HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-135 RESOLUTION 02-135
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 21.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 3.23-FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE REAR LOT LINE; A 12.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 50-FEET TO THE OItW2VI; A 0.7-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SUM OF SIDE
YARDS OF 14.2-FEET; A 2-FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 7-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK OF A
BUILDING WALL 74-FEET LONG ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16502 INGUADONA BEACH
CIRCLE
MOTION BY: GUNDLACH SECOND BY: LEMAIR
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council held a public hearing to considered an appeal
by Dennis & Karen Perrier of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for, for the
property legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line
of said Lot 21, 29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line
of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA
BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of
the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part of the 20.00 foot
driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of said
plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26
minutes 27 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of
said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet; thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a
distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of
22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 112.51 feet to
the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17; thence North
75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot
17, to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria 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 variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
r:\resoluti\planres~2002\02-135.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Dennis & Karen Perrier applied for a variance from Sections 1102.405, 1101.502, 1101.503 and 1107.205
of the City Code in order to permit construction of a future single family dwelling with attached garage, as
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland)
Districts at 16502 Inguadona Beach Circle SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lots 17 and 20 and that part of 21, lying East of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot 21,
29.56 feet West of the Southeast comer thereof to a point on the North line of said Lot 21, 40.4 feet West
of the Northeast comer thereof, All in INGUADONA BEACH on Prior Lake, according to the plat thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the Register Deeds, Scott County, Minnesota, together with that part
of the 20.00 foot driveway as shown on said plat of INGUADONA BEACH, adjacent to said Lot 17, of
said plat described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 17, of said plat; thence South 01 degree 26 minutes 27 seconds
East, assumed bearing, along the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 17, a distance of 5.37 feet;
thence South 57 degrees 51 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 37.70 feet; thence South 89 degrees 18
minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 22.33 feet; thence North 00 degrees 41 minutes 47 seconds East a
distance of 112.51 feet to the intersection with the easterly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 17;
thence North 75 degrees 14 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 10.31 feet to the northeast comer of
said Lot 17; thence southerly and westerly along the easterly and southerly lines of said Lot 17, to the point
of beginning.
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case File #02-068PC,
and held hearings thereon July 8, 2002, and July 22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the
request.
d. Dennis & Karen Perrier appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the City Code on July 12, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-068 and Case File #02-090, and held a hearing thereon on August 19, 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.
g. The City Council has determined the requests do not meet the 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.
r:Xresoluti\planres~2002\02-135.doc Page 2
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of
the ordinance reasonable use of the property exists without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-068 and Planning Case File #02-090 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 variances for a 21.7-foot variance to permit a 3.23-foot structure setback to the rear lot
line; A 12.5-foot variance to permit a setback of 50-feet to the OHWM; A 0.7-foot variance to permit a sum of
side yards of 14.2-feet on a nonconforming lot of record rather than the minimum required 15-feet; A 2-foot
variance to permit a building wall 74-feet in length to be setback 7-feet from a side lot line rather than the
minimum required 9-feet for building walls over 50-feet for applicants Dennis & Karen Perrier.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002.
YES NO
Haugen X Haugen
Petersen X Petersen
LeMair X LeMair
Gundlach X Gundlach
Zieska X Zieska
{Seal} City Manag
r:Xresoluti\planres~2002\02-135.doc Page 3