HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-196 RESOLUTION 02-196
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
MINIMUM 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDITION
MOTION BY: ZIESKA SECOND BY: PETERSEN
WHEREAS, On December 2, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Randy
and Patrice Simpson to construct a 698 square foot garage addition to an existing
single family dwelling located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and legally described as
follows:
The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite
and a portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6th Street, Scott
County, Minnesota
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. Randy and Patrice Simpson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a
garage addition to be constructed to an existing single family dwelling on property zoned R-
1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located at 2933 Spring Lake Road, and
legally described as follows:
The northwesterly 28 feet of Lot 5 and all of Lot 6, Block 50, Spring Lake Townsite and a
portion of the vacated Reserve and the east 30 feet of the vacated 6~h Street, Scott County,
Minnesota
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
r:\resoluti\planresk2002\02-196.do¢ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance from the 25 foot front yard
setback as contained in Case #0-113 and held hearings thereon on October 28, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria
and denied the request.
d. Randy and Patrice Simpson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on November 1, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File #02-113 and Case File #02-127, and held a hearing thereon
on December 2, 2002.
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 property has ample buildable area to construct an addition and detached garage,
which would be a total of 1,033 square feet or more than the proposed addition, without
variances.
h. The alleged condition (i.e., this being a corner lot) is found throughout the City of Prior Lake.
According to the zoning ordinance, two front yard setbacks are required on any corner lot.
There are no peculiar conditions that apply to this property.
i. The applicant already enjoys a reasonable use of the property with the existing single family
home and attached 2-car garage. Additional garage area can be constructed on the property
without any variances, as acknowledged by the applicant. In the appeal letter, the applicant
states, "additional garage space can be added on the other areas of the lot but will block my
view and my neighbor's view of the lake. It would actually be cheaper for me to build a
freestanding garage else where on the lot but this would not be aesthetically pleasing as
mentioned in the 2020 Comp Plan." The variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
j. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to encourage "the elimination of non-conformities or
minimize their impact on adjacent properties." Section 1107.2300 of the zoning ordinance sets
forth criteria that allow a nonconformity to exist provided that it does not expand. "A
nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or changed in any manner or
dimension except to comply with the provisions of this ordinance." The proposed addition
will expand the building into a required setback, and further expand the nonconformity.
Therefore, the granting of the 15 foot variance will be contrary to the intent of the zoning
ordinance.
k. The granting of the variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant. There are other
options for additional garage space, and an attached garage is already present on the site. There
is no hardship or difficulty by the applicant's own admission. As mentioned by the appellant in
the appeal letter, "the only convenience to the applicant would be not having to litigate as to
the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance and why staff previously allowed building into
the setback. If I wanted ease I would just build a detached shed in the front yard."
r:\resoluti\planres~2002\02-196.doc Page 2
1. The alleged hardship directly results from actions of the property owner. The proposed design
is what created the variance, not the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. There are
legally viable alternatives, as acknowledged by the applicant.
3) The contents of Planning Case File//02-113 and//02-127 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 denying the following requested variance:
a) A 15 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback.
Passed and adopted this 2nd day of December 2002.
YES NO
Haugen X Haugen
LeMair Abstained LeMair Abstained
Petersen X Petersen
Zieska X Zieska
Vacant NA Vacant NA
{Seal} Frank Boyles, Cit~y Manager
rAresoluti\planres~2002\02-196.doc Page 3