Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.09.05 RESO 2001-0048CITY OF HUGO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2001- 48 APPROVING LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL FOR STEVE AND JANINE FROGNER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14091 FOUNTAIN AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Steve and Janine Frogner that requests approval of a lake setback variance for the construction of a swimming pool on property located at 14091 Fountain Avenue North, as legally described as follows: Insert Legal Description. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments has reviewed said variance at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the requested variance for Steve and Janine Frogner on property located at 14091 Fountain Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 75 -foot side yard setback variance is approved to construction of a swimming pool approximately in accordance with the application and plans dated August 13, 2001. 2. A building permit shall be required prior to constructing the swimming pool. 3. The variance is approved based on the following findings: a. The variance as requested is permissible bylaw. The requested variance is from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance and is permissible by law. b. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property not caused by the land owner. The building setback was 75 feet from Egg Lake at the time the home was constructed. Since this time, the City has amended the ordinance to increase the setback from 75 feet to 100 feet. As such, the reduced setback does not allow the applicant to make any structural improvements in the rear yard, including the construction of a pool. Resolution 2001- 48 Page 2 While insufficient space to construct a pool is not a hardship by itself, the increased setback requirement from the lake does cause a hardship for this property. Further, upon learning of the setback requirement, the applicant relocated the proposed pool to increase the setback from the lake. c. The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the setback from the lake is to keep open space between the home and the lake to promote infiltration and natural buffers, as well as to reduce the visual impacts of structures as viewed from the lake. Because the proposed swimming pool would be in -ground, there would not be any visual impacts. Further, the shoreline is heavily vegetated and cattails extend a significant distance out into the lake. As such, the pool would not be visible from the open water area of the lake. Approximately half of the proposed swimming pool would encroach into the require setback. As such, the pool would not result in a significant amount of impervious surface within the shoreland setback. d. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance. The property is planned and zoned for residential use. Recreational and leisure equipment/improvements, such as pools, children's play structures, storage sheds, decks, gazebos, and other similar items are common in the back yards of many residential properties. e. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality in which it would be located. The in -ground pool would not alter the character of this residential neighborhood. f. The variance, if granted shall not have the effect of allowing, in any district, any use prohibited in the district. Swimming pools are allowed in the residential zoning district. g. The variance, if granted, shall not permit a lower degree of flood protection than required by the ordinance. The proposed addition would not be within a designated floodplain. h. The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is in compliance with city and state codes. Resolution 2001- 48 Page 3 The proposed addition would not require any improvements to the municipal water and sewer systems that serve this property. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 5, 2001. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Hugo, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Hugo City Council on September 5, 2001 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand 7-k day of C. City Clerk as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this o2oe /