HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-119
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 04-119
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRECLUDING THE
SUBDIVISION OF TWO CONTIGUOUS NONCONFORMING LOTS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP,
A 36.01 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 86 FEET OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR LOT 16 AND 17, A
3,862 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR
LOT 16, AND A 4,140 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT
AREA FOR LOT 17 (SECTION 1102.405 (3).)
MOTION BY: ZIESKA
SECOND BY: BLOMBERG
WHEREAS, John and Iris Ramsey are requesting variances from the Zoning Ordinance for the
construction of two single family dwellings on property located in the R-1 SO (Low
Density Residential Shoreland District) use district at the following location, located at
15966 and 15976 Sunfish Trail SE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows:
Lot 16 and Lot 17, Sunfish Bay, Scott County, Minnesota
and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case File 04-52, and held a hearing thereon June 14, 2004; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request; and
WHEREAS, An affected property owner appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 04-52 and Case File 04-89, and held a hearing
thereon on July 19, 2004.
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 finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria for granting variances
set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code.
3) The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld, and said variance should be denied.
4) The City Council makes the following findings:
r:\resoluti\planres\2004\04-119.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Page 1
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
a. Bernie Mahowald, on behalf of John and Iris Ramsey, appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on June 18, 2004.
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 04-52 and Case File 04-89, and held a hearing thereon on July 19. 2004.
c. 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 variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
d. There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions on the property to warrant Variances for the
construction of two dwellings. The property owner has not demonstrated an undue hardship
because a single family dwelling can be constructed on the property without Variances.
e. The conditions applying to the property are not peculiar to this site. There are numerous parcels
of land in the R-1 use district that contain multiple lots of record. It is common for lots that were
platted prior to the 1930s to be compiled into one parcel for a larger buildable area.
f. The granting of the Variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property
right. One single family dwelling can be constructed on the property without relief from the
Zoning Ordinance.
g. The granting of the Variance will impact on the character and development of the neighborhood
because it will permit the construction of two single family dwellings on property that is entitled to
only one dwelling. .
h. One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "provide for the elimination of all nonconforming uses
and certain other nonconformities." Permitting the subdivision of the parcel into two lots would
violate the Zoning Ordinance that was specifically adopted to preclude situations such as this.
i. The granting of the Variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant. It is more convenient
for the applicant to construct two dwellings on the property. Since one dwelling can be
constructed without Variances, the requested Variances are not necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
j. The alleged hardship does not result from the application of the provision precluding the
subdivision of contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership, but from the property
owner's actions.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 04-52 and Planning Case File 04-89 are hereby entered into and
made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
Passed and adopted this 19th day of July, 2004.
YES NO
Hau en X Hau en
Blomber X Blomber
LeMair X LeMair
Petersen X Petersen
Zieska X Zieska
{Seal}
r:\resoluti\planres\2004\04-119.doc
Page 2