HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.2. Appeal of Board of Adjustment and APpeal Denial of Setback Variance at 2460 Emerald Lane-Res. No. 6201
CITY OF SHAKOPEE IS: O. )...,,,
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 05-033 CONSENT
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
RE: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeal Denial of Setback Variance at 2460
Emerald Lane
DATE: March 15, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
On March 1, 2005 the City Council reviewed a request of an appeal of a determination of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals by Leo and Cynthia Katzner. The Katzners had appealed the decision of the BOAA to
deny a side yard setback variance. Upon review of the appeal, the City Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution upholding the denial by the BOAA.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 6201, upholding the variance denial with findings as proposed.
2 Approve Resolution No. 6201, upholding the variance denial with revised fmdings.
3 Deny the request and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance.
5. Table the decision for additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion approving Resolution No. 6201.
g:\cc\2005\03-I5\appealkatzner.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 6201
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS TO DENY A SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE AT 2460 EMERALD LANE
WHEREAS, Leo and Cynthia Katzner have filed an application for a variance under the
provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shako pee City Code,
Section 11.89, to reduce the required setbacks to allow for construction of an addition to their home;
and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel ofland is presently zoned Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone;
and
WHEREAS, the subject parcels ofland for which the request is being made are legally
described as:
Lot 18, Block 5, Hauer's 4th Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, notice was provided and on February 3, 2005, the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the
Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed the determination of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the appeal of the applicant at their meeting of
March 3, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council's reached the following.findings with respect to the requested
variance and applicable ordinance criteria;
1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls;
Finding 1.A. The property can and is being put to a reasonable use under the official controls, in
that the property is being used for a single family residence which complies with the requirements of
the City Code.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The
property is not irregularly configured or encumbered by topographical elements which would create a
hardship for the construction of a home addition.
1.e. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1. C. The circumstances were created by the landowner due to the desired design, size and
layout of the proposed addition:
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding J.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance.
Finding J.E. The considerations are not economic for this request.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with -the spirit and intent of this
Chapter.
Finding 2
The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning).
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3
The request for a setback variance is not a use variance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the decision ofthe Board of Adjustments and Appeals is hereby upheld, and the applicant's
request for a side yard setback variance is hereby denied.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota,
held the _ day of ,2005.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk