HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-001 RESOLUTION 03-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 29 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: LEMAIR
WHEREAS, On January 6, 2003, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Uarge Kinney to construct a
288 square foot garage three-season pomh addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 14458
Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Marge Kinney has applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a thee season porch addition to an
existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-lSD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 14458
Shady Beach Trail and legally described as follows:
Lot 2, Shady Beach No. 2
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 75 shoreland setback as contained in Case
#0-124 and held a hearing thereon on November 25, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d. Marge Kinney appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City
Code on December 2, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #02-124 and Case File #02-138, and held a hearing thereon on January 6, 2003.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
rArcsoluti\planres\03-01 .doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
f. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. The subject lot complies with applicable provisions of the shoreland ordinance, and is not unique in its shape or
topography. Thus, the strict application of the shoreland setback provision of the zoning ordinance does not create an
undue hardship for the property owner in developing the property as permitted in the R-1 use district. A reasonable
use, a single family dwelling with a two-stall garage, is present on the site. Furthermore, a substantial buildable area
exists on the property.
h. The condition (i.e., shoreland setback) applying to the land in question pertains to other land within the R-1 use district
and SD overlay district, and is not peculiar to the subject property.
i. A shoreland setback variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the property
owner. The property owner already enjoys a reasonable use of the property.
j. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community."
Allowing the encroachment into the shoreland setback, which intends to protect the water quality of Prior Lake, is
inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Another purpose of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate
nonconformities or prohibit their expansion. Allowing the addition would expand a nonconforming setback.
k. The granting of the shoreland setback variance serves as a convenience to the applicant because it is not necessary
to alleviate an undue hardship.
I. The alleged hardship for the shoreland setback results from the actions of the property owner. The applicant is the
original owner of the dwelling. The proposed footprint of the three-season porch addition created the difficulty, not the
area, width, shape or topography of the lot.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-124 and #02-138 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and
the record of decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission in
denying the following requested variance:
a) A 29 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of January 2003.
YES NO
Haugen X Haugen
Blomberg X Blomberg
LeMair X LeMair
Petersen X Petersen
Zieska X Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyies, ~'~ty ~anager
r:~resoluti\planres\03 -01 .doc Page 2