The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4C 1 - 1998 Annual Variance Report MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT March 1, 1999 4C-1 .cst Jenni Tovar, Planner..::.1 Don Rye, Planning Director CONSIDER APPROVAL OF 1998 VARIANCE REPORT History The purpose of this item is to consider the summary of variance activity during 1998. The attached Planning Report, dated February 22, 1999, summarizes the 1998 variances and compares this activity to the variances of past years. Current Circumstances The Planning Commission considered this report at its meeting on Monday, February 22, 1999. 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. anager L:\98FILES\98SUMMRY\98V ARCC.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 6B 1998 VARIANCE SUMMARY REPORT JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER YES -X- NO-N/A FEBRUARY 22, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding 1998'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 1998 and a comparative of the previous years activity. 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, and in 1998 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 VARIANCE 1998 1997 1996 1995 REQUESTS Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent OHW Setback 4 10% 3 10% 10 24% 14 18% Front yard setback 3 7% 0 8 20% 16 - 20% Side yard setback 3 7% 2 7% 6 15% 23 29% County road setback 4 10% 0 6 15% 0 Impervious surface 3 7% 4 13% 5 12% 10 13% Rear yard setback 1 2% 5 16% 2 5% 3 4% Accessory buildings 2 5% 0 2 5% 1 1% Lot size 2 5% 1 3% 1 2% 5 6% Height 2 5% 2 7% 1 2% 0 Lot width 5 12% 4 13% 0 4 5% Driveway setback 2 5% 2 7% 0 2 2% Sign 1 2% 0 0 1 1% Temporary building 0 0 0 1 1% # Parking stalls 1 2% 1 3% 0 0 Bluff setback 2 5% 2 6% 0 0 Bluff Impact Zone 0 2 6% 0 0 Cul-de-sac length 1 2% 1 3% 0 0 Grade of slope 0 1 3% 0 0 Lot Coverage 3 7% 0 0 0 50% Nonconforming 1 2% 0 0 0 Roof-top Screening 1 2% Irrigation 1 2% OHW Lot Width 0 1 3% 0 0 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 of the 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 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. The only ordinance amendment in 1998 relating to variance application pertains to the bluff ordinance. The City modified the bluff ordinance to be more clear 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. 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 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. 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 of the 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. . 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. Since 1995, the action on any variance is based on a specific set of findings. 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 REOUIRED: A motion accepting the report, and directing further action revising the if appropriate. . FILE. NUMBER 98-014 98-021 ------- 98-022 98-026 98-034 ------- 98-035 98-039 98-040 98-048 98-052 ------- 98-055 98-056 ------- 98-057 98-070 98-082 ------- 98-093 98-094 ------- 98-106 ------- 98-108 Kay and Corey Minich . OHW setback Withdrawn . 50% Non-conforming structure replacement (flood plain) Withdrawn ----------------~-~~~~~~~~~~~---------------------------------~~~~~~------------- ~~~-~~~~--------~-~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------_________________~2~~~~_____________ Charles and Sandra . 49.89 Foot lot width Approved ~~~~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Olson . 3.5 foot driveway setback Approved . 21.87 foot lot width Approved ________________~_l~~~J~~~~~~~~u~~~~___________________________~~~~_______________ 'ii!!~~s.!. !::!~I!!~s__ _ _ _ _ _._ _ !-~~A.I~'!...(p~r:!.~f_Aj.!!1 in..:. f!9!) _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ ~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ~2.!:..o"y~<! _ __ Paul and Royceann . 49.35 foot lot width Approved Deslauriers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Berens . 13 foot front yard setback for garage Approved . 33.7% lot coverage Denied ________________~_~~~~~~~~o~~@[~_______________________________~E~~=~_____________ Eagle Creek Villas . 21.2% lot coverage (20% max) Denied Denied . 62.46 foot setback from centerline of C.R. Withdrawn . 72.00 foot setback from centerline of C.R. Denied Denied --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James Nerison . 9.9 foot side yard setback Approved ________________~_1~~~J~~~i~~3~~~~~~~~~~______________________~e~~~_______________ Tom Vidmar . 41 foot OHW setback Denied --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Beaupre . 8' Side yard setback (10' required) Approved ________________~_l~E!~!~~~~~_~~~~~___________________________~2~~~~_____________ ~~~~u~.!.~~~~______~_~1~~~~~~~~a~~0~~~q~~~l_______________________~~j~~~_____________ Jim Ruzicka . 49.54 lot width Approved ________________~_~I~T~~~~~~~~~~~~@1~~~u~~~____________________~Y2~~~~_____________ Robert Jader . 44.38 foot lot width Approved ________________~_~~~!~!~~~I~_~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~~l______________~~~~~~_____________ ~~~~~~~~~~~_____~_~~~~~~~~~~l~Q~~~~~~mJ________________________~2~~~~_____________ Dave Hansen . Waive roof-top screening requirement Denied Denied ________________~_~~v~J~[~~~~~~~e~~~~__________________________~e~~~______~~~~_____ ~~~~~~~_________~_~2~~~q~i~~~~~~~~J~~~0~~q~~~l_________________~2~~~~____~________ ~o~~I~~E~________~_~~~~~~~~~~~@!0~~~~~~~mJ______________________~~~~______~~~~_____ Eagle Creek Villas . 60 Buildin Hei ht to sire, 35' hei ht maximum Withdrawn 98-109 98-116 ------- 98-118 98-136 98-143 98-172 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandy Silfverston . 19.6 foot front yard setback Approved . 62.3 foot setback from centerline of C.R. Approved ________________~_~~~l~l~~~aE~~~~E~~~~~~!g~~~~~~@~~l___________~e~~~_______________ ~~~~_~~~~_______~_l~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~________________________~2~~~~_____________ Mark Sudheimer . 1,368 Square foot garage Denied ________________~_l~~~~q~!~~~~~@~~___________________________~Y2~~~~_____________ Pat Hayes . 34.5% Impervious surface Denied ________________~_l~f~~!~a!y~~~~~~~____________________________~e~~~_______________ Thomas Mansk . 41 Foot OHW setback Approved ________________~_~~~f~~l~~~~~~~~~~~__________________________~2~~~~_____________ Brad Overby . Incom lete A Iication, In Process