fact that the granting of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Summary of Variance Issues The subject site is a small, non -conforming lot which required a number of setback variances for the construction of a single family home in 2003. The applicant has now requested additional variances to the setback requirements, a variance to the maximum impervious surface requirement, and is requesting to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. The lot is a typical Spring Park lot and does not appear to have any unique conditions to justify the granting of a variance. The existing home on the site is non -conforming, and was approved with variances. As a condition of approval for these variances, the total hardcover of the site may not be increased. The applicant is proposing to increase the hardcover of the site by 1 %. CONCLUSION The following variances have been requested: • Side yard setback variance- 5 feet • Front yard setback- 20.5 feet • Ordinary high water mark setback- 12 feet • Impervious surface coverage- 57.7 square feet • Construction within a storm sewer easement In order to grant a variance, it must be determined that an undue hardship exists. The circumstances of the property do not seem to indicate a hardship. When the existing home was approved in 2003, the Planning Commission was concerned with the potential future construction of a deck and/or garage. At that time, the applicant stated that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The applicant is now requesting both a deck and garage on the site. The proposed garage requires all setback variances listed above. Both the side yard variance and the front yard variance would be significantly greater than what was originally approved for the site. The proposed garage would also be located within a storm sewer easement. It is the City's policy not to allow any structures within such easements, as they would create a significant obstacle for any maintenance of the storm sewer facility. Furthermore, the garage would increase the impervious surface of the site and a present safety concern, as it is proposed a mere 9.5 feet from Black Lake Road. RECOMMENDATION The proposed deck meets all code requirements and is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the deck as proposed. However, staff has a number of concerns relating to the proposed garage. The detached garage violates condition B of Resolution 03-10, in that it would increase the impervious surface of the site. The garage also requires variances to the shoreland setback, front yard setback, and side yard setback. The requested front yard and side yard setbacks are more non -conforming than the setbacks approved with the construction of the existing home in 2003. The front yard setback proposes safety issues with no convenient access onto Black Lake Road. The side yard setback encroaches onto the neighboring property, leaving only five feet between the garage and the property line. The garage is also proposed within a storm sewer easement. A storm sewer pipe currently runs under the proposed garage location. Any maintenance or construction to this pipe would require that the garage be removed at the owner's expense. Staff believes that it may be appropriate for the applicant to pursue an alternate location on the site that would locate the garage closer to the existing home, or possibly attach the garage to the principle structure. Staff is not familiar with the details regarding the design of the home, or how an attached garage would function in relation to the principal structure design. However, relocating the garage to a location closer to the home may reduce the impact on the neighboring property and the storm sewer easement, and allow for a longer driveway to eliminate safety concerns. An alternate location would also allow the garage to meet setback requirements and may allow the applicant to remove a portion of the bituminous driveway to reduce the impervious surface. Any alternate design would be evaluated on its own merits. The proposed garage requires a number of variances and no hardship has been proven. As such, staff does not recommend approval of the variances for the detached garage as presented. If the City finds that a hardship has been proven and the variance requests are appropriate, staff recommends that any recommendation of approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. The hard surface on the site shall be reduced to 30%. 2. The garage shall be relocated outside of the easement in a manner that also reduces the impact on the neighboring property owner to the south. 3. The garage shall be downsized to meet the setback variances previously approved for the site. Exhibits A. Site plan/survey B. City Council minutes from April 7, 2003. C. Planning Commission minutes from March 26, 2003. D. Resolution 03-10 o i 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Spring Park Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien RE: 2401 Black Lake Road- Variance Request NAC FILE: 175.01-06.08 DATE RECEIVED: July 21, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE:September 19, 2006 BACKGROUND Graham and Jessica Neve have submitted an application for a variance to construct a deck and a detached garage on their property, located at 2401 Black Lake Road. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirements and to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. ANALYSIS The subject site is a 6,926 square foot lot with a storm sewer easement extending from east to west along the south portion of the property. The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck on the southeast corner of the home. The lot is legally non -conforming with a total buildable area of 6,034 square feet. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for single family homes in the R-1 District. The site contains a single family home which was constructed in 2003 with the approval of variances to the street setback, the ordinary high water mark setback, and the side yard setback. Said variances were approved on April 14, 2003 through Resolution 03-10 (Exhibit D). According to the resolution, this variance as approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure shall be built on the same footprint of existing structure. 2. Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%), may not be increased. 3. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast comer and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner is approved. 4. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback) is approved. 5. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback) is approved. 6. Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. The City Council minutes (April 7, 2003) and Planning Commission minutes (March 26, 2003) related to this approval reflect concerns regarding any future construction of a deck or garage. The applicant responded by stating that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The conditions of the site, including the amount of surface parking, have not changed. Easement. The City's policy is to prohibit any encroachments into easements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot, two -stall, detached garage within a storm sewer easement. Storm sewer easements are granted by property owners for the use of a portion of land for the benefit of others. In this case, the easement is occupied by a City storm sewer pipe. The construction of a garage within this easement would prohibit the City from having direct access to the storm sewer facility. Any maintenance or construction would require that the garage be torn down at the expense of the property owner in order to access the facilities. Setback Requirements. The following table illustrates the setback requirements of the R-1 District. The proposed garage deviates from these requirements, as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Front Yard/Street 30 feet 12 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 8.25 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 45 feet The southwest corner of the site has approximately 55 feet of shoreline along Lake Minnetonka's Black Lake and thus, the garage must adhere to the ordinary high water mark setback. The applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in addition to what was originally approved in 2003 (Exhibit D). Resolution 03-10 approved the following setback variances: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). The applicant is now requesting a more significant variance to the front yard/street setback. The proposed front yard setback would require a variance of 18 feet, as opposed to the 17.8 feet originally approved. A more significant side yard setback is also proposed, increasing the required variance to 1.75 feet. A variance of five feet from the ordinary high water mark setback would also be required. However, this variance is less significant than what was approved in 2003. In addition to requiring a setback variance, the proposed garage location presents safety concerns. The garage is proposed a mere twelve feet from Black Lake Road. This location is too close to the street to allow for safe access, and does not provide adequate space for any car to be parked in front of the garage. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Placing the deck in any alternate location would require additional setback variances. The proposed location is consistent with the setbacks of the existing home and appears to meet the requirements of the ordinance. No deck or garage was proposed with the original application. If the City were aware of the future intentions at the time of approval, they may have recommended an alternate design. Impervious Surface. In the R-1 District, as defined by the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. The applicants' lot size, including the area under the ordinary high water mark, allows for a maximum of 2,090 square feet of impervious surface. The site currently contains the maximum 30 percent surface coverage. Impervious surface currently on the lot include -so Impervious Surface Proposed Area House - 858 sf Driveway & walks* 1,232 sf Total 2,090 sf The existing single family home was approved via Resolution 03-10, adopted on April 14, 2003 (Exhibit D). Condition B of this resolution states that approval of the variance request was subject to the condition that the total existing hardcover of the site, which was at 30 percent, may not be increased. The proposed garage is located entirely on the existing drive, and will not increase the impervious surface of the site. The applicant is also proposing to remove approximately 200 square feet of the existing driveway. Removal of this hardcover will decrease the amount of impervious surface to 27%. Building Height. The applicant has indicated that the proposed garage will be two stories, with the second floor utilized for storage. The applicant has not provided a floor plan or elevations for the garage. Structures in the R-1 District are restricted to a height of 35 feet. The proposed garage shall be required to adhere to this standard. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. In order to approve a request for variance, the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make a finding of fact that the granting of the variance will not: I. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Summary of Variance Issues The subject site is a small, non -conforming lot which required a number of setback variances for the construction of a single family home in 2003. The applicant has now requested additional variances to the setback requirements and is requesting to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. The lot is a typical Spring Park lot and does not appear to have any unique conditions to justify the granting of a variance. The existing home on the site is non- conforming, and was approved with variances. CONCLUSION The following variances have been requested: • Front yard setback- 18 feet • Side yard setback- 1.75 feet • Ordinary high water mark setback- 5 feet • Construction within a storm sewer easement In order to grant a variance, it must be determined that an undue hardship exists. The circumstances of the property do not seem to indicate a hardship. When the existing home was approved in 2003, the Planning Commission was concerned with the potential future construction of a deck and/or garage. At that time, the applicant stated that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The applicant is now requesting both a deck and garage on the site. The proposed garage requires all setback variances listed above. The front yard variance and side yard variance would be more significant than what was originally approved for the site. The proposed ordinary high water mark setback is less severe than what was originally approved, but still not in compliance with the Ordinance. The proposed garage would also be located within a storm sewer easement. It is the City's policy not to allow any structures within such easements, as they would create a significant obstacle for any maintenance of the storm sewer facility. RECOMMENDATION The proposed deck meets all code requirements and is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the deck as proposed. However, staff has a number of concerns relating to the proposed garage. The garage requires variances to the side yard setback, ordinary high water mark setback, and front yard setback. The requested front yard and side yard setbacks are more non -conforming than the setback approved with the construction of the existing home in 2003. The front yard setback proposes safety issues with no convenient access provided onto Black Lake Road. The side yard setback encroaches onto the neighboring property, leaving just over eight feet between the garage and the property line. Additionally, the garage is proposed within a storm sewer easement. A storm sewer pipe currently occupies this easement, and runs under the proposed garage location. Any maintenance or construction to this pipe would require that the garage be removed at the owner's expense. Staff believes that it may be appropriate for the applicant to pursue an alternate design that would locate the garage outside the easement, and create more significant setbacks from Black Lake Road and the property to the south. At 480 square feet, the proposed garage also appears to be too large to function well with the site. Staff would encourage the applicant to pursue an alternate garage design, considering a smaller structure that allows for more significant setbacks and functions more appropriate on the site. Any alternate design would be evaluated on its own merit. The proposed garage requires a number of variances and no hardship has been demonstrated. As such, staff does not recommend approval of the variances for the detached garage as presented. If the City finds that a hardship has been proven and the variance requests are appropriate, staff recommends that any recommendation of approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage shall be relocated outside of the easement in a manner that reduces the impact on the neighboring property owner. 2. The garage shall be downsized to create more significant front yard and side yard setbacks. Exhibits A. Site plan/survey B. City Council minutes from April 7, 2003. C. Planning Commission minutes from March 26, 2003. D. Resolution 03-10 XF29MO PARK OH LAk2 lWmeto4a Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam September 15, 2006 (952) 471-9515 Council Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson Graham Neve (952) 471-1029 Paul Fadell Sarah Reinhardt 5560 Eastview Avenue (952) 471-0767 Mound, MN 55364 Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 RE: Parcel 18-117-23-43-0185 / 2401 Black Lake Road Administration Dear Mr. Neve and Mr. Fadell: Sarah Friesen Administrator You are hereby notified of the City of Spring Park's extension of the D.J. Goman initial 60-day time period for acting upon your variance application Utility Superintendent dated July 21, 2006. This extension is permitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subdivision 3(f). The time period is extended Sharon Cori until November 17, 2006. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin This extension is necessary to allow additional time for city staff and Office Assistant consultants to review and comment on the changes made to your initial application. Changes made include but are not limited to a reduction in the size of the garage and a redesign of the deck. If you have any questions concerning this letter please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, --&t4 P4�' Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk ctyof, op leg Pqtk 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Setbacks approved for the site with the construction of the single family home in 2003 are as follows: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). T.heaproposed-variance'to the'ordinary high water mark sligf tly6 %ods°what=was originally_.approved-for•the-site. Section 3 Subd. E-7 refers to yard requirements for accessory structures. This section states that where structures exist on the lots adjoining both sides of a proposed building site, the minimum setback from the ordinary high water level for the proposed structure shall be the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. The setback for the single family home on the property is 38.5 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The home to the south is setback 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Thus, the average setback is 34.25 feet. The proposed setback would be appropriate under this averaging technique. However, averaging may not apply in this case, as one structure used in this calculation exists on the same lot. Regardless, this technique is utilized to ensure that the proposed structure will not interfere with sight lines. In,anycase; a Variance5would be still .be -necessary; as -the, -setback -,of the �singleJamily,home. has, not been maintained. .. . All other proposed setbacks have been increased from what was originally presented. t- The front yard setback of 18 feet may relieve some of the safety concerns associated with the original garage design. While the garage will still be close to Black Lake Road, the 18 foot setback may allow room for a smaller car to be parked in the driveway, without encroaching on the street surface. The side yard setback meets the requirement. The revised plan is less offensive:,to the neighboring -property to the'south, and' may provide an adequate'setback from the storm sewer, pipe. The original design placed the garage within the storm sewer easement, directly on top of the existing pipe. The.gapplicant_has now reduced the.size of the garage.and. moved it -to the north,. potentially avoiding the easement. The easement has not been recorded in the property file, and is to be verified by the utility superintendent. Driveway. Due to the fact that the proposed garage limits the driveway length, staff has evaluated the design of the driveway. The existing driveway has a 25 foot curb cut, the maximum allowed by ordinance. As designed, the driveway flares out on both the north and south sides. The north side of the driveway abuts a retaining wall. The height of this wall is not known. In order to alleviate safety eoncerns,,the„applicant must illustrate ,that4he�height"of1K retaining'=wall does--not„interfere=with proper sight lines. Y Staff is also concerned with the close proximity of the south driveway line to the storm sewer pipe. As it exists, the driveway comes within two feet of the storm sewer pipe. Staff-recommends=that;,along-with -any recommendation:of approval, the City require the NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com TO: Spring Park City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien DATE: September 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Variance Request for 2401 Black Lake Road CASE NO: 175.01-06.08 The Planning Commission heard a Variance request for a detached garage and deck for the subject property at their September 13, 2006 meeting. At this meeting, the applicant presented revised plans which had not been reviewed by planning staff. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the deck, pending planning staffs approval of the plans presented. Regarding the garage, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the plans as presented. The applicant submitted a second set of revised plans on September 15, 2006. The revised plans call for a reduced one -stall garage located entirely upon the existing bituminous drive, reducing the overall impervious surface of the site to 27%. The proposed garage is 352 square feet (22x16). A 200 square foot, second story deck is also proposed for the site. Said deck extends approximately two feet beyond the south wall of the existing home. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Setbacks. The proposed setbacks for the garage are as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Original Plan Proposed Revised Plan Front Yard/Street 30 feet 12 feet 18 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 8.25 feet 15.5 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 45 feet 35 feet applicant to eliminate°the southern"flare'in the driveway and --redesign to run perpendicular with -the° street. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The City must find that an undue hardship exists when considering the variance request. 4t- may, be -determined that a garage ,is a- necessary component to a single family -.home for the Minnesota climate: The City Council must determine this finding. CONCLUSION The applicant has made a number of revisions to his original application to create an improved site plan. As presented; the.. proposed.. garage would. only. require. one additional variance to what, was approved for the site-in-2003. The proposed -ordinary high water..mark.setback.would„require a variance for.four-additional. feet. Using an averaging technique with the setbacks of the neighboring structures, the proposed garage is compliant. The garage is compliant with the side yard setback requirement, the impervious surface requirement, and appears to be located off of the storm sewer easement. TheAeck4so�appears..to.meet all_ requirements,: and :doe.s,not,require a variance. As presented, the proposed garage is markedly superior to what was originally proposed. Regarding the request for a Variance, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the variance for a detached garage, based on a finding that an undue hardship exists, subject to the following conditions: a. The flair in the south driveway curb cut shall be eliminated to create more significant setback from the storm sewer pipe. b. The applicant must demonstrate proper sight lines to the north, over the retaining wall. c. The applicant must comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. d. The garage must be located outside of the utility easement, as verified by the Utility Superintendent. 2. Motion to recommend that the revised plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission, prior to any action by the City Council. I Motion to deny the plans as presented, based on a finding that no hardship exists. After reviewing the original application, staff recommended that the applicant make a number of changes to the site plan to create a more conforming structure. The applicant has now_reduced the number.of:variances-required and -submitted a more appeal ing,.design. An existing hardship must be determined by the City:' If -the -Council finds•that.a,garage. is-a'necessa' y component for the -home, -staff. recommends.approval of the„revised plans, subject to the conditions outlined -above. ' `.yam � /�'-E Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin [wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, September..1.5,.2006 9:36 AM To: 'Kimberly Holien' Subject: Update on variance request for attached deck and unattached garage to 2401 Black Lake Road Attachments: SD000159.pdf; SD000160.pdf SEDFn. &P,DFK SD000159.pdf SD000160.pdf (167 KB) (572 KB) Kimberly, attached are two new drawings as they relate to the current variance request for 2401 Black Lake Road. As you know, you put together a summary memo and opinion for this variance request of an attached deck and an unattached garage. Also attached is the portion of the minutes from Wednesday, September 13th's Planning Commission meeting and public hearing as they relate to the variance request. As you will notice on the two new drawings attached, one drawing shows just the attached deck, without a garage. However, Mr. Neve has presented a new concept for an unattached garage that shows an oversized one car garage (other drawing). This latest drawing showing the oversized one car garage seems to address some serious issues with some positive solutions. Sarah and I thought the applicant worked hard to come up with a new plan for an unattached garage that better addressed setbacks, esthetics, and potential easement issues. We've asked Mr. Neve to come to Monday night's Council meeting with engineered drawings that would address drainage issues to the lake. (Mr. Neve, I believe, is an architect and works with engineers.) Mr. Neve stated he studied the NAC opinion/recommendation and based his new drawings on your suggestions as to what could possibly work. If you have any questions, please feel free to call myself or Sarah. I know this is last minute. Unfortunately this is crunch time as the Council meeting is this Monday the 18th and that's when the applicant has to defend his variance request. We would hope we could get an update from you on this as soon as possible. Wendy -----Original Message ----- From: wendy [mailto:wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:05 AM To: wendy Subject: This E-mail includes attached file(s) sent from 11RNP6F97C9" (Aficio 1232C). Scan Date: 09.15.2006 09:05:21 (-0500) 1 5. a) 7. MEMO Date: September 15, 2006 To: Spring Park City Council Members From: Sarah/Wendy RE: Variance Request for Attached Deck and Unattached Garage 2401 Black Lake Road, Graham Neve and Paul Fadell The following is a synopsis of the above referenced variance request as numbered in the Council agenda of September 18, 2006. Hopefully this will serve as clarification to the subsequent events from the original application submitted. 5. a) 1. Variance Application — Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road Mr. Neve's wife brought the application into the City on 7-21-06, not allowing enough time for office staff to prepare the proper publications and surrounding notification of property owners in time for the Planning Commission meeting of August 9tn 2. Submitted with the variance application was a hand sketched drawing on a survey of the applicants' proposal of an attached deck and an unattached garage. 3. At the public hearing held September 13tn, the applicant brought to the Planning Commission a packet consisting of a full survey dated February 21, 2003; a partial survey with proposed garage and deck; a document illustrating lot lines with proposed garage and deck layout; and a document showing elevations of the proposed garage from all sides. This packet presented at the public hearing was a diversion from what was originally presented in the application for variance dated 7- 21-06. (See Planning Commission meeting Minutes dated 9-13-06 for discussion.) 4. As a result of discussion at Planning Commission meeting of 9-13-06 and after applicant's review of NAC's opinion dated August 28, 2006, applicant Neve presented to City staff on the morning of September 15 a further revised proposal for the Council's review at their meeting of September 18. This revised proposal shows an unattached garage that was scaled down from a two car garage to an oversized one car garage. Also presented to staff, as requested by Planning Commission members, is a separate drawing (without the garage) of the revised, proposed attached deck. 5. Memo from Kimberly Holien of NAC dated August 28, 2006 as it addresses the original application for proposed deck and proposed unattached garage. 6. Updated memo from NAC as it addresses the revised, submitted drawings. 7. This is the staff memo. SF/WL S e- ZQ J' z 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS a) Planning Commission Minutes (unapproved) — September 13, 2006 1. Variance Application -Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 2. Survey/drawing submitted with variance application 3. Survey/drawings submitted at Public Hearing, 9-13-06 4. Survey/drawings revised for Council meeting, 9-18-06 5. NAC memo for 9-13-06 public hearing 6. NAC memo for revised drawings 7. Staff memo Rockvam said there was an original application then an amendment and now a new one. Rockvam said it should be spelled out, appropriate documents submitted and there should have been a to -scale drawing request. Rockvam said now there are two applications, one for the deck and one for a smaller garage. Rockvam said the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the garage that it be denied. Reinhardt said the plan the Planning Commission saw is different. Reinhardt said it's not known what the Planning Commission recommendation would be on the new plan. Rockvam said the deck has changed too. It originally wasn't extending on the west side and now it extends on the west side. Rockvam wondered where we're going with this. He asked which one is being considered, the Planning Commission, the modified one or the new one tonight. Friesen said there was an extension of the 60 days and the option could be to go back to the original, allowing them to read the planner's new report. Williamson said those were the thoughts he has had reading through the adjustments and revisions. Williamson said the applicant should design it and make an offering. Williamson said what's before the Council now is very different. Williamson_makes_a. motion and Reinhardt seconds that the variance (garage) application be returned to the Planning Commission for a new analysis. Rockvam said Neve better come up with a reason for the hardship. Rockvam said so far all he's heard is financial. Rockvam said the hardship was created by the owners and it can't be financial. Rockvam said there was a choice made to expand in the first place and they decided they wanted more living space. Neve said he has the hardship worked out regarding special conditions including the water and existing topographical site due to narrowness, etc. Rockvam thinks the best recommendation is for it to go back to the Planning Commission. Rockvam said there were inaccuracies on the part of the planner. Hughes thinks he would like Brixius to review this rather than Holein. Reinhardt also said with something this complicated the planner should be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Reinhardt said she has some problems with the language because it's difficult to understand. Reinhardt was disappointed that the planner didn't require more information in the first place and the 60 days should have been more than enough. Neve said he thought NAC's recommendation was very confusing and didn't tie together. Neve asked about the 60 day deadline. Rockvam said once the application has been received the City has 60 days to act on it. Friesen said the letter sent requesting another 60 days was sent on Friday. Williamson asked if it's unilateral and Friesen said Neve did not have to sign off. Williamson wondered if that process is sufficient. Siefert said that's what's been used in the past. All votes aye, motion carries. Rockvam asked if we should look at the deck. Seifert wanted to say the hardship means there has to be no known practical use for the property. In other words there's nothing that can be done with it. He said the language refers to the physical attributes of the lot and they are so unique and you would need a variance. Rockvam said that's one of the reasons why these things go to the planner. Hughes thinks the deck ties together with the garage and they should go as one. Neve said they don't have to; they could be separate or together. Williamson makes a motion and Hughes seconds that this variance (deck) request be_ returned to the PC for a new analysis.• Rockvam said the house really looks nice but Rockvam wondered if there ever was a certificate of occupancy issued especially with the patio door that leads to a 10 foot drop. All votes ayes, motion carries. Rockvam said to notify Neve when the next Planning Commision meeting is and it should be republished and Hughes said the application should be revised with clear cut dimensions. October 12, 2006 2401 Black Lake Road Variance Request This variance request came on the Planning Commission agenda again last night and the request for the deck passed as it does not require a variance but the request for the down -sized one and a half garage failed again by a 3-1 vote. We as staff feel this request for garage variance could perhaps have passed the PC if the applicants had been more circumspect about their hardship. We as staff discussed the potential of one last stand in front of the Council. The arguments that could be made in favor of proof -of -hardship and the reasonableness of the request for variance are: 1. NAC's memo recommends the approving the downsized garage (16x22) because applicants have reduced their request of variance to one request, a reduced front yard setback, which is typical to their surrounding neighborhood and, at the same time, have reduced hardcover. 2. A facility in which to park a vehicle and other typical garage items will improve the overall general appearance of the neighborhood versus having these items out in the open or a stand alone shed being built. 3. By approving the downsized request for garage variance, it will improve safety from a resident standpoint. During winter months and inclement weather, the homeowner will eliminate hazardous approaches to the residence by being able to access the residence from the garage to the deck to the residence thereby eliminating potential slip and falls caused by improper drainage and freezing. 4. Runoff and sediment can be controlled and directed to a filtering type of garden that would greatly enhance the current state of silt flowing into Black Lake. 5. When the new house was built in 2003 it seemed to make more sense from a livability standpoint to build a house that accommodated living space versus losing that space to a tuck under garage. It's only after living in the residence for a couple of winters has the importance of having garage space been re&U ?jc�_ . 6. No problems with utilities easements encountered. 7. The proposed garage is properly scaled to the size of the residence and will enhance the neighborhood and will not look imposing in comparison to the previous proposed two stall garage. Suggestions: eJe� r Take photos of the potential of garage stuff set outside, not under cover. Take photos of the slope to the residence showing the hazardous approach. Draft and present a 3-D mock up of the proposed garage and deck into the residence. Draft and present a drawing of a drainage swale leading to a filter garden. See raingardens.org and perhaps print some of the material or show photos of what could be done on the property to filter the runoff. Emphasize the proportion of the proposed garage to the residence. Take photos of Black Lake Road garages and how your proposal will fit with the neighborhood. Your strategy should be to defuse some of the biggest arguments heard from council and pc members for not granting the request: ✓ You had the chance to build a garage in 2003 and you didn't think it was important enough at that time. ✓ That you can't sell the place without a garage. The Carpenter Street rain garden Facsimile Transmittal: paaM�Z PARK O# Lake Miv#eto#ka Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Date: October 19, 2006 Councilmembers To: Graham Neve Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 Fax: 757-229-8889 Bruce Williamson (952)471-1029 From: Wendy, City of Spring Park, MN Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 # of Pages: 1 Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 Administration Comments: Sarah Friesen Administrator D.J. Goman Graham, sorry I didn't get this to you yesterday. I discussed the variance appeal Utility Superintendent process with Sharon and she can't recall every having a variance appealed. We Sharon Corl don't even really have an application or anything. We'll have to draft something Deputy Clerk that is suitable. Sarah, the city planner and myself still think you have a strong case and believe you are doing the right thing by appealing. Please contact me next week if you're back in town and hopefully we'll have some guidelines in which to follow for this variance appeal. Thanks Graham. Wendy Lewin Ci� of KnJc Park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384- 9711 (952) 471-9051 FAX (952) 471-9160 Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam Mr. Graham Neve (952) 471-9515 Mr. Paul Fadell 2401 Black Lake Road Council Spring Park, MN 55384 Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 RE: 2401 Black Lake Road — Variance Request Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Dear Graham and Paul: Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 As you know, the City of Spring Park Planning Commission met on October 11th to consider your request for variance to your property at 2401 Black Gary Hughes Lake Road, Spring Park. The motion to approve your variance for an (952) 471-7867 unattached garage request failed. Thus your variance request has been denied by the City Planning Commission. Administration Sarah Friesen Administrator Subsequently, y Spring th q y, the City of S rin Park Council met on October 16 to consider the recommendation by the Planning Commission for your request D.J. Goman for variance. The motion to approve your variance request failed. Thus Utility Superintendent your variance request has been denied by the City Council. Sharon Corl Deputy Clerk The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the Wendy Lewin literal provisions of the code in instances where their strict enforcement Office Assistant would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Findings: The lot meets minimum requirements established by the City's Zoning Ordinance and the lot's dimensions are not unique as other lots in Spring Park have similar dimensions. The lot dimension limits the size of the garage that can be built. city of copriq Prk 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com Graham Neve Paul Fadell Page 2 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Findings: The circumstances of this situation were caused by the applicant's desire to build a new home, forgoing a garage at that time in order to gain more actual living space. 3. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Findings: The primary issue is the lot cannot feasibly accommodate the structure being proposed and allow for parked vehicles in front of the proposed structure. Because of a problem with the designation of the actual traveled road and the property line, there are only 16 +/- feet clearance and this is not enough to keep parked vehicles a safe distance from the traveled road. If you have any questions about the denial of your request for variance at 2401 Black Lake Road, please feel free to contact me. If you wish to file an appeal, the process is referenced on page 79 of the zoning ordinance. It reads in part, "...where it is alleged by the appellant that error has occurred in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the zoning administrator, building official or city engineer in the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall be timely only if filed within ninety (90) days of the date on which written notice of the zoning administrator's order, requirement decision, or determination is mailed to the applicant." Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Deputy Clerk P.S.: Graham and Paul, I apologize for this letter not getting sent to you much earlier than this. It has been a hectic time at city hall with elections, etc. This letter is somewhat of a form letter that is sent to property owners who have been denied a variance request. I needed to customize it to fit your particular situation. wl Oa Lake MlwetowkA Mayor December 15, 2006 Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Council Joanna E. Widmer Mr. Graham Neve (952) 471-9429 2401 Black Lake Road Bruce Williamson Spring Park, MN 55384 (952) 471-1029 Dear Graham: Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 Enclosed is an application for planning commission. Please fill it Gary Hughes out and return it as soon as possible as I believe the Council will (952) 471-7867 attempt to interview candidates at one of the January meetings. Administration Also, as I understand it, you desire to appeal the denial of your Sarah Friesen Administrator variance request. Therefore, enclosed is an Application for Appeal of Administrative Decision. This form was something that needed D.J. Goman to be drafted by this office as there has never been an appeal of Utility Superintendent variance denial as far as we can remember. Please fill this out and Sharon Corl return it to us. Deputy Clerk As this is a new process for us, I would assume you will be required Wendy Lewin Office Assistant to resubmit your original proposal and be prepared to defend why you believe there has been an error in the interpretation or enforcement of the ordinance. It will be necessary for you to be specific in nature. Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Deputy Clerk Enclosure city of Op,Iryy PQk- 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 • (952) 471-9051 • Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com PROPOSED DECK k doh re-dkced 'n �,, dew �'u-�e_ Q v'al oral CLS Lk ( 30 .0% BEET LOT AREA) AVrRAGE sETHACI� 7o ADJACENT Nome 'Qeduced S��e o� 0.�taeltied (�,eL1L Rro�oscLt QS 0z EXISTING HOUSE 02401 PROPOSED DECK EX. RETAINING EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY EXISTING k k HOUSE 02413 Z �o� LIB- e4 ,. O�b�ro►�.�.e,d. d e c �� � ro oS al � 2ud� 6kk o� . «• ob Q 2 112wG�5Lv �TjOSQ� � Cl �t • lS • 0 I� 2 ST FR HOUSE #4343 EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF.(27.0% LOT AREA) NOT INC PUBLIC STREET P� � P 12"CMP CULVERT INV ELEV P 28.0 FFE=942.7 x 2 ST FR HOUSE co #2401 --_ LFE=935-0 PROPOSED X 19.9 DECK cO8.2 PROPOSED i GARAGE ii 2�b 2r ErISf. BIT. DRIVE CHLvk 1 ST FR HOUSE #2413 w a 0 T z 0 � w 0 j W J N > 1 d 0 20 40 60 D o o O SCALE IN FEET z EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. C J X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION w 0 DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE v � a �o Q DESCRIPTION J L THE SOUTH 112 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA",, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PART OF SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A j U POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET ` Q SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST M LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE J W THEREOF. Q TT � LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA"EXCEPT THAT m y r PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE Q 0 v SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED d BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS �f gPS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE 0 SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF � aW6 BENCHMARK BEGINNING. ;1 TNH = 944.8 W��g v„ z LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC _ 0 0 7 - o O N > i m W u M d x EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF NOT INC PUBLIC STREI 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET L� xe925 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. y X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE NEW GARAGE WOULD IMPR❑VE WATER AND SEDIMENT RUN-OFF. YARD BELOW GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY WOULD BE ENGINEERED FOR IMPR❑VED RUN-OFF. REMOVAL OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY WILL DECREASE THE PR❑PERTIES HARDCOVER AND INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM HARDCOVER TO SHORELINE TO 40'-0'. N EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF 0 20 40 60 DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF (2�.0% LOT AREA) SCALE IN FEET NOT INC PUBLIC STREET 0 *9915 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE W------------- P z m�Qo M = YYuwr O � N ry N ewoa i m W do W m xx LOT LINES WITH PFOPOSED GAFR GE AND DECK LA-�-OUT (A 1" EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF 0 20 40 60 DRIVE = 1162 SF TOTAL = 2090 SF ( 30.0%% LOT AREA) Q SCALE IN FEET NOT INC PUBLIC STREET EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE PvJ \\\ Q o�� jI J CQ 00 z (} M �w _ =N O o - M cN a O O N >lz g m v LOT LINES WITH FfROFOSED DEC< LA"'OUT a - EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 20 40 60 HOUSE 858 SF DRIVE = 1162 SF TOTAL = 2090 SF (30.0% LOT AREA) SCALE IN FEE r NOT INC PUBLIC STREET ,K15 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998 0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE L �� P o � Q - ---------- o 00 o �1 Rio X 0 0 V) , -awn LOT LINES WIT>II FROFOSED DEC< LAYOUT 1" EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 20 40 60 HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF ---- _.._- — TOTAL == 1890 SF ( 2-1 .0% LOT AREA) Q SC:AL. E IN FEET NOT INC PUBLIC STREET O a q.S .�= EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION i = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE L z \ z �w P Ql) P Qj v �, O� / 0 �Ja ¢u� i m W LOT LINES WITH FROFOSED r-:,4R,4GE AND DEC,< LAYOUT Property within 350' of Graham Neve Croix Oil 2401 Black Lake Road 2413 Black Lake Road P O Box 15 Spring Park, MN 55384 Stillwater, MN 55082 Paul Meisel P O Box 258 Mound, MN 55364 Lynn Bremer 4030 Williston Rd Minnetonka, MN J B Connors P O Box 66 St. Boni, MN 55375 Richard Hardina 4372 Shoreline Drive 55345 Spring Park, MN 55384 Craig Gustafson 4373 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Richard Zejdlik 7374 Kirkwood Court Maple Grove, MN 55369 James Bedell 2627 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Christopher Snow 2421 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Andrew Frieler 2433 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Neil Schoenhofen 2436 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Richard Solberg 6036 Oaklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Stephen Erickson 4367 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Gary Hughes 4343 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55364 Todd Simmons 1846 Johnson St. Minneapolis, MN 55418 Lawrence Schussler 2425 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Michael Adrian 2437 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Ron Olson 2424 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Michael O'Flanagan P0Box 311 Spring Park, MN 55384 Patrick O'Flanagan P O Box 223 Spring Park, MN 55384 Michael Littell 4361 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 William Ellis 4329 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55364 Jack Schuster 4634 Kildare Mound, MN 55364 Wm Bartolotto 2429 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Scott Suttle 2447 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Todd Johnson 2412 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 / _ ����� L�� In n � - n �- --� - - - - - -- C � � -�--- Affidavit of Mailing State of Minnesota ) County of Hennepin ) Council of Spring Park ) Wendy Lewin, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen, over 18 years of age, and the Office Assistant of the city of Spring Park, Minnesota. On , acting on behalf of the said city, I deposited in the United States post office at Spring Park, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of a hearing on Wednesday, September 13, 2006, enclosed in envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names: Name See Attached List Address There is delivery service by United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public Property within 350' of Graham Neve 2401 Black Lake Road 5560 Eastview Minnetrista, MN 55364 Croix Oil P O Box 15 Stillwater, MN 55082 Paul Meisel J B Connors P O Box 258 P'O`Box 6�1 6 Mound, MN 55364 StBoni, MN 553,75 Lynn Bremer Richard Hardina 4030 Williston Rd 4372 Shoreline Drive Minnetonka, MN 55345 Spring Park, MN 55384 Craig Gustafson `� Stephen Erickson .01 4373 Shoreline Drive 4367 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Spring Park, MN 55384 Richard Zejdlik ✓� Gary Hughes 7374 Kirkwood Court 4343 Shoreline Drive Maple Grove, MN 55369 Spring Park, MN 55364 James Bedell Todd Simmons 2627 Wilshire Blvd. i 1846 Johnson St. Mound, MN 55364 Minneapolis, MN 55418 Christopher Snow 2421 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Andrew Frieler ✓ 2433 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Neil Schoenhofen 2436 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Richard Solberg 6036 Oaklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55424 Lawrence Schussler 2425 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 ✓ Michael O'Flanagan P0Box 311 Spring Park, MN 55384 Patrick O'Flanagan P O Box 223 Spring Park, MN 55384 _ — eLAI Michael Littell' 4361 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 William Ellis 4329 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55364 Jack Schuster 4634 Kildare Mound, MN 55364 Wm Bartolotto '� CI :t�G 2429 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 "Adrian PDXO /Ve (2QC YUa c.., Scott Suttle 2437 Black Lake Road 2447 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Spring Park, MN 55384 Ron Olson 2424 Black Lake Road Spring Park, MN 55384 Todd Johnson 2�'n-Black Lake Road Sprin Yar�M1V'55384 or Wendy Lewin From: Wendy Lewin [wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:20 AM To: 'dpetrik@nacplanning.com' Subject: 2401 Black Lake Road Attachments: SD000130.pdf 1 } SD000130.pdf (1 MB) Dan/Al, the attached documents are regarding a variance application to add a deck and an unattached garage. This request was briefly discussed with Al during our meeting last week. Al thought perhaps the deck would be allowable but very doubtful regarding the unattached garage. Thanks for your opinion. Wendy -----Original Message ----- From: wendy [mailto:wlewin@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:12 AM To: wendy Subject: This E-mail includes attached file(s) sent from "RNP6F97C9" (Aficio 1232C). Scan Date: 08.16.2006 08:12:20 (-0500) 1 XPROH6 PARK Oh Lake A1V ##letollka Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952)471-9515 Councilmembers Joanna E. Widmer (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 Sarah Reinhardt (952)471-0767 Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 Administration Sarah Friesen Administrator D.J. Goman Utility Superintendent Sharon Corl Deputy Clerk Facsimile Transmittal: Date: September 18, 2006 To: Graham Neve Fax: 952-918-4602 From: Wendy # of Pages: 8 Comments: Graham, as mentioned in our phone conversation, this latest memo from NAC addresses the deck but doesn't address your latest garage proposal. I expect to have a memo from NAC shortly addressing the garage. As soon as I get it I will send it to you via fax. If you haven't received it by the time you leave work (I assume this is a work fax number) staff is here at city hall until 4:30 this afternoon and then back around 7 p.m. this evening before the 7:30 meeting. Perhaps you could stop by so you will have an opportunity to review their recommendation before you go in front of the Council this evening. wl Ci� o f %�Irinj Park 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384- 9711 (952) 471-9051 FAX (952) 471-9160 Wendy Lewin Subject: Talk to Sarah about Graham Neve's property: Start: Wed 9/27/2006 12:00 AM End: Thu 9/28/2006 12:00 AM Show Time As: Free Recurrence: (none) Do we have the new submission from Graham for his latest proposal? If we do, do we then have the NAC opinion on this latest submission? Need to make sure NAC is scheduled for the PC meeting. Oh LAke /W# feto*kA October 3, 2006 Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Mr. Graham Neve Council 2401 Black Lake Road Joanna E. Widmer Spring Park, MN 55384 (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson RE: Request for Variance to 2401 Black Lake Road (952) 471-1029 Public Hearing October 11, 2006 Sarah Reinhardt Dear Graham, (952) 471-0767 Gary Hughes It is necessary to receive clarification from you regarding your request (952) 471-7867 for variance. As discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday, October 2nd, the deadline has passed for our contracted city planner Administration to evaluate any further changes in your variance request other than Sarah Friesen Administrator what was previously submitted and evaluated. Both the most recent evaluation and the plan this evaluation is based upon are enclosed for D.J. Goman your confirmation. Also enclosed are references from the September Utility Superintendent 13th and September 18th Planning and Council meeting minutes for Sharon Corl your review. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin Please be advised these documents are part of what will be included Office Assistant in the Planning Commission packet going out to commissioners this Friday, October 6th in preparation for the Wednesday, October 11 th public hearing. Graham, please sign and return in the enclosed, stamped envelope the indicated plans that will be submitted to the October Planning Commission meeting for review. Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Enclosures 6ty of go*a' pa - 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 • (952) 471-9051 • Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com 4367 Shoreline Dr. Spring Park, MN 55384 September 13, 2006 City of Spring Park Planning Commission and City Council Spring Park, MN We are writing in regard to the proposed variance request at 4901 Black Lake Road. We have had an opportunity to review the report submitted by Kimberly Holien and the owners' request. This brings to light the dangerous precedent set over recent years in abusing hardcover and set -backs, thereby causing further overbuilding of lakeshore property, and additional potential pollution of the lake. As documented in city records, this property is already non -conforming. If this variance is granted it would further exacerbate the condition and opens the door for continued over -use of lakeshore property. Perhaps there is an alternative design that would comply with existing codes and also eliminate the impact on lake quality. Thank you. Respectfully, Stephen C. Erickson Pauline Erickson ON LAke /W##eP0ykA October 3, 2006 Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 47 I -95 15 Mr. Graham Neve Council 2401 Black Lake Road Joanna E. Widmer Spring Park, MN 55384 (952) 471-9429 Bruce Williamson RE: Request for Variance to 2401 Black Lake Road (952)471-1029 Public Hearing October 11, 2006 Sarah Reinhardt Dear Graham, (952) 471-0767 Gary Hughes It is necessary to receive clarification from you regarding your request (952) 471-7867 for variance. As discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday, October 2"d, the deadline has passed for our contracted city planner Administration to evaluate any further changes in your variance request other than Sarah Friesen Administrator what was previously submitted and evaluated. Both the most recent evaluation and the plan this evaluation is based upon are enclosed for D.J. Goman your confirmation. Also enclosed are references from the September Utility Superintendent 13th and September 18th Planning and Council meeting minutes for Sharon Cori your review. Deputy Clerk Wendy Lewin Please be advised these documents are part of what will be included Office Assistant in the Planning Commission packet going out to commissioners this Friday, October 6th in preparation for the Wednesday, October 11th public hearing. Graham, please sign and return in the enclosed, stamped envelope the indicated plans that will be submitted to the October Planning Commission meeting for review. Sincerely, Wendy Lewin Enclosures 2a L Ghty OfC40*9 pair 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-971 1 - (952) 471-9051 - Fax: (952) 471-9160 Email: CityofSpringPark@mchsi.com EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1032 SF TOTAL = 1890 SF ( ; NOT INC PUBLIC STRE 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET +�M1y = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE LOT LINE& WITH FfROFOSED GAFRACzE AND DECK LAI'OUT c6 0 0 N OI C C C ao M 0.0 O cn O m EO E0 o mcm cm r-aco aa) cg _a a _� ca ii a a' CD Z E m L m Ap nw 0. W o� � Ng 0 Qo > o L) 0 0 0 0 0o O N In bu93 W c al plan irk Public 2006. 1 a._ CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given the Planning Commission for the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Wednesday October 11th, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. or soon thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to review variance applications for lot area, lot width, and side yard set backs, for consideration of an attached deck to the house and an unattached garage at 2401 Black Lake Road. All oral and written comments for and against the variance requests will be heard at the above time and place. City of Spring Park Sarah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer (Publish in the Laker one time September 30, 2006) I�we Deis b-I.Ob 1V m oo : m ao ao EAST ELEVATION U%E5T ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION - --------------' r - ELEVATIONS ------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- ® 9 ------------------------------------------------------- 9 6 i ;o e e Fi. FLOOR PLAN n• • I.v n- FOUNDATION PLAN m Y Q w Q a m z a s Imo.. N J J w wU �z LLLL wN w z 1 A -I or 1 COUNTY ROAD CO U N t J _.._ 587c2--- _ �I / MEN r_ , Ilk _ I ` oi': co O IUD OD O 1 0 . .O' W g0.20 S8?° 2400 W._�. _. $ O Y r . O ► 1 3 ._ �- O i _ i 0 0 �.. 1 I 0 A- cl �,1►�� C 1. N8302643181 lei i t.AvJN—i. _1 - 25.10 S8.105014911E ^- , , -- „��ao� netonka and the North Half of 70.6 �' 's art of.said Lot 4 •follows: All that .p cv4e and. 80 feet south of the .northeast ' forth line thereof and -that part of -._4 Lose Lawn Minnetonka" lying M a ins- said, Lagoon, lying 0etween.00 'd`Lot 3to its intersection wakthe ';anti westerly, of the following thence North 83 degrees 26 heart corner to the southwest inutes 48 seconds West 20 feet, of Lake Minnetonka, according to rota. culariy described as follows: All he East line of said lot and 80 feet t and parallel with the north line 0 ' I 2STFR HOUSE o #4343 auc RET4NV_1rFL� .may XIST'NG HARCCOVER ` HGUS= = 858 SF `I DRIVE = 1 162 SF WALK ='D SF TGTAL 90 SF (•30.0% LOT AREA) C NCT INC PU8'_IC STREET ,V 8J 26' 31 " . 2� 10 _ w '�'•y V� v 16.7.3-=--- N 81°31'Z4" W `F ti 0�) 3 MID a Q) ctri•: 0 i _aCE oc ^HL _ - i Z I . . 1V i i II I I I 0 20 40 6C SCALE IN FEET = EXISTNO SPOT ELEVATION. X(958.C) = PRORCSED SPOT E'_EVATION = Di3ECTION SJRFACE CRA=NAGE NOTE —PROPOSED HOUSE TO Fl- XISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAM LIIhNETOlJKA'•, b1DR PAR-ICULARLY DESCR16ED AS FOLLOWS: A-L TF.:%T 9 DART OF SAID LOT S. S/./UTH OF A -L`NE DRAAN FROM A aDINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET SOUTH OF T'-IE- NCR? iE-AST CORKER THEREOF TO THE 'NEST LINH OF SAID LOT AND PAR--.LLEL 1YITi4. 4TE NORTH LINE THERECF. LOTS E. 7 AND 8, "ROSE LNAN M'•NNETCNKV'EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LO' B DESCR I BED AS BEG : NN I NG AT Tr.E SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED s.� BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 M''YJTES 24 SECONDS 'HEST LINE OF SAID 5 A DISTANCE ALONG THE SGLTHERLY OF 53.94 FEET; TF;ENOE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 35 SECONDS 'NEST A DISTAhZE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE I SOUT:iEAS-.ERLY 53.67 FEET TO -HE PO'NT OF - - BEI\CH►AARK BEGINNING. TNH = 9443 'LOT AREA. = E926 SF/ 0.16 AC NOTE —This survey subject to chcr,ge or reciept of title / ecsement infarrnaTlon i � I 2 ST FR o l HOUSE00 , #4343 , _30.0- - - i S87024' 00"w _ ' N 50.20 - - CONC BLK RETAINING WALL 3 o Q� 11 I o ;. III Q CHLNK O I J I I FENCE O 12.2 OHL -. - N 83026' 31 �� W �, -10"CEDAR 2,5. to , Q 1 ST FR z Zlltz co z HOUSE Q wl I 0 1L-_, Lu #2401 4 o 5_ __ LFE=935.0 Y mI I Q Z7 I v Cj O\� � s"CU VERY DRARENM 14.311 Oh SF 12"CMP , /A;.o R_ CULVERT- CHLNKINV ELEV+_' /FN =930.E h h „3 N 81 °3I' 24".' Co. X 5 MPS` "h O�� 1 ST FR c �Nk Fen, f `- HOUSE O ��"� ,,yam #2413 - - BENCHMARK N Mh TNH - 944.E O a 2 I � � 2 ST FIR I o l HOUSE I 00 01 #4343 30.0_ i S87024' 00"W 1 50.20 - _ONC BLK I RETAINING WALL \ o 113 L I � O CHLNK O j I I FENCE O 12.2 IV83'26' 31 ,, w 1G"CEDAR 25. 10 - _ 1 < I 0 _ FFE=942.7 �I I 0 9_3 1 ST FR Z11m z HOUSE Z p� 1G #2401 I o 0 LFE=935.0 w11 Cp Q " CULVERT g TRENCH Im F-I DRAIN C 14.3 \ ii of NoiN .� /qr N� —��— �3.5! P� 12"CMP �' h (� CULVERT- cHL 1 V � INV ELEV 1+/�+� sr� FENNK 930.6 N 81 MPL 1 ST FR `- HOUSE O 011\� yam #2413 - -BENCHMARK V N Mh TNH 944.8 O a 2 � � I 2 ST FIR o l HOUSE #4343 - - - 30.0_ 1 %1p S87'24' 00" 1 N 1 Jr' 0.20 - �ONC BLK1 RETAINING WALL EXISTING HAgDCOVER I I A°� m .o°+II3, HOUSE = 85 SF I I/ DRIVE = 1162 SF L# 10 o•e� �� I Q WALK = 10 SF TOTAL 2 90 SF ( 30.0% LOT AREA) 0. �'4 � o, NOT INC PUBLIC STREET o /V 83°26'31" W N 25. 10 I \ rl Goh�`g�931.�A�01k.9Y. �. NON 41 01 12"CMP 99 Pv CULVERT— e� '' INV EL V N 87-31'24" ry 0 -CHLNK FENCE OHL -10"CEDAR h N 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET +eg15 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE — PROPOSED HOUSE TO FIT EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT DESCRIPTION ti0,1,4-.,4THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA", / MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT �e&2b PART OF SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET �v },tsp� SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST 9.ti6 a•�'Q LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE THEREOF. ry o�0 LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA"EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE � SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED SG cP N BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE yG� OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES Q� 0' 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE 11 SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF — - BENCHMARK BEG I NN I NG. TNH = 944.8 LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC NOTE —This survey subject to change on reciept of title / easement information 2 ST FR HOUSE #4343 EXISTING HARDCOVER HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1162 SF I $� WALK = 70 SF e•° Z I m TOTAL = . 2090 SF ( 30.0% LOT AREA) N50 I NOT INC PUBLIC STREET 30.0 587�24' 00"W 50. 20 - RETAINING WALL o -*9TFEo= 1 I0, 4 N 8126,31" r I1 25 10 — ` _ FR� 93I.°x "J o ` P38.5g, �C7 929.5� ' g.Cj VER�', 1� o ryc Ap 12-CMP I ^ g P� CULVERT \� INV EL=930.V N 81�31'24" W 1 1 ST FR HOUSE #2413 / a 5 00' p06 F9 II � 0 20 40 60 O SCALE IN FEET EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION OHL DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE �3 0 Q: � z m Z 4U NOTE - PROPOSED HOUSE TO FIT o o EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT 95 i DESCRIPTION 14� "� THE. SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA", 9�\ MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT �e6 �zb PART OF SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM'A .�3.5 V, POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET s*sPN SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST 9�16 0 LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE h THEREOF. °p LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA"EXCEPT THAT ('PART.OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE b V SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES �J g� 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF — BENCHMARK BEGINNING. TNH = 944.8 LOT AREA = 6926 SF/ 0.16 AC l� y - v EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 20 40 60 -� J HOUSE = 858 SF DRIVE = 1162 SF O TOTAL = 2090 SF (30.0% LOT AREA) Q SCALE IN FEET NOT INC PUBLIC STREET O 15 1 �e9 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION y = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE LJ v Q) 0 00 a WN O 3g�3 o � w- 0 CD CD _o N N m U) ¢ �a �WJ u�Qi LOT LINES WITH FfROPOSED DEC< L,4"r'OUT 2 ST FIR HOUSE 00 0 1 #4343 30.0 S87024' 00"W I _ I iN 50.20 - - CONC BLK RETAINING WALL oQ� — — I,I 3 L 1 i Q� N 83026' 31„ W 25. 10 _ Qrho tx' • �� 3g.5 :� . Gj ^, p — 8"CCULVE.Rf �/k / oiry� ry`V2v 12"CMP C' V CULVERT—iCNLNK a— V INV ELEV+�— Q� =930.6 x S� IO O -CHLNK FENCE __OHL -10"CEDAR O Z 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET ,99�5 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 6 = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE - PROPOSED HOUSE TO FIT EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 5 "ROSE LAWN MINNETONKA", �I MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PART OF SAID LOT 5, SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A �3.5 � POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT AND 80 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF TO THE WEST ! Q LINE OF SAID LOT AND PARALLEL WITH HTE NORTH LINE i th THEREOF. ov N 81 °31 24 " W ` 0 0 N ^h O� z D� Co' k 15 MPS T F R cy�Nk�FE�c I SE E 13 - - BENCHMARK TNH 944.8 LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, "ROSE LAWN M I NNETONKA" EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 8 DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 81 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 8 A DISTANCE OF 53.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 5.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 53.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT AREA NOTE -This reciept of ' 6926 F/ 0.16 AC survey subject to change on title / easement information w Q L 0- 0 T Z Q1UJ > vL- wo J � w > � p ro o o V U Z J LL It co V � v ,U zz W Q O� ZJ �N w a w od a < V) (A > w Go 0 wow m a tea.. co (A wa z tn flC014 ~� w So �b' a p3'• <KZLLJUwco F- M.7 2 Ld mom? ...... ------- -------- e oo e oo as _ o co EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION .. ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. . ... .. . ... .... ... SOUTH ELEVATION .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... . . ... .... ... ... .... NORTH ELEVATION . ... ... ... .... ... ... . . ... .... ... .. ... .... —7. H ELEVATIONS 114' I'-V' 24'-0" ------------------------ .. ... ... .. .... ... ------------------------ I---------- ----------------- i ip L 7- - --------------------------- 7 7- -------------------------------------------------------- cp 440 FT. SQ. FLOOR PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN it i it i Issue Data SPRM6 PARK Facsimile Transmittal: Oh Lake WWlfwto/fka Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam (952) 471-9515 Date: September 18, 2006 Counciimembers To: Graham Neve Joanna E. Widmer (952)471-9429 Fax: 952-918-4602 Bruce Williamson (952) 471-1029 From: Wendy Sarah Reinhardt (952) 471-0767 # of Pages Gary Hughes (952) 471-7867 •- Administration Comments: Sarah Friesen Administrator D.J. Goman Graham, as mentioned in our phone conversation, this latest memo from NAC Utility Superintendent addresses the deck but doesn't address your latest garage proposal. Sharon Cod _ — -- - - ----- -- —.—__ _ - -- Deputy Clerk ��I� garage, expect to have a memo from NAC shortly arltireSsing-{tt As soon as I get it I will send it to you via fax. If you haven't received it by the time you leave work (I assume this is a work fax number) staff is here at city hall until 4:30 this afternoon and then back around 7 p.m. this evening before the 7:30 meeting. Perhaps you could stop by so you will have an opportunity to review their recommendation before you go in front of the Council this evening. wl Ci� of Spiin� Vark 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384- 9711 (952) 471-9051 FAX (952) 471-9160 Wendy Lewin From: Kimberly Holien [kholien@nacplanning.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:38 PM To: Subject: Re: 2401 Black Lake Road second (upper) level deck request Wendy- Dan Petrik just forwarded me your e-mail regarding the proposed second level deck at 2401 Black Lake Road. I was aware during the review that this was potentially an upper level deck. After taking another look at the site plan with this in mind, I agree that this proposed deck would not impede on neighboring site lines. o s a issue in an amendment? I so, are you lod an additional memo or a modification to the actual report? This issue may also be verbally addressed at the meeting. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Kimberly Holien Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202 Golden Valley, MN 55422 763-231-2555 kholien@nacplanning.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Petrik" <dpetrik@nacplanning.com> To: "Kimberly Holien" <kholien@nacplanning.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 3:12 PM Subject: FW: 2401 Black Lake Road second (upper) level deck request > Kimberly, > Take a look at this and let me know if you think an amendment to your > variance memo is needed. > Thanks, > Dan Petrik > Northwest Associated Consultants > 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202 > Golden Valley, MN 55422 > 763-231-2555 (Ph) > 763-231-2561 (Fax) > dpetrik@nacplanning.com > -----Original Message----- • From: Wendy Lewin [mailto:wlewin@mchsi.com] > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:31 AM > To: 'Dan Petrik' > Subject: 2401 Black Lake Road second (upper) level deck request > Yes, it is a raised deck coming off the upper level. I guess the > question > is infringement on neighboring site lines. Attached is the survey with > the > hand sketched proposed deck. Also drawn on the survey are the two > neighboring houses. I can't believe this proposed deck would impede > neighboring site lines but maybe we should have Kimberly address this in > a > small amendment to her original memo. Thanks Dan - 1 6o- 1 1�lP nlOR7f;HJWE:S1c AS;SO,CI,Q1��E;D CQN,,$,tt tNJC"•, 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763-231.2555 Facsimile: 703.231.2581 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM DATE: -- ,September 14,2006 TO: Spring Park Planning Commission & City Council FROM: Kimberly Holien RE: 2401 Black Lake Road- Variance Request NAC FILE: 175.01-06.08 DATE RECEIVED: July 21, 2006 60-DAY DEADLINE:September 19, 2006 BACKGROUND Graham and Jessica Neve have submitted an application for a variance to construct a deck and a detached garage on their property, located at 2401 Black Lake Road. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback requirements and to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. ANALYSIS The subject site is a 6,926 square foot lot with a storm sewer easement extending from east to west along the south portion of the property. The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck on the southeast corner of the home. The lot is legally non -conforming with a total buildable area of 6,034 square feet. A minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is required for single family homes in the R-1 District. The site contains a single family home which was constructed in 2003 with the approval of variances to the street setback, the ordinary high water mark setback, and the side yard setback. Said variances were approved on April 14, 2003 through Resolution 03-10 (Exhibit D). According to the resolution, this variance as approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure shall be built on the same footprint of existing structure. 2. Total existing hardcover (which is in conformance at 30%), may not be increased. 3. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner is approved. 4. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback) is approved. 5. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback) is approved. 6. Acknowledged receipt of capped well on the property. The City Council minutes (April 7, 2003) and Planning Commission minutes (March 26, 2003) related to this approval reflect concerns regarding any future construction of a deck or garage. The applicant responded by stating that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The conditions of the site, including the amount of surface parking, have not changed. Easement. The City's policy is to prohibit any encroachments into easements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot, two -stall, detached garage within a storm sewer easement. Storm sewer easements are granted by property owners for the use of a portion of land for the benefit of others. In this case, the easement is occupied by a City storm sewer pipe. The construction of a garage within this easement would prohibit the City from having direct access to the storm sewer facility. Any maintenance or construction would require that the garage be torn down at the expense of the property owner in order to access the facilities. Setback Requirements. The following table illustrates the setback requirements of the R-1 District. The proposed garage deviates from these requirements, as follows: Building Setback Required Proposed Front Yard/Street 30 feet 12 feet Side Yard (south) 10 feet 8.25 feet Ordinary High Water Mark 50 feet 45 feet The southwest corner of the site has approximately 55 feet of shoreline along Lake Minnetonka's Black Lake and thus, the garage must adhere to the ordinary high water mark setback. The applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in addition to what was originally approved in 2003 (Exhibit D). Resolution 03-10 approved the following setback variances: 1. A setback variance from Black Lake Road (street setback) of 17.8 feet on the northeast corner and 15.7 feet on the southeast corner. 2. A setback variance of 0.7 feet from the west elevation (side yard setback). 3. A setback variance of 11.5 feet from Black Lake (ordinary high water mark setback). The applicant is now requesting a more significant variance to the front yard/street setback. The proposed front yard setback would require a variance of 18 feet, as opposed to the 17.8 feet originally approved. A more significant side yard setback is also proposed, increasing the required variance to 1.75 feet. A variance of five feet from the ordinary high water mark setback would also be required. However, this variance is less significant than what was approved in 2003. In addition to requiring a setback variance, the proposed garage location presents safety concerns. The garage is proposed a mere twelve feet from Black Lake Road. This location is too close to the street to allow for safe access, and does not provide adequate space for any car to be parked in front of the garage. Deck additions are allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level, on the condition that the deck is constructed primarily of wood and not roofed or screened, the deck does not exceed 15% of the existing setback of the structure, and there is no reasonable alternative for placement of the structure. The proposed deck appears to meet all of these requirements. Placing the deck in any alternate location would require additional setback variances. The proposed location is consistent with the setbacks of the existing home and appears to meet the requirements of the ordinance. No deck or garage was proposed with the original application. If the City were aware of the future intentions at the time of approval, they may have recommended an alternate design. Impervious Surface. In the R-1 District, as defined by the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance, impervious surface coverage may not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. The applicants' lot size, including the area under the ordinary high water mark, allows for a maximum of 2,090 square feet of impervious surface. The site currently contains the maximum 30 percent surface coverage. Impervious surface currently on the lot includes: Impervious Surface Proposed Area House 858 sf Driveway & walks* 1,232 sf Total 2,090 sf The existing single family home was approved via Resolution 03-10, adopted on April 14, 2003 (Exhibit D). Condition B of this resolution states that approval of the variance request was subject to the condition that the total existing hardcover of the site, which was at 30 percent, may not be increased. The proposed garage is located entirely on the existing drive, and will not increase the impervious surface of the site. The applicant is also proposing to remove approximately 200 square feet of the existing driveway. Removal of this hardcover will decrease the amount of impervious surface to 27%. Building Height. The applicant has indicated that the proposed garage will be two stories, with the second floor utilized for storage. The applicant has not provided a floor plan or elevations for the garage. Structures in the R-1 District are restricted to a height of 35 feet. The proposed garage shall be required to adhere to this standard. Variance Criteria and Analysis The purpose of a variance is to provide for conditional exemptions from the literal provisions of the Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration not resulting from the actions of an individual, and where it is demonstrated that such variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. An application for a variance shall not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that: Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 2. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. 3. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 4. Granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. In order to approve a request for variance, the Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and City Council make a finding of fact that the granting of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. 5. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Summary of Variance Issues The subject site is a small, non -conforming lot which required a number of setback variances for the construction of a single family home in 2003. The applicant has now requested additional variances to the setback requirements and is requesting to construct a garage within a storm sewer easement. The lot is a typical Spring Park lot and does not appear to have any unique conditions to justify the granting of a variance. The existing home on the site is non- conforming, and was approved with variances. CONCLUSION The following variances have been requested: • Front yard setback- 18 feet • Side yard setback- 1.75 feet • Ordinary high water mark setback- 5 feet • Construction within a storm sewer easement In order to grant a variance, it must be determined that an undue hardship exists. The circumstances of the property do not seem to indicate a hardship. When the existing home was approved in 2003, the Planning Commission was concerned with the potential future construction of a deck and/or garage. At that time, the applicant stated that a garage and deck were not being proposed, as there was no feasible location for a deck and the site had adequate surface parking, eliminating the need for a garage. The applicant is now requesting both a deck and garage on the site. The proposed garage requires all setback variances listed above. The front yard variance and side yard variance would be more significant than what was originally approved for the site. The proposed ordinary high water mark setback is less severe than what was originally approved, but still not in compliance with the Ordinance. The proposed garage would also be located within a storm sewer easement. It is the City's policy not to allow any structures within such easements, as they would create a significant obstacle for any maintenance of the storm sewer facility. RECOMMENDATION The proposed deck meets all code requirements and is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the deck as proposed. However, staff has a number of concerns relating to the proposed garage. The garage requires variances to the side yard setback, ordinary high water mark setback, and front yard setback. The requested front yard and side yard setbacks are more non -conforming than the setback approved with the construction of the existing home in 2003. The front yard setback proposes safety issues with no convenient access provided onto Black Lake Road. The side yard setback encroaches onto the neighboring property, leaving just over eight feet between the garage and the property line. Additionally, the garage is proposed within a storm sewer easement. A storm sewer pipe currently occupies this easement, and runs under the proposed garage location. Any maintenance or construction to this pipe would require that the garage be removed at the owner's expense. Staff believes that it may be appropriate for the applicant to pursue an alternate design that would locate the garage outside the easement, and create more significant setbacks from Black Lake Road and the property to the south. At 480 square feet, the proposed garage also appears to be too large to function well with the site. Staff would encourage the applicant to pursue an alternate garage design, considering a smaller structure that allows for more significant setbacks and functions more appropriate on the site. Any alternate design would be evaluated on its own merit. The proposed garage requires a number of variances and no hardship has been demonstrated. As such, staff does not recommend approval of the variances for the detached garage as presented. If the City finds that a hardship has been proven and the variance requests are appropriate, staff recommends that any recommendation of approval be subject to the following conditions: The garage shall be relocated outside of the easement in a manner that reduces the impact on the neighboring property owner. 2. The garage shall be downsized to create more significant front yard and side yard setbacks. Exhibits A. Site plan/survey B. City Council minutes from April 7, 2003. C. Planning Commission minutes from March 26, 2003. D. Resolution 03-10