HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-178
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 04-178
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMlSSION'S
DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALLOWING A 5 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK MINIMUM IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (SECTION 1102.405 (4).)
MOTION BY: LEMAIR
SECOND BY: PETERSEN
WHEREAS" Mitchell Husnik is requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance for the construction
of a single family dwellings on property located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential
Shoreland District) use district, located at 4851 Rutledge Street Southeast, Prior Lake
MN, and legally described as follows:
Tract A, R.L.S. No.39, Except the East 770 feet thereof, Scott County, Minnesota
and
WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in
Case File 04-121, and held a hearing thereon October 25, 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 04-121 and Case File 04-142, and held a hearing
thereon on December 6,2004.
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: .
a. Mitchell Husnik, on behalf of Lifestyle Homes Inc., appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on October 19, 2004.
r:\resoluti\planres\2004\04-178.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
Page I
b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File 04-121 and Case File 04-142, and held a hearing thereon on December 6,
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 the setback
Variance. The property owner has not demonstrated an undue hardship because a single family
dwelling can be constructed on the property without Variances.
e. The granting of the Variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property
right. A single family dwelling with an alternate design can be constructed on the property
without relief from the Zoning Ordinance.
f. The granting of the Variance will impact on the character of the neighborhood because it will be
inconsistent with the front setback of neighboring dwellings.
g. 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.
h. The granting of the Variances will serve as a convenience to the applicant. Since a single family
dwelling can be constructed without a Variance, the requested Variance is not necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
i. The alleged hardship does not result from the application of the of the front yard setback
requirement, but rather form the design of the proposed house.
5) The contents of Planning Case File 04-121 and Planning Case File 04-142 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 6th day of December, 2004.
YES
NO
Hauqen X Hauqen
Blomberq X Blomberg
LeMair X LeMair
Petersen X Petersen
Zieska X Zieska
{Seal}
Fr?:d&nager
r:\resoluti\planres\2004\04- I 78.doc
Page 2