HomeMy WebLinkAbout7F - Rounavar Variance Appeal
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
7F
R. Michael leek
Associate Planner/Acting Assistant Planner
Consider Approval of Resolution 96-43 Denying a Variance
Appeal by Muriel Rounavar of Planning Commission
Decision in Case 96-026
May 6, 1996
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION:
On March 25, 1996, by Resolution 9612PC (a copy of which is
attached) the Planning Commission denied the request of
Muriel Rounavar for
1) a 13 foot lakeshore setback variance to permit a lakeshore
setback of 37 feet instead of the 50 feet permitted under
Section 9.3(0)2, and
2) a 5 foot front yard setback to permit a front yard setback of
20 feet instead of the required 25 feet.
The variances were requested in connection with the proposed
construction of a new house with attached 3-car garage on
property located in the R 1- Suburban Residential and SD -
Shoreland districts. The applicant appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission, stating liThe Building Envelope is too
small... ." I nitial references to a setback variance of 17.5 feet
were based on the setbacks shown on the applicant's survey
for the adjacent properties. It was discovered that this survey
did not reflect the setback variance granted in 1995 for Lot 5,
Inguadona Beach. As a result of the variance granted to Lot 5
the average lakeshore setback would be less than 50 feet, and
thus t~9 permitted setback would be 50 feet.
ANAL YSIS:
The Commission's denial of the requested variances was
based the following factors;
1. The large size of the subject site (12,332 square feet in
area and 111.06' wide at the right-of-way line),
2. The fact that the Section 9.3(D)2 of the Ordinance allows a
lakeshore setback of 50 feet rather than 75 feet, and
3. The size of the legal building pad (about 3,445 square feet).
The Commission concluded that the applicant could readily
construct a similarly-sized residence on the subject site while
16200 ~&rI&R~.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4~7-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
complying with the Ordinance requirements.
The survey accompanying the attached report to the Planning
Commission identifies the required front and lakeshore setback
lines, and clearly demonstrates that there is ample, legal
buildable area on the subject site. Judicious redesign of the
proposed house and garage would bring them into compliance
with the required setbacks, while still permitting a similarly-
sized (and substantial) house.
ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may uphold Ms. Rounavar's appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of her request for variance.
2. The City Council may uphold the denial by the Planning
Commission of Ms. Rounavar's request for variance.
RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission's denial
ACTION REQUIRED:
ROUNAPPL.DOCIRML
2
RESOLUTION 96-43
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL
DENYING A VARIANCE APPEAL BY MURIEL ROUNA V AR
OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN THE MATTER
OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, CASE NO. 96-026V A
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 6th day of May,
1996, to act on an appeal by Muriel Rounavar of the Planning
Commission's denial of a request for lakeshore and front yard setback
variances for property legally described as Lots 6 and 7,
"INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request for variance does not meet the
standards for granting variances set forth in the' City's Zoning
Ordinance at Section 7.6(C)(1-4), and that the appellant has failed to 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 request for variance was appropriate and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, that it hereby upholds the Planning Commission's denial of the request of Muriel
Rounavar for variance.
Passed and adopted this 6th day of May, 1996.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{ Seal}
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
16200 ~~~2k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4.B
CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR MURIEL ROUNA V AR
16594 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE
R. MICHAEL LEEK, CITY PLANNER
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES -X- NO
APRIL 8, 1996
INTRODUCTION:
The Planning Department received a variance application from Muriel Rounavar who
proposes the construction of a new house with attached 3-car garage on the subject site,
which is legally identified as Lots 6 and 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County,
Minnesota. The applicant requests 3 variances; 1) a 17.5' lakeshore variance to permit a
lakeshore setback of 37' instead of the 54.5' feet permitted under the lakeshore setback
averaging provision of the Shoreland Ordinance, and 2) a 5' front yard setback variance
to permit a setback of20' instead of the required 25'.
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is wider than required by either the R1 or Shoreland districts. It
measures 111.06' along the front property line and 101.20' along the lakeshore side, as
opposed to 86' and 90' front widthl75' width at OHW required by the districts
respectively. At 12,332 square feet in area, it larger than required by the R1 district and
the minimum required for non-conforming lots in the shore land districts (12,000 and
7,500 square feet respectively) There is a narrow strip of land between the property
boundary and shoreline.
The survey provided by the applicant does not indicate the area of the proposed house.
Staff '''digitized'' the area, and found that the footprint of the house contains about 2,022
square feet. The garage measures about 34' x 34', or about 1132 square feet in area. The
proposed driveway is 30' wide at the street; the Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum
driveway width of 24' at the curb.
The survey indicates that impervious surface coverage would be 290/0, i.e. less than the
permitted 30% coverage. However, the surveyor has included a note that the calculation
was based on calculations provided by the owner, and was not verified by looking at a
house plan. In the event that the Commission were to grant the requested variances, it
16200 ~8gq~~fe~<Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
should require that the impervious surface calculation be verified by the surveyor without
reservation.
The communication from Bud Waund, agent for the applicant, to Michael Leek of City
staff (a copy of which is attached) indicates that he has used the setbacks for adjacent
Lots 5 and 8 in drawing the proposed setback lines. The survey does not show the 46'
lakeshore setback granted last year for an addition on Lot 5/16604 Inguadona Beach
Cir;;le. This grant of this variance was based on the small size of the lot (6,300 square
feet), its narrowness (50.71' at the street), and the severe slope on the property. (See Res.
9532PC, a copy of which is attached.
Attached to this report is a copy of the survey submitted by the applicant which shows the
approximate location of the lake shore setback line permitted under Section 9.3(D)2 and
the front setback line. As can be seen from this illustration, there is ample buildable area
on the site is the setbacks requirements are met. The minimum distance between these 2
setback lines is about 40' .
Variance Hardship Standards:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance
is literally enforced. It also goes to whether the applicant has legal alternatives to
accomplish the development efforts without the requested variances. The subject site in
this case is quite large, and its "buildability" is enhanced by the ability to make use of
Section 9.3(D)2 of the Shoreland Ordinance, which reduces the required lakeshore
setback to 50'. The building pad which results when the setback requirements are applied
is also quite large, and would permit reasonable use of the property in the form of the
construction of a very substantial house with attached garage. For the above-stated
reasons, this criterion is not met.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
Because staff has concluded that literal enforcement of the Ordinance would not result in
undue hardship, this criteria is, de facto, not met. Moreover, by virtue of its size and
shape, the subject site has no unique characteristics which would necessitate the granting
of the requested variance.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently having an interest in the property.
Because staff has concluded that there would not be an undue hardship if the Ordinance
were literally enforced, this criterion is not met. survey.
9626V APC.OOC
2
~.. '""__~~""'_""m~~"'_""_"N..._~"......"."....."._...__.,_^~_....___~ ,\.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
The applicant's request is an example of what is sometimes referred to as
"variance/setback creep", i.e. the granting of a variance for one property gives rise to
increased requests on adjacent or nearby properties based on the argument that the
requested variance is insignificantly greater. Particularly in this case involving a site with
substantial buildable area, this sort of "creep" runs counter to the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance, and is contrary to the public interest.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Ordinance criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Because staff has concluded that reasonable use of the property can be had, that legal
alternatives exist to accomplish the applicant's objectives, and thus that the Ordinance
criteria are not met, staff recommends Alternative No.3.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion adopting Resolution 9612PC.
9626V APC.DOC
3
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
VAQh-6J-b
PID# 2. S'~? ~"trJ~p
'~~~~t: / :':;;~e).. #:;;;A~r;:; ~gllA
Property ONner: WI- '-J..~'-a.-.. ~;:J'", iLn Bl-t b SO+14' d
Address: t.f;tf"-()~ //1-1'( 11(/f? ~.- "1Jr,e-t:,~t/JS;
Type of ONnership: Fee .:>< " Contract'
Consultant/Contractor: DIA}"';". h.. {b3~ Lv-er u..n-d
Home Phone: tJ ~& -/6 /~
Work Phone:
Home Phone: t? do ~ - tit' ~r!f
Work Phone:
Purchase Agreement
Phone: ~J.f 7 - 99 ~ b
~ (/~1Lfr/ Jr;::~~h~:!t:~~
Has the applicant pr~liously sought to plat, rezone, obtain a variance or conditional
use ~rmit on the subject sit~ or any part of it? Yes )( ~
What was requested:
When:
Existing Use
of Property:
Legal Description
of Variance Site:
Variance Requested:
->?~.s~
Present Zoning:
/r-I
DisJ;Osition:
Describe the t~ of improvements proposed:
Q... ,I//' 19 tV i? d ~ ~
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
(A)Completed application form. (B) Filing fee. (C):Property SUrvey indicating the
proJ;Osed developnent in relation to property lines and/or ordinary-high-water mark;
proposed building elevations and drainage plan. (D) Certified from abstract firm,
names and addresses of property owners within 100 feet of the a~erior boundaries of
the subject property. (E)Complete legal description & Property Identification NUmber
(pm). (F) Deed restrictions or private covenants, if applicable. (G) A parcel map
at 1 "-20 '-50 I showing: The site developnent plan, buildings: parking, loading,
access, surface drair.age, landscaping and utility service.
L ~ .5 rI-)- '" d,l I t:--r. r9-"';::-
ONLY COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE ACCEPrED AND REVIE"tlED BY THE PLANNI~ a:MMISSION.
To the best of my knowledge the information presented on this form is correct. In
addition, I have read Section 7.6 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance which specifies
requirements for variance procedures. I agree t~ ~,d follow the
procedures as outlined in the Ordinance.
Applicants Signature
Submitted this j2day of fl(j Coo G- "-- 192.b
'w~A-.8~
Fee Owners Signature
THIS SPACE IS 'ID BE FILLED our BY THE PLANNI~ DIRECl'OR
PLANNING <DMMISSION
CITY COmcrL APP~
APPROVID
APPROVID
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARI~
!:'ATE OF HFARIN:;
CDNDITIONS:
Signature of the Planning Director
Date
;$
\C)
N
o
I
\C;
0\
-- I.r-t
I (',!
_---:,'
,-
__~------1
I
I
I
I: --;.
I I,
- I
JIl-
I I
I;
I I
I l.
U~:'I.- I
==..=;------<----
,~,
<
;~ ~
"
,h.. ~
. .,;
;
---,v-----
i
I ~ ; (
w
~il~
i~\~:
~ I
, ..
" '. .
20
~8
~7
2,1
28 ~I
~l ~~
~2 ~~
~~
~g ~ 8 ~ 7 ~ 6
41
~2
4~
47 ~8
#t~
.~
.It
. .. .
" .......-, .,
6 =>
.;' ;.~..'l~"':~(
. I. '. '
t
.7
8' "
..-.. . . .
..l
'. . . .'. .
'.-
96-026VA
SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
BUD WAUND
/4198 COMMERCE AVE NE
PRIOR LAKE I MN 55372
A~](IMA11!. t..A~HOrz.e.
~lI- UNE ~/PeJl.~. 9.3(O),2,}
Valley Surveying Co., P A.
SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
PRIOR LAKE , MINNESOT4 55372
rElEPHO~". 16' 2 J 44j7 - 2570
__u_ __ \
EXIS,..NO
HOUSE
s
II'
~1~.\115
I
I
~~\O~
\..p.'1<.E
/ <0
DESCRIPTION:
Lots 5 and 7, "INc,uMXJNI\ AF:I\CH", Scott COlJnty, Minnesota. IIlso shO\.'ing all visible
impC"ovelT1<?nts and encrO,'lchlT1<?nts onto and aEE Ecom said pco~ct.{ if any.
~
La T AREA = 10, 099 SO FT. ,AREA BETWEEN LOT UN E B EL 904" 2,233 SO. FT
TOTAL AREA= 12,332 SO.FT.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE =29 % R@Y 3/12/96 To 'nllWpr-opondhOuH
a Im~lou. SUrfac, e. ".w .q./,. orfO .
o
I
SCALE
20
40
IN
FEET
NOTE I~RV10US COVERAGE WAS BASED ON
CALCULATIONS FURNISHED BY THE OWNER, WE
al a NOT VI EW A HOUSE PLAN TO VERIFY
1a::..~
o ~"otu 1/2 i"cn .14 i"ch iron
monUJTl<>nt .., 'Jnd mor~,d by
Llc''''' Nt) /0183
. 0""01.5 "on monumf'"f found
't. O~r</"'"'' P K N(JII ,,.,
<"'LE II"
4'594
8001< ~Pi1GE ~
NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;
1. A 17.5 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 37 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 54.5 FEET
PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2 (i.e.
SETBACK AVERAGING);
2. A 5.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE WITH
ATTACHED 3-CAR GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rl-
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, April 8, 1996, at 7:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: Muriel Rounavar
16032 Northwood Road
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
SUBJECT SITE: Lots 6 and 7, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, located
on Inguadona Beach Circle SW.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of a new house on the
subject property. The proposed construction will result in the
following requested variances;
1. A 17.5 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
LAKE SHORE SETBACK OF 37 FEET INSTEAD OF THE 54.5 FEET
PERMITTED UNDER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.3(D)2 (Le.
SETBACK AVERAGING);
2. A 5.0 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance
against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance.
16200 ffi!~~ew~ve. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"f
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with
respect to the property.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the
property.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of
actions of persons presently huving an interest in the property.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces
substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the above-listed criteria.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Date Mailed: March 28, 1996.
9626V APN. DOC
2
DNR METRO REGION
TEL:612-772-7977
Rpr 03,96
11:35 No.017 P.Ol
~ STATE OF
INQ INQ ~ ~ (Q) if ~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Divilion ofWatcn, 1200 Warner Raid. St Paul, MN SSJ06
!
~ :~~,: \ PHONE NO.772.. 7910
:,..
.,.:,
"'
~.' '.
, ,
~'"~. \
, \ \
;~'. ~ I .
." ,
<
~ ",
(" '\ . I
FILE NO.
Apri14. 1996
Mr. MidI.1 Leek
~' City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle CJ'CICk Avatuc S.B.
PriarLab. Min~.s.s372.1714
RB: ROUNA V All VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 6 &t 7, JNGUADONA BEACH,
~ Mr. Leek:
l I have reviewed the materials su.bmitted along with the subject varianee request Based upon my review. I wish to
express oppoaition to the srantins of the ~ari~ u requested.
Setba<:k averaain. was designed to addresl situations like this one whereby de\'clopmcnt could occur within the
ftXJ.Ubed IctNck area without variance. No ~pl hu been made to meet the standar~ Allowing this home closer
to tha Jake will establish a new bcndun8lk for setback averaging wilen the adjac:eot parcels are rc-developcd. The
Ipplicat docs not appear to have made any effOrt to dcsip a strott:ure that consider. the constraints of the shallow
lol
',I DC:Jkt the lath waD oftbc tbrcI>staIJ ginIC is 34"1oog. This is. a pat dp-A11on&Ct.than a sl.8hdard gara~. If it were
I"C:lCb=cd to at ..0 stall garaae, the entire st:nJcturc shifted north Oft the J~ and Jiving splKiC were added to the rear of
the garage, I bc:sIiave the lake setback variance could be eliminated. I have seen better attempts to &;:Ornply with the
required zonia& provisions on lots a lot smaller and shallower than this ODe.
The pJ.n dDea DOt indic:aII: wbctht:r or not . deck is ilIcludcd in the dcIip. _The ~plicant should be made aware that
~ dcdc must also meet ~~acIc. ~ home design should be Joabd at carefully to see if doors arc Included
which may result in request for future variaftcc if/when a future addition is plarmed.
-
I trust the applicant win be required to demonstrate hardsbip before the PI8DDing Commission. I look forward to
~jewm, tho FiDdinp ofFset and ConclUJiOlll tortbi. varilDC:O roqucst.
Aaain. the DNR is opposed to this variance. We do Dot fClDJ that an adequate attempt has been made to design II
strueture which considers the lot (X)nstraints and required provisions of your shorcland mning ordinance.
Please call me at 772.7910 if you have any questiORl.
Sincerely.
TU~~
Patrick 1. L~ ill
Area Hydrolosilt
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
, ~>:::"'U".!'\:""'~."T '."
DNR METRO REGION
TEL:612-??2-?9??
Rpr 03,96
11:36 No.Ol? P.02
::
. I
!tU""I'r "'r~.Rf:D IIOA:
BUD WAUNO
1411'8 C:OMMIAc:.! .VE. N [.
PRIOR L.AIC€, MH. 55.72
. Volley Surveying Co., F!A,
.sulrr Itc-C, ""0 ""AI'#IfLI", t/llAII.
'"''MiLl''' TRIrIL ol""I;E COIWOOMINIIIM
""'0. U.I'. H'I'4N.SOTA '~;J72
T~t.EPHOII' ( 151 Z J ....,.. "70
\'
-..' ,
cexRlPTrCNr
, .
" .~..
I~:(."',.I' "
I..' .". I
.... I
" ., I
;". "I','~ ~
I ~!~~W"1~),'
, :~'. :to:- ~ J
,~J
.~....
'! :.'~rl
. ...." .r
~. ;-- l.lt~" C"'"..
J . ~.,7,~~~:'
": /.~I
...... J
, .,. 0 :::.=_
~'t' 'l-/4t:
"'. :. .' ., - J
l7";.:"e.; . a
.' ")':~
nt, .?~. :..4?'~ :.~,*,
Nil.' ro:.' ~.. ,;:. ~..,.,
9"",. . I
I ~.'~
'~ /
p~\Ofl
\,.,..~ E
~. 6 ~ '7, -INClllADCNA BacH". Sc:o~c CQWlty. rtlnnw.ot;.. "&..10 .ncrwl", .41 "hU,h
i'"DC'e......."u llnd .nct'QII~nl;a oru:o -rw:s oH I:~CIlI ~.id pc'0p9t'I;'f L f ....y.
~
LoOT A"EA. 10,0" SO. 1FT., ARIA II~TW~EN LOT I..IN! a EL. gO~. Z.JJJ sq.FT
TOTAl;.. A"fA- '2,331 SQ,'T.
IMPERVIOU, SU"F.CI COVERAGE .Z9 ~
,,.,
40.,
1 .
,eET .
1lf01'E ''''"VlO\JS COVERAGe WAS IJASED 0...
c~U..CULArtON' l'URHIID"1!D "., Tkt 0..(", we
01 0 HOT \lIIW . HOUII!: fIlAH 'TO y€..,n
.... J 1111.. T'e ._ .......... rwu.
. ............ ...... . - ... ff. .... .
,~ f!.'''. ,.., lilt, __, _. .........,
;;;.:-.~~. -:.-......---,.::::
r-.~"" ..... II f .
.' ."....
~~~'I~ - ~,_. ... 'G~: -
o
[
SeAL~
20
o a........ II' ... . '" __ .....
~ .., .. --... '"
I...,..... If. lOf. J
~ ~,-".. .-- ....
~ 0....,.."" ,.., ,.'
I"If..C .,,_
....
~Il' ~,...t-!L
RESOLUTION 9532PC
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERNHT
A 46 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET, A VARIANCE TO
PERJ.vIIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET ON THE SOUTH INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 10 FEET, AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF
THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIVING ADDITION
TO PROPERTY IN JHE R-1 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND SD-
SHORELAND DISTRICT AT 16604 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, wfinnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Jerry Halliday has applied for variances from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit construction of a living area addition to an existing house on property
located in the R1-Suburban Residential and SD-Shoreland districts at the following
location, to wit;
16604 Inguadona Beach Circle, legally described as follows;
Lot 5, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the Application for Variance as contained
in Case #V A9532 and held a hearing thereon on September 25, 1995.
3. The Board of Adjustment has 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it
is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variances
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesora 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 44.7-4245
AN EQl',';L OPPOR \ilTr' E:.IPLOYER
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be
contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the subject property are unique to such
property, and do not generally apply to other land in the district in which such
land is located. Among the conditions applying to the subject property which the
Board of Adjustment relied upon are its size and severe slopes.
6. The granting of the variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as
a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
7. The contents o( Planning Case V A95-32 are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case. Pursuant to Section
5-6-8 of the Ordinance Code this variances will be deemed to be abandoned,
and thus will be null and void one (1) year from the date of approval if the holder
of the variance has failed to obtain any necessary, required or appropriate permits
for the completion of contemplated improvement.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants and
approves the follo\ving variances;
1. A variance to permit a 46 foot lakeshore setback;
2. A variance to permit a 20 foot front yard setback;
3. A variance to permit a 5 foot side yard setback on the South.
These variances are granted with the following terms and conditions;
1. The new, southerly wall be I-hour rated;
2. Erosion control be maintained in connection with the completion of the
project which is the subject of this request;
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 25,1995.
~~o0~;r-
Donald R. Rye
Planning Director
2
FROM :EDINR RERLTY PRIOR LR~E
447 4735
1996,03-30 16:15 #608 P.02/03
)1/~ 1/ It a-e L ~
,p L r;>- "- S 6 4.1.- h Th..t:vf;-..... of v-~ 4;< ,- ~
The s~ f-.b-~ L,-.... e ~ k.S e c::I
if b" (.I'1,I"Y;v,,~ V4"#~ c eo) -5-",... L-p f- ..s-
a H- cI '14- I Q:...r st.t..<Yv;y,cI s+~""-~g h. ~ 0- ~
-F t.J ". Lt1' T- ~. ~ ~p f-k c ~.3 r: s
7 h.;- -> ,-.s I1.-d f- Th c::::... L (J S t!!' so c.f-- f'p,' ~ ~
-
I 0
~~ ~. .J .~ 6 CI 'f--A- Cae..$ e s-
f -f W'~~ ~d k ): (?.r..s 1'J: 'Y" 4.. ~-r..S~d yo ~
Po , ~ J-1, -f- ~ fi.. ~P" ~d po -f-/i.. -
:]:21 '2/ ~ ~~U) H. /ke do s ~s r- rc;) r '"k. r-
~ s,' ~ It -L ~ h. ~4it!..e/
r-h- e
'-:Fo,... L- Is &" ~? u ~ ,- ~
(;')..... e/ 1:S f-Q:.. 1>0.- c:-I!' To Th. () ? t? 7' .
FROM :EDIN~ RE~LTY PRIOR L~KE
447 4735
1996,03-30 16:15 ~608 P.01/03
Joan & Bud Waund I
~ 447-4413 ~l!--r
j TO:
FAX:
J'1/c,h..uoBL
j p~h
-
COMPANY:
4 47 -'~:J- 'IS
L J r Iv' 0- .E P Jr- /' I) II-
/
1-~k e
,..'
,.
TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2.
FAX 447-4735
COMMENTS:
r'Vtl d~tAJ~ h4/r- The 5e7-6~e,K
/ / IA f!. 6- · 'v c ~ 'tl...-e /h.? fD rY7/ d e/ 'J/ R/l-I · ~c P-
I'
, ('Ot-LJ rVTJ r1't'~P~ ..1?"" j>~o;?;-H"rS ~ k.. La ~ S ';/_..r
J~UJt..Q;-d~ ~k-v-~.-~rd>J -:;;:"DI1' /he J/~ia~e-e
/
yo g g 14-1!>:i. -b -;:;N c. l" a.--c.-8t. C'-- h ... 4? ) ~ O~". ~--
I /
, .
1$ ,. "" -'~ . /J-,.. '7'/ f S ~ c;-A.e~_
PLt>~>e j...,. -r- ~ K~~I.U LVi~K Jh..:F::r$ ,€ pL;)CJ,,-I- /'.r
,.
da....e f/ -P-f~L PI'o-K~~ "t c-""IP/~ ~.s .. .
. I F~V~
I Edina Realfv 447-4700 14198 Commerce Avenue NE
:lIne Prior Lake, MN 55372
. [Bti)
., .,,,~~- ~~
RESOLUTION 9612PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR;
1. A 13' LAKESHORE VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LAKESHORE SETBACK
OF 37' INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 50' UNDER SECTION 9.3(D)2 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE;
2. A 5' FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF
20' INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25';
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ON
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 AND 7, "INGUADONA BEACH",
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND LOCATED IN THE R1-SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Muriel Rounavar has applied for variances from Sections 4 and 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a new house with attached garage
on property located in the R1-Suburban Residential zoning district and the SD-
Shoreland District at the following location, to wit;
Lots 6 and 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained
in Case 96-026V A and held a hearing thereon on April 8, 1996.
3. The Board of Adjustment 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.
4. The request does not meet the Ordinance criteria, in that reasonable use of the
property can be obtained if the Ordinance is literally applied, and legal
alternatives exist for placing a house and garage on the property.
16200 ~8gt~<{92~~. S.E" Prior Lake. Minnesota 35372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The granting of the variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances would serve merely
as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship.
7. The contents of Planning Case 96-026V A are hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
requested variance.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on April 8, 1996, 1996.
Richard Kuykendall, Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
9612PC.DOC/RML
2