HomeMy WebLinkAbout4C - 1999 Varience Report
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
May 1,2000
4C
Jenni Tovar, Planner
Don Rye, Planning Director
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF 1999 VARIANCE REPORT
History
The purpose of this item is to consider the summary of variance
activity during 1999. The attached Planning Report, dated March 27,
2000, summarizes the 1999 variances and compares this activity to the
variances of past years.
Current Circumstances
The Planning Commission considered this report at its meeting on
Monday, March 27, 2000. The Planning Commission voted to accept
the report and forward it to the City Council with no recommendations
for ordinance changes.
1. Accept the report as part of the consent agenda.
2. Accept the report and direct further study of code revisions.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
A motion and second accepting the report as part of the consent
agenda.
162&d9~~S~~~~r~~J:9SJ::~P~i~~CLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
1999 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
_ YES -1L NO-N/A
MARCH 27, 2000
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1999 variance
activity. It is hoped this information will give the Commission information which will be useful in
evaluating new variance requests.
DISCUSSION:
The following table is a summary of variance activity for 1999 and a comparison of the previous year's
activity.
Number of Applications
Number of Requests
Requests Approved
Requests Denied
Requests Incomplete
Requests in Process
Requests Withdrawn
Requests Appealed
Appeals Overturned
Number Lots in SD
Number of Riparian Lots
19
59
44
11
4
o
o
o
o
19
14
26
43
22
13
1
o
7
3
o
17
14
17
31
11
10
2
5
3
7
2
11
9
27
41
24
11
o
o
6
8
1
20
14
43
88
61
24
o
o
3
2
o
31
22
Note: If an applicant requested a variance and the Planning Commission approved a reduction
of the original request, then it is represented as one approved request and one denied
request in the tables. In 1995, there were 6 requests the Planning Commission approved
as less than what the applicant had originally asked for; In 1996 there was 1, in 1997
there were 3, in 1998 there were 3, and in 1999 there were 3.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
OHW Setback 4 7% 5 12% 3 10% 10 24% 14 18%
Front yard setback 6 10% 3 7% 0 8 20% 16 20%
Side yard setback 5 8% 3 7% 2 7% 6 15% 23 29%
County road setback 0 4 10% 0 6 15% 0
Impervious surface 6 10% 3 7% 4 13% 5 12% 10 13%
Rear yard setback 1 2% 1 2% 5 16% 2 5% 3 4%
Accessory buildings 0 2 5% 0 2 5% 1 1%
Lot size 11 19% 2 5% 1 3% 1 2% 5 6%
Height 0 2 5% 2 7% 1 2% 0
Lot width 4 7% 5 12% 4 13% 0 4 5%
Driveway setback 1 2% 2 5% 2 7% 0 2 2%
Sign 0 1 2% 0 0 1 1%
Temporary building 0 0 0 0 1 1%
# Parking stalls 0 1 2% 1 3% 0 0
Bluff setback 8 14% 2 5% 2 6% 0 0
Bluff Impact Zone 0 0 2 6% 0 0
Cul-de-sac length 0 1 2% 1 3% 0 0
Grade of slope 0 0 1 3% 0 0
Lot Coverage 0 3 7% 0 0 0
50% Nonconforming 0 1 2% 0 0 0
Roof-top Screening 0 1 2%
Irrigation 0 1 2%
OHW Lot Width 0 0 1 3% 0 0
40' Side Wall 3 5%
Eave Encroachment 2 3%
15' Combined Sideyard 1 2%
Driveway Width 2 3%
15' Building Separation 2 3%
RFPE Flood 2 3%
Incomplete/Pending 1 2%
The nature of the requests for variance is probably very familiar to the Commission, and similar to
previous years. Ordinance number 96-12, approved 5-20-96, permits a 5' side yard setback on
substandard lots, and also allows for reconstruction of existing decks without variances. Many ofthe
requests in 1995 were for side yard setbacks on substandard lots or involved an OHW setback variance to
replace a deck. These changes to the ordinance greatly reduced the number of variances requested in
1996.
Ordinance 97-06, approved 2/3/97 changed the setback from Collector Streets to be from "Major"
Collector Streets. Ordinance 97-12, approved 5/5/97, reduces the OHW setback on General Development
Lakes to 50 feet rather than 75 'feet with setback averaging. Both of these changes significantly reduced
the number of variance requests in 1997. The changes of the ordinances have allowed for development
that may have not occurred otherwise, without a variance. The process for the general
public has been made more accommodating.
The only ordinance amendment in 1998 relating to variance applications pertains to the bluff ordinance.
The City modified the bluff ordinance to be clearer in identifying the top of bluff and changing the
setback to a minimum of 25 feet and on slopes less than 18%. This ordinance amendment reduced the
setback in some cases, as the previous 50' segments used in determining the top of bluff were eliminated.
Minor ordinance amendments were addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance recently approved by
Planning Commission and City Council. Such amendments included eliminating the setback from the
centerline of a county road and allowing combined side yard setback of 15 feet.
A majority of the variance requests cam~fter the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 1999).
All of the variances requested in 1999 were on lots within the Shoreland District. New ordinances
resulting in variances include 40-foot sidewall, eave/gutter overhangs, 15 foot building separation and
driveway width measured at property line. The Planning Commission is already addressing some of these
issues, such as the 40' sidewall setback requirement.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
Prior to May 1, 1999, the variance criteria were as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the
property.
This criteria goes to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally
enforced. The hardship resulting from literal enforcement ofthe ordinance is identified.
2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property.
Unique circumstances consider conditions of the property and not the owner. Conditions such as lot
size, lot dimensions (length, width, and shape), topography, wetlands, trees, lakes, and other factors
specifically related to the property itself are considered.
3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons
presently having an interest in the property.
Hardship created by the applicant is not grounds for granting a variance (such as design of the
proposed structure or changes to the topography). The shape and width of the lot and location of the
existing structures may be hardships over which the applicant had no control. It is common, that the
lot and dwelling may have been existing prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is
not contrary to the public interest.
The intent of the ordinance'is examined, and considered in relation to the request. Also, adjacent
properties may be considered as not be contrary to the existing conditions of the neighborhood or
public interest.
The current Zoning Ordinance (effective May 1999) requires the ~ollowing criteria to be met:
M......-._.M.'__.._.._..~_._~_.__._~..__"___.____._.~____" ,
Issuance. The Board of Adjustment shall consider 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 public safety, the effect on the character and development of the
neighborhood and the values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed
variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from
the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance, provided that:
(1) Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional .
conditions of such lot, the strict application or the terms of this Ordinance would result in
peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within
the Use District in which said lot is located.
(2) Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in
the Use District in which the land is located.
(3) The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa
substantial property right of the owner.
(4) The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air
to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
(5) The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of
the area.
(6) The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The granting of a Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
(8) The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected
property and does not result from actions of the owners of the property.
(9) Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be
grounds for granting a Variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the report and direct that it be transmitted to the City Council for
information.
2. Accept the report, direct that the report be transmitted to the City Council for
information, and direct further study of possible ordinance revisions in response to
the report.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the report if appropriate.
-.,.------'--------------..----...... --
'0 "0 "0 "0 "0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
> > > > >
eeeee
0.0.0.0.0.
0.0.0.0.0.
<(<(<(<(<(
- ...
"0"0"0'0 "0 "0'0"0'0 'C"O'C'C"O"OO~
Q)Q)Q)Q) Q) Q)Q)Q)Q) Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)t~
>>>>"O'C>"O>>>>'C'C>>>>>>roC
e e e e .~.~ e.~ e e e e.~.~ e e e e e 0 0..-
o.o.o.o.cco.co.~o.o.cco.o.o.o.o.~<(E
o.o.o.o.Q)Q)o.Q)o.~o.o.Q)Q)o.o.o.o.o.o._'C
<(<(<(<(oo<(o<(<(<(<(oo<(<(<(<(<(<(z<(
"0"0'0"0"0 "0"0"0"0"0'0'0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
>>>>>"0>>>>>>>
e e e e e.~ e e e e e e e
a. a. 0.0.0. c 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
0.0. a. 0.0. Q) 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
<(<(<(<(<(0<(<(<(<(<(<(<(
"0
Q) Q)
C ~
~~ ~
~roE ro
(,).00 <.9
ro Q) (,) T-.
.c (I) ... '"
......0 c..lll:: Q)
UU 5l0..Q:>, ~. U ~ .21ij"5
roro ...SNro ro (,) ~ ro.o ~
..lIl:: ..lIl::.o.o OC\l~ 3= <0.0 ro (,) ....Q) Q)
~o~ ~~~..lIl::~~:~ ... ~ ~~... ~ ~ Q)[~~~~
ro=.o .0........ >- 0 ~ ......-0 IJ) "'Q) S~o~ro..Q
.o...O"'Q)'" "'~~O"" - > .coo(,)- VlO~.o
o Q)ooro~o>_"O ....c0 "'o-ro'" 00 IJ) ...M"'_Q)_
Q)_IJ) 1J)~~.o~=roQ) 0_= '0_....00 ..lIl::"':.c-..lIl::Q)L()OC\lIJ)Q)c
IJ) . 0 0 -.:t I' Q) = ro o:g 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ LO g Q) ~ .c ~ ~ 0 :c g ~ S N ~ ~ o' ~ g
oio ~C\I-lJ)roo;3=~&>'" ...N~IJ)&:c B;o~-.o&~"LOOO~
~0~~L()3=3=~S;2o~lJ)o~ ~~i"'oo:~o~~~~"'o~Q)IJ)3=o~o3=~~[
o~~C\IoL()~OO_..lIl::(')wo~'" ~ .c~' ~ 1J)<o 3= M
~~ L() N(,)ro.o_M~O~ O>"'N-"oOo3=IJ)=3=-o-.:troo=~~~
00<0 M roro ro.oQ)N3=-.:tO~ M....<o-.:t-.:t--.:tooL()oOoC\l _roM>
~C\I<O~~~OO3=BQ)CI)MO<O-3= 3=Q)-.:t3=-L()3=-=OOo~--.:tSroS3=gQ)
i~~~~l;;~Q)CI)'C3==3=~o oSO>o-~Ol'~R~o-3=..lIl::o..lll::oroc
oo--=3=~(,)(,)roCl)_""oroOL()- =~3==3=<O~3=...~ ....~o(,)...(,)=o...
o>3=3=roo~cc -roro=o=L()Q) ro oroo~ 0 ><O..lIl::>=rocroro...~
O>O~..lIl::ro=~~S~3=>ro;ro3=en S~~Sro3=Sro~~-.:t~OroBgBSEE
L()roro~Q)rororo~~~~S(,)Sgg .cES~So~ ro~3=.oroo~~CI)Q)..lIl::EQ)e
3=..lIl::ro.o(,)~>>ro"O-CI)-.c't:rororo~ -.c '" ro SBo~Q)o; ro (,)
O~Q)...."'Q)'t:ro~~~.o CI) Q) ro :g rororo ro..lll::Q)-~ -Q)"Oo."Oro.c~
,~ w"'''''''~T-.'C:c~....o> >~Q).oQ)o't:(,)lJ)ro 1J)..lIl::........ .....0(,)0
ro.o<(CI)~BroroCl)Q)'C~Q)5C1)<(.c"'~ >O....Q).......~~"o....Q)....SE~<(ro~roQ)ro...
"'Q)"'"oCI)Q).o.o ....roc>IJ)......w..lll::~....rolJ)ro.clJ)~ ro.o...> >CI)o~
o 0.... CI)......~ro>._~~o'C (,)ro(,)'" "':CIJ)"'roro.c~_o_~.... ....c
-CI)~rolJ) Q)Q)ro> .oroo~-'C~~C~E~-~Q)~...~ Q)~ccro>(,)'
m~...>~~CI)CI)3= Q)E3=-...~ro...~Q)...ro...3=oCl)Q)~~EIJ)...e~Q)>i~
....~0...~3~~Q)~:g0Q)~0...OCl)Q)>~0~0...~~"O... o~O~=~I ~
<(OJ~c~en~~>-CI)u>Q)~o~ ~~~Q)~~ ~~o...~~~...~...OQ).o
. 0 Q) ... N\ N\ 'i:: CI) ... ... 'i:: a. . ~ ... > 0 OJ ."0 . _ ~ OJ ... ~ ~ ... en . 0 OJ 0 ... ~ ...
...0".... o.........o...oooEO"...o> 0"'-0"0 0....0 O"O...OOQ)0
olJ)~o.o"'''' 000 -lJ)ooI......lJ)lJ)lJ)oE...oo"oo...lJ)-o-o 0
o "'E_oo...o--'" 0- 00 ... --0_1J)0_0 "000-"'-
~oo-L()SSO_~ooO~N_L()OSSooo~L()~So> -LOS-.:t-.:t-O>NOL()
~~~~~MO~~~~~~~~~mLOL()~~~~OO>~~~~L()~N~mO~~
-.:t~L()LOO>M-.:tM<OL()O~L()~~~-.:t~ML()<OMM~_N-.:tM~C\IM~"_-.:tNL()
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q)
.c
(,)
....
Q)
'0
ro
....,
t
Q)
.0
o
~
.... c
Q) '05
.o~
E~
3'05
.c
~ .~
E~
....~
"*'0
Q) ~
3: en
"
N.
o
I
0>
0>
N~
M-.:t
00
I I
0>0>
0>0>
t
ro
.c
~
....
~
en
c
ro
'i::
en
N
-.:t
o
I
0>
0>
....
.c
Q)
o
~
Q)
:t::
o
"t:
ro
.c
U
IJ)
ro
ro
o
Q)
:i:
(,)
ro
....,
~
~
Q)
..
c
~
e
ro
U
ro
c
o
E
ro
c:::
~
~
'0
C
::J
E
~
~
.c c
o.ro
Q) E'
IJ) 0
~~
c
.!Q g
2 c
Q).c
o~
M
-.:t
o
I
0>
0>
N
<0
o
I
0>
0>
0>
-.:t
o
I
0>
0>
M
LO
o
I
0>
0>
~
L()
o
,
0>
0>
z
o
i=
(J
<(
(J
(,)
z
o
i=
(J
<
(J
c..
"0"0"0"0"0"0"0
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
> > > > > > >
eeeeeee
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.
<(<(<(<(<(<(<(
c
w
r-
U)
w
::>>
o
w
a:::
w
(J
z
<
0:
<
>
~ -
o -5.f2
ro~~ ro
- ~oO.oO
.f2 Q) ro ro - _0
_ (/) .0 .0 Q)
o --(j)(/)......
O OQ).^-~
_ 0 (/) V' 0 VI
. --0000
C'J::.o 0 0- C'l
(/) ~ C'l .E - ~ <0.
10 .- 10 en
~~~~~~~
,....f2ai~.f2.f2~
~oo~aiaiO
enO-oOOro
O-~=--
=<ooro~~.9
ro~roOOOro
.9~~~~~e
roO(/)O--<(
ero"O~~~-
<(.9~(j)'E'E3
o >-(/)roro-
..J :5 C :t: >- >- 8
0:20.2Q)Q)-
o ~~.o:2:2 0'
"":ooo~~(/)
C'-.E.E 0 0 <0
(/)0 .E.Een
100Ct:!~("')~~.
O-IO~ . .C'l
~.q-~~C'lC'l1O
. . . . . . .
r-
z
<
(J
:J
D.
c..
<
~
c:
~
u.
>-
E
<(
~
o
'C
W
("')
<0
o
I
en
en
"0
Q)
'c
Q)
o
'0
.....
~~
roo..
o.c:
<( 'E
__ "0
z<(
~
o
ro
.0
-
Q)
(/)
-
o
.E
0-
<f!.(/)<f!.~
C'llOlOen
. co . ~
1'-100 :>
("') .Ct);>
~ Ct) ~ 0
.f2'-.Qro
ai~ai.9
O=O~
_ro-o
~.9~~
~~~(j)
::I"'::ICI)
CI)<(CI)"O
(/)-(/)~
::10::1>-
0-1 0
._..., __-+-II
~ 8 ~ g
Q) - Q) ...
a. .o.u.
EC'E-
_CI)-O
?ft.1O<f!..E
"!~U1~
,...,-010
-
.f2
-
o
.E
. . . .
...
Q)
c:
(/)
Q)
:,:j
~
...
ro
~
c:
c:
ro
E
x
C2
~
ro
~
I'-
<0
o
I
en
en
I'-
I'-
o
I
en
en
Q)
~Q)
> a.
e E
0.0
0.0
<( c:
'0 '0'0'0
Q) Q) Q) Q)
>"0>>>"0
e.~ e e e .~
a. c:. a. a. a. c:
0.Q)0.0.0.Q)
<(0<(<(<(0
~
o
ro
.0
~ ~Q5
o ro (/)
ro ~o
~ ~~
..... 00
o .EM
.E
O - o~
o ~ 0
C')....Eo~(ij
~gco.E.f2o
~c;::C!co(ij-
roUiIO..-;oc
oQ)'-en-Q)
;:~~~~E
:>.Q.f2oro-5
::c_(ij='O....
00 ro-'"
oOoCl)Q)e
E- - 0
Ct)~~=c:
.gcigo~w
~0~:s~a>>Q)
OQ)-"O
~~CI)~Ci5~
Q)o Q5 0 'E "0 'P 'P
(/)-ro"'--
roQ)w>-rororo
't:...a.._>->->-
~::I::Iu.C:Q)Q)Q)
gCl)ga::e:2:2:2
~~-=ou.CI)CI)CI)
ro~ Q).Q (/)::0000
~g~~08.E.E.E.E
........0:> ~.E -.q- 00 <0 C'l
oQ5::CEo":~C!"-;~
..JCI)O_""C\len~.q-~
. . . . . . . . . .
...
Q)
'C
...
Q)
a..
c:
e
J::. ro
o~
~~
~ (/)
~ 'c
ro c:
~~
...
Q)
c:
(/)
Q)
:,:j
~
...
ro
~
...
~
::I
o
c: (/)
CI) Q)
>-E
.r::. 0
Cii::c
~-
(/)
~ e
E.2
~::c
o~
0000
00
I I
en en
en en
<0
co
o
I
en
en
eno
coo
o~
I I
men
en en
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 2000
B. 2001 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program review.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Executive Summary Capital Improvement
Program 2001 - 2005.
Criego questioned ifthe ring road construction would help the Stonegate development
drainage issue. Rye said it would.
Criego stated he was happy with the CIF report as is stands.
6.
New Business:
- ~A.
Annual Variance Report.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27,2000 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
There were 19 applications for 59 variance requests in 1999. Forty-four requests were
approved, 11 denied with 4 incompletes. Nineteen lots were in the Shore land District
with 14 being Riparian.
V onhor:
· Felt it was a well done report and very helpful to the Commissioners to determine
regulations.
· Requests for impervious surface variances have gone down since 1995.
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND
FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken indicated by ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Annual Complaint Report.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated March 27,
2000 on file in the office of the City Planner.
In 1999 the City received a total of238 complaints. The highest percentage of violations
were improper recreational vehicle parking, shed locations and setbacks. The second
highest number of complaints were for property appearance and health code issues.
Criego:
· Substantial increase from 1994 and 1995. What happens to the 10% unclosed files?
· Horsman responded half of those are probably closed the other half are taken to court.
1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc
11