HomeMy WebLinkAbout5H - 1996 Variance Summary Report
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
5H
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER _: WI
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR Dn~
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF 1997 V ARI~CE
SUMMARY REPORT
APRIL 6, 1998
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to consider the summary of
variance activity during 1997. A copy of the summary and
report to the Planning Commission are attached to this
report.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of Monday, February 9, 1998, the Planning
Commission voted to accept the report and forward it to the
City Council with no recommendations for ordinance
changes. Attached are Planning Commission comments.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can accept the report without
directing further action.
2. The City Council can accept the report and direct
further study of zoning ordinance revisions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative #1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A motion and second as part of the consent agenda
accepting the report.
L:\97FILES\97SUMMRY\97-VARCC.DOC p~~ 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (6L:::r<147-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
97-003 Wayne Fleck _ 66' Variance to permit lot width of 20' feet, rather than the required 86 Approved Approved
_ _ _ ___ _ _. __ _ _ _ __ ____ __ ___ __ _ !e~!. ~sy_a.r.t ~!~r:!.o.!> Ji!I.!.. ~~~r:!.d_ ~!>~i!'.i~i~r:!.-=_ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ - - ___ -- - - -- -- - - --- - - - ---
_ 9!:..OJ ~ _ _ _. _-!.O~~ ~~!!~n~ylp.:.. ~~nll_ _-_ _~~'_V2!!~n~~ .!.o_e...ei'!!!!.~ '!..:.9.t1~_L_s~!!JE~k_ ~Y.!~!:..,=-al<~ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ ~~..9.!:.a!,,~ --- ~~ -- - - - - -.
97 -016 Ronn Hechter _ 10' Variance to permit 20' rear yard setback. Withdrawn N/A
__ _ __ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ _-_ _.!?~ f~~!!]~ ~!-8.!!!'.~i?~~e_t~ ~!!.o.!"_ ~..o_s.!<!!I~ !.a.!~e.!. !!t~!:!..!~EL ~~~=_ _ ___~~h..9.!:.a~~ - - - - --- - - - - -.
97-028 Pinnacle Partners _ 126 Square foot variance to permit minimum lot area of 7374 square Approved N/A
feet.
_ .47' Variance to permit 49.53' lot width. Approved N/A
_ 16' Variance to permit 4' from bluff impact zone. Denied Denied
________._________________~_~~'~~!!~n~~.!.~e...e.!.'!!!!.~l~~J~_~!>~~~__________________~e~~~_____~~~~_____.
97-038 Gilbert Anderson _ 3.48' Variance to permit OHW width of 71.52' as part of Administrative N/A Approved
Subdivision.
- - - -- - - -' - - - - -- - - - --- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - --- - - - -- -- - - --- - - - - -'
97-050 Byron and Phillip Hines _ 20' Variance to permit 30' OHWL setback on Spring Lake. Denied Denied
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ ___ __-_ _ .1.!'_V~!!~n~~ .!.o_e...e.!.,!!!!. ~9~ .9.!:'~_L_s~!!JE~k_ ~n_ ~.!.i!!9.. ,=-~k~ =_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~e~~~ __ _ _ _ ~~~e~ _ _ _ __.
_ 9! :..~~ _ _ _. _12.~n_a.!'~'p~~i9. 59.~~9.~ _-_ _l<.0~ '{a..!:i~r:!.~ J~ E.~~.!!l<.0:J~~ ...YE~ _s~!!J~~~ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _I~~~'p~.!.e___ ~~ - - - - - - -.
97-053 Brian Mattson _ 24% Variance to permit Impervious surface of 54%. Denied N/A
_ 4' Variance to permit driveway setback of 4 feet. Denied Approved
_ 6.5% Variance to permit impervious surface of 36.5%. Denied Approved
________._________________~_~~'{~@r:!.c~J~~~~.!!~~v~~~~~~~~~~~2J~~=______________~e~~~______________.
97 -064 Kurt Nelsonl D. Pietsch _ 137' Variance to permit a cul-de-sac length of 637 feet as part of Approved Approved
subdivision.
- - - - - -- -. - -- - - - - - - --- --- - ~ - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - --- - - - --.
_9!:..~~___._~~~~~~~e~~_______~_~~'{~@r:!.c~J~~~~.!!EY~~...Y~~~~~~~J~~Q?~~~~___________~e.!'~~_____~~~~_____.
97-103 Wendy Whitney _ 5.23% Variance to permit 35.23% impervious surface coverage. Denied N/A
________._________________~_~~_~~~~c~J~~~~~~~~~i~e...e~J~u~~~~~~E~V~~~~~_______~2~~~~_____________.
_ 9!:.. ~~ _ _ _. _':.!: ._B~2!!.s.! g~ ~~~ _ _ _ _-_ _ ~ r'E ~ '{.a.!.i~~c~ .!~~e..!:,!, ~ ~ ~~~~~ !:!~9..h.! ~U..? .:..5':': _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~...P2~0~~<!. - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - -.
_ 9!:.. ~~ _ _ _. _lii!!.C.!:~s.!. !:!~,!!~s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ ~2.!3 ~ '{ <!!'~!:!.~ J~ E~~.!! jg ..z~ lE!. ~!9!b.:.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~'p~o~~<!. - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - -.
97-115 Hillcrest Homes _ 42' Variance to from top of bluff permit structure in bluff. Denied N/A
_ _ _ __ ___. _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ ~~'_V2!!~n.E~ !r~~ .!>~~il"!:!.P31~!.. ~~~!9 jJ~!.~i!.. ~~~t!!~ J~ ~.P~<2! 3Q.~e~ _ - -- ------ - --- - - - --.
_ 9! :..~~ ___. _ -!!,!!~~~i~~_ ________-_ _l<.0~ '{~i~r:!.~ J~E.~!!'.!! l<~:J~t_~~!:!._ __ __ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _1~~~.P~.!.e__ -~~-- - - - --.
97 -126 Kelvin Retterath for _ 2' Variance to permit 8' side yard setback. Approved N/A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ~~~~I!.. ~n~ _Y~E!1i!:!.9.. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ ---- - -- - - - - - - --- ---- - - -- - - -- - - ----- - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- -.
97-132 Burdick Properties _ 2.7' Variance to permit 57.3' rear yard setback. In process N/A
_ 2' Variance to permit 58.0' rear yard setback.
_ 16.3 . Variance to permit 43.7' rear yard setback for trash enclosure.
_ 2' Variance to permit fence height of 8'.
_ Variance to permit slopes greater than 3:1.
~~
~::~
PLANNING REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
PRESENTER:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
6A
1997 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT
JENNITOV~PLANNER
YES X NO-N/A
FEBRUARY 9, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1997's
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 1997 and a comparative of the previous years
activity.
VARIANCE REQUESTS
OHWL Setback
Front yard setback
Side yard setback
County road setback
Impervious surface
Rear yard setback
Accessory buildings
Lot size
Height
Lot width
Driveway setback
Sign
Temporary building
# Parking stalls
Bluff setback
Bluff Impact Zone
Cul-de-sac length
Grade of slope
OHW Lot Width
1997
Number.....Petcellt
3 10%
o
2 7%
o
4 13%
5 16%
o
1 3%
2 7%
4 13%
2 7%
o
o
1 3%
2 6%
2 6%
1 3%
1 3%
1 3%
. ........... ..1996
Number.....Percelit....
10 24%
8 20%
6 15%
6 15%
5 12%
2 5%
2 5%
1 2%
1 2%
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1995
Number/Percent
14 18%
16 20%
23 29%
o
10 13%
3 4%
1 1%
5 6%
o
4 5%
2 2%
1 1%
1 1%
o
o
o
o
o
o
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Number of Applications 17 27 43
Number of Requests 31 41 88
Requests Approved 11 25 61% 61 69%
Requests Denied 10 8 24% 24 27%
Requests Incomplete 2 0 0
Requests in Process 5 0 0
Requests Withdrawn 3 6 15% 3 4%
Requests Appealed 7 8 2
Appeals Overturned 2 1 0
Number Lots in SD 11 20 31
Number of Riparian Lots 9 14 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, and in 1997
there were 3.
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 of the
requests in 1995 were for side yard setbacks on substandard lots or involved an OHWL setback variance
to replace a deck. These changes to the ordinance had 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 have
significantly reduced the number of variance requests in 1997. The recent 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.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS.
While the current variance criteria have been a part of the City Code and Zoning Ordinance since 1983,
they have not been a part of the review process until 1995. The criteria are the same for each request and
substantiate the legal grounds for granting or denying variances on a case by case basis.
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 of the 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 a grounds for granting a variance (such as design ofthe
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 ofthe 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 ofthe neighborhood or
public interest.
Variances granted prior to 1995, didn't specifically address these criteria and a motion, rather than a
resolution, was the documentation of action taken. The following is a sample of rationale used for
granting variances:
. The topography of the land necessitates a deck, will not interfere with the private space of
adjoining areas and is not detrimental to the health and welfare ofthe neighborhood;
. The lot is substandard, variances are reasonable, the hardship was not created by the applicant,
and the variances would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the neighborhood.
. Hardship is caused by the lot being a substandard lot and the development practices of a former
government.
. The home was built before the highway was constructed, the highway location created a
hardship for improvements to the property and the redesign of the structure would not be
detrimental to the health and welfare of the community.
. The small size of the lot is a hardship and the variance is consistent with variances granted in the
Grainwood neighborhood and would not infringe on the health and welfare of the community.
. The lot is substandard, hardship is not the result of the applicant since the parcel was platted in
1927 and annexed into the City of Prior Lake in 1975, it observes the spirit and intent ofthe
ordinance and would not be contrary to the public interest.
. The lot is substandard, hardship is apparent due to topography and it is not detrimental to the
general health and welfare of the community or out of character with the neighborhood.
. There is a precedent for granting 50 foot variances in the Grainwood area and it would not be
detrimental to general health and welfare to the community.
The revised Zoning Ordinance has been forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of
approval by the Planning Commission. The revised Zoning Ordinance is expected to be clear and concise,
reducing the number of appeals of zoning interpretations and be more user friendly by clarifying
expectations.
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 REOillRED:
A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the if appropriate.
Staff recommended approval ofthe preliminary plat of Wood ridge Estates 4th Addition subject
to the 0 ership and maintenance of Outlot A condition listed in the staff report.
present to answer questions.
Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
. No sidewalks - in the terest of public safety the applicant s uld consider
sidewalks.
Cramer:
. Questioned the location of Lot 2 and th we d. Kansier explained.
. Agreed with the staffs recommendation.
Criego:
. Agreed with staff's recommenda . on.
V onhof:
. Questioned the improvements on . Kansier said the road was
completed.
. Agreed with staff's recommen ation.
Stamson:
. Concurred with staff.
Kuykendall:
. Questioned sidew: ks on Mushtown Road. McDermott said it is a to
OF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND C Y
COUNCIL AP OVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODRIDGE EST ES 4TH
ADDITION S PRESENTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN E
STAFF RE ORT.
en signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Old Business:
New Business:
.~
A. Review 1997 Variance Summary Report.
Rye presented the annual variance summary report. Noted the lower number (17) of
variance requests. Some of the changes are due to substandard lots allowing a 5' side
1:\98fi1es\98plcomrn\pcmin\mn020998.doc
3
yard setback and the change ofthe 50' ordinary-high-water level setback for decks. In
the last 2 years there were 15 appeals to City Council with only 3 being reversed. In all
other cases, City Council agreed with staff.
V onhof:
. Should see the number of building permits for '95, '96 and '97. Are we getting more
building permits? Could be new homes or build-ons.
. There should be a base line. How many people need variances compared to the
number of people who can comply to the code.
. Believes there will be more height variances as Commissioners hold the line on
impervious surface.
. Many applicants modified their requests before they appeared before City Council on
appeals.
. Good job by staff.
Kuykendall:
. Given the City is dealing with a new zoning ordinance, there are no
recommendations. Commissioners have been using the criteria.
. Commented on City Council's rationale for reversing appeals.
. Felt City Council should provide the Planning Commission their rationale for
reversing the appeals.
Criego:
. No further comments.
Cramer:
. This information should be reviewed at the City Council workshop especially when
discussions come up with the ordinary-high-water.
. Commented on City Council's reasons for reversing appeals. Attended both appeals
where additional information provided at the Council level that was not presented at
the Planning Commission meetings. In both cases, the applicants changed their
information significantly before the Council.
Stamson:
. We should see how many building permits were in the Shoreland. How many needed
variances?
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT
AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
1:\98fi1es\98plcomm\pcmin\nm020998.doc
4