HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07 RESOLUTION 02-07
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A 16.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA
ABOVE THE 904' ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY: PETERSEN SECOND BY: GUNDLACH
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D. Mark Crouse of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 16.4% variance to permit a 46.4% impervious surface
coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) rather than the
required maximum 30% coverage area, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to
the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly
along said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of
the northerly 4§.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof;
thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1106.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mr. D. Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1104.306 of the City Code in order to permit a 46.4%
impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30%
coverage area as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at the following location, to wit;
r:\resoluti\planres\2OO2\O2-OT.doc Page l
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MN, legally described as
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line
of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to
the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence
southerly along said shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the
southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #01-093, and held a
hearing thereon December 10, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d. Mr. D. Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the
City Code on December 11, 2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #01-093 and Case File #01-099, and held a hearing thereon on January 22, 2002.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive
Plan. The additional impervious surface reduces the infiltration/buffer area, which helps to remove pollutants from the
surface water and increases potential for shoreland erosion due to additional runoff.
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship.
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the
ordinance, as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. There are other alternatives to
providing soil stability around the structure, which do not increase the impervious surface.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-093 and Planning Case File #01-099 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission
denying a variance to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather
than the required minimum 30% for applicant D. Mark Crouse.
r:\resoluti\planres~2OO2\O2-O7.doc Page 2
Passed and adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen X Haugen
Petersen X Petersen
Ericson Absent Ericson Absent
Gundlach X Gundlach
Zieska X Zieska
{Seal} City Manager
r:\resoluti\planres\2OO2\O2-O7.doc Page 3