Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem WS 01City of Lakeville Planning Department M e morandum To: Planning Commission From: Brent Jones, Planning Assistant/Code Enforcement Technician Date: July 13, 2017 Subject: Packet Material for the July 20, 2017 Planning Commission Work Session Agenda Item: Discussion with Peter Kenow Regarding Non-Conforming Sport Court BACKGROUND Peter Kenow is the property owner at 17082 Eventide Way. The property is zoned RS-2, Single Family Residential District. In February of 2017, Mr. Kenow contacted the City to inquire about installing a sport court on his property and possibly placing it closer to the rear property line than the 10 feet required by the Zoning Ordinance. Kris Jenson, Associate Planner, informed him that there is a 10 foot drainage and utility easement that runs along the rear property line and that sport courts require a 10 foot setback from rear and interior side lot lines. She also sent him the variance criteria and told him that staff would not recommend approval of a variance that does not meet the criteria. Mr. Kenow responded that he did not plan on submitting an application for a variance, but wanted someone to come out to get an accurate marking of his property line. Ms. Jenson instructed him to contact a licensed land surveyor to do that work. In April of 2017, City staff received a complaint that a sport court had been installed on the subject property that did not appear to meet setback requirements. An inspection was completed and the sport court appeared to be located approximately six feet from the northerly side lot line and approximately one foot from the rear lot line. A letter was sent to Mr. Kenow, who promptly contacted staff to discuss the situation. Ms. Jenson had sent him a survey of his property that showed the proposed location of a 192 square foot shed that was to be installed 10 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Kenow used this survey to conclude that if his sport court was no closer to the rear lot line than the shed, it would meet setback requirements. Unfortunately the shed is not located in the location that was approved by the City in 2002. A final inspection for the shed was completed in 2003. Either the shed was relocated after the final inspection, or the final inspection was incorrectly approved by City staff. Mr. Kenow purchased the property in 2012. From looking at aerial photos of the property, it appears that the shed has been in the same location since it was originally installed. 2 The purpose of the work session with the Planning Commission is to allow the property owner to present his proposal to the Planning Commission prior to submitting a formal variance application and revised plans. This memorandum will present the information submitted by Mr. Kenow and gathered by staff in addition to staff comments regarding the requisite criteria to establish practical difficulty. EXHIBITS A. Aerial Photo B. Bird’s Eye View of the Sport Court C. Photo of the Sport Court from the South D. Photos of the Sport Court from the North E. 1998 Property Survey F. Email Correspondence Prior to the Installation of the Sport Court G. Email Correspondence After the Installation of the Sport Court PLANNING ANALYSIS The house owned by Mr. Kenow at 17082 Eventide Way was constructed in 1998. Meadowbrook Park is located directly east of the property. The grade of the subject property continues past the rear lot line for approximately 20 feet before it slopes down, which might cause property owners to think their rear property line extends further east than it does. There are several properties located to the north and south of the subject property that maintain and utilize this area that is owned by the City. In addition to not meeting the rear lot line setback and being located within a drainage and utility easement, the sport court also does not meet the side lot line setback of 10 feet on the north side of the property. It is located approximately six feet from the property line. If the sport court did not have a basketball hoop that was permanently affixed, it would be considered a patio, which requires a side lot line setback of 5 feet. Mr. Kenow has argued that his basketball hoop is portable and the surface is a patio, but City staff does not consider this to be the case. The surface also includes a Nike logo, a free throw line, and 3-point line markings. City staff advises residents not to rely on the location of other structures to determine where property lines are. The only way to determine the location of a property line with full certainty is to locate the property pins or have the property surveyed. Mr. Kenow is seeking a variance to leave the sport court in its current location. He feels that he made an informed decision on the placement of the sport court based on the location of the shed constructed by a previous owner and that the City needs to be accountable for providing accurate information to residents. 3 If the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of a variance, the property owner would also need to enter into an encroachment agreement that would need to be approved by the City Council due to the location of the sport court within the drainage and utility easement. Variances. Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth seven criteria that must be considered to determine whether practical difficulties are evident that may warrant the approval of a variance. Practical difficulties mean that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable matter not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the following criteria must be met: A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. B. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant. D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. G. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Staff looks forward to your input and direction on Mr. Kenow’s request. Dakota County GIS ±EVENTIDEWAYEVEREST PATH 17082 Eventide Way City of Lakeville Aerial Map EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E