HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-00916200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 6.17 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR A WALL EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH (SECTION 1102.405 (6))
Motion By: Dornbush Second By: Millar
WHEREAS,
Roger and Susan Ferguson are requesting a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to
construct a single family dwelling which encroaches 20' into the required 25' front yard
setback and 6.17' into the required side yard setback on property located in the R-lSD
(Low Density Residential Shoreland District) at the following location, to wit;
4500 Lords Street, legally described as follows:
A tract of land in Government Lot Nine (9), Section Thirty-five (35), Township One
Hundred Fifteen (115), Range Twenty-two (22), Scott County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point that is 220.28 feet north and 328.53 feet east of the
northwest corner of Lot 1, in the plat of Maple Park Shore Acres, said point on the
center line and east edge of the concrete bridge; thence North 83 degrees 00 minutes
East a distance of 129.0 feet; thence South 81 degrees 00 minutes East a distance of
112.4 feet; thence North 61 degrees 34 minutes East a distance of 113.0 feet; thence
North 54 degrees 57 minutes East a distance of 264.45 feet to the actual point of
beginning; thence North 73 degrees 17 minutes East a distance of 284.2 feet; thence
North a distance of 75.0 feet to the high water mark of Prior Lake; thence
Northwesterly along said high water mark to its intersection with a line bearing North
from the actual point of beginning; thence South 188.0 feet to the actual point of
beginning.
and
WHEREAS,
The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case
File 05-217, and held a hearing thereon November 28, 2005; 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 05-217 and Case File 05-224, and held a hearing
thereon on January 17, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE cITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
R:',,RESOI...UTI~,PLANRES\2006',,06~09 Uphold Decision t~yO~,' ,(~..~lCq.,~..,~ii~ DOC
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
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.
The City Council determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variance should be upheld, and said variance should be denied.
The City Council makes the following findings:
a) Roger and Susan Ferguson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in
accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on December 5, 2005.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 05-217 and Case File 05-224, and held a hearing
thereon on January 17, 2006.
c) The City Council 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 tire, 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 exceptional or unusual conditions on this lot that cause an undue hardship on
the applicant. There is an ample buildable area on the lot that would allow the construction
of a home with a similar square footage without the need for any setback variances.
e) The conditions applying to the property are not peculiar to this site. The lot is 25,258
square feet in area. Although the lot has an irregular shape, there is still ample area to
construct a single family home without the need for variances. This is a reasonable use of
the property.
f) The granting of the front and side yard setback variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the owner because a reasonable use
exists on the property.
g) The granting of the requested variance will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to
adjacent properties. However, the granting of the proposed front yard setback will
potentially impact the future reconstruction and alignment of Lords Street. The proposed
design will potentially place the house 17' from the future road surface. This may not only
endanger public safety, but may cause increased costs to the taxpayers for the
reconstruction of Lords Street.
h) The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character of the
neighborhood.
i) One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and buildings and
the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This purpose is implemented
through required minimum setbacks. A variance to reduce the required minimum front yard
and side yard setbacks are inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
j) The granting of the front yard and side yard setback variances will merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant. It is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship. The applicants can build a single family home without the need for any setback
variances.
k) The design of the proposed house creates the necessity for the setback variances. The
size and design of the house the applicants' want to build is not a hardship that supports a
R:\RESOLUTI\PLANRES~006\06-09 Uphold Decision to Deny Variance (4500 Lords).DOC
variance. The need for variances does not result from the strict application of the setback
provisions.
I) Increased development or construction costs are not the basis for the variance requests.
The contents of Planning Case #05-217 and ~05-224am hereby entered into and made a part
of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TM DAY OF JANUARY, 2006.
YES NO
Haugen X Hau~len
Dornbush X Dombush
Erickson X Erickson
LeMair X LeMair
Millar X Millar
Frank Boyles, City
R:\RESOLUTI\PLANRES~2006\06-09 Uphold Decision to Deny Variance (4500 Lords).DOC