Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2003City/County: White Bear Lake, MN Douglas County, OR Yavapai County, AZ Charlotte, NC Boulder, CO Granted for: - Square footage of accessory structures - Location of air conditioner - Pre-existing, dimensionally nonconforming structures (may not extend closer to lot line, wetland, etc.) - Building setbacks -Maximum of 50% of setback, but at least 5 feet - Building height - Maximum of 30 % of requirement, not more than a height in excess of three stories - Will not negatively impact neighbors - Not in conflict with any covenants - Decrease up to 2% of lot area requirement - Decrease up to 5% of lot area per dwelling requirement - Decrease up to 10% of minimum lot width or depth - Decrease up to 20% of required width of side yard or required building separation - Decrease up to 20% of required front or rear yard - Increase up to 20% of height of fence or wall - Increase up to 10% of permitted projection of steps, landings, etc. - Increase up to 10% of permitted height or area for signs - Increase up to 10% of permitted building height - Not more than 5% of quantifiable standards - Limited to 2 feet in yard requirements, except air conditioners (up to 3 feet) Up to 20% of required setback Granted by: 3 Staff Panel (Approved unanimously) Development Service Director City Planning Staff Requires: Written statements from owners of adjacent properties consenting to variance - Application must be submitted in person - Names and addresses of owners of adjoining properties Written approval from affected adjacent property owners If denied or disagree with conditions: Applicant may apply for formal variance Applicant may appeal to PC, fee applies to formal variance fee May appeal to PC, others may object within 3 working days – causes denial of variance Fee: $15.00 $75.00 $150.00 residential, $300.00 commercial $227.00 * Some cells are blank due to lack of information available on the Internet. Staff can conduct further research regarding these areas if desired. City/County: Tampa, FL Annapolis, MD Maplewood, MN Granted for: - 2 foot maximum for side yard setback -Maximum 15% on all other dimensional requirements - On residential lot, up to 20% of setback requirements - Single and double dwelling buildings only (R-1 and R-2) - Garage setbacks, or - Amount of variance to any other setback is 5 feet or less, or - Variance in size or frontage not to exceed 5% Granted by: Zoning Administrator Director of Planning and Zoning Community Development Director or such other qualified person Requires: - Application must be submitted in person - List of names and addresses of property owners within 150 feet, must mail out notice by certified mail - No action will be taken until 14 working days after the receipt of the notice - Meets variance criteria - Zoning Administrator receives no complaints regarding variance - Sign from P&Z Department posted on property for 15 days -Petition signed by 100% of the adjacent land owners approving the variance - Director will notify surrounding property owners, they have 10 days to respond - Director must notify applicant and all previously notified persons of his/her decision - Within 10 days of notification of decision, the applicant or any notified person can appeal the decision and request a hearing with the City Council. The hearing must be held within 30 days. The right to appeal must be made known to all parties at the time of notification of decision If denied or disagree with conditions: May apply for formal variance, requires additional fee and information See above Fee: $100.00 $100.00 $152, single or two family dwelling, $848, other Item No: 6 Meeting Date: December 3, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Driveway to Exceed the Maximum Curb Cut Width at 2817 Laport Drive; Planning Case VR03-012 Introduction: The applicant, Jim Thompson, is requesting a variance to allow an already constructed driveway to remain as built at his property located at 2817 Laport Drive. The driveway was constructed without a permit and exceeds the maximum curb cut width allowed in an R-1 district. Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the curb cut is no more than twenty- four (24) feet at the right-of-way. The expansion of the driveway created a thirty-two (32) foot curb cut. The requested variance is for eight (8) feet. Discussion: Driveway and curb cut requirements are addressed in Section 1121.09 of the Zoning Code. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. In an R-1 district, the maximum curb cut width is twenty-four (24) feet. As built, the driveway has a curb cut of thirty-two (32) feet, eight (8) feet in excess of the permitted amount. Section 1121.09 allows a maximum driveway width of thirty-five (35) feet or the width of the garage plus twelve (12) feet, whichever is greater. The applicant’s driveway is less than 35 feet at its widest point. Section 1104.1 states that driveways must be setback five (5) feet, unless permission is obtained from the owners of the abutting lots, in which case, the driveway is permitted to be setback one (1) foot. The expansion has caused the driveway to be only one and a half (1.5) feet from the lot line. The applicant has obtained his neighbor’s written permission. Blacktop Driveway Company constructed the driveway addition. Blacktop Driveway Company is licensed with the City of Mounds View and has performed work in Mounds View for many years, however, the company failed to obtain a permit for the addition. Had a permit been obtained, the curb cut would not have been permitted to be wider than twenty-four (24) feet. The contractor falsely informed the applicant that the company had obtained a permit. Staff spoke with the homeowners regarding this variance request. The homeowners feel that their hardship stems from the fact that they were led to believe by the contractor that a permit had been obtained for the driveway expansion. In addition, the homeowners informed staff that the reason that they needed to expand the driveway was because the driveway was causing damage to their vehicle and their recreational vehicle (RV). The Thompson’s recently purchased a new truck and RV and the slope of the driveway before the expansion was causing the truck and RV to scrape and dent one another when reversing into the RV parking area. Staff observed the damage to the truck and RV. Driveway Variance Report 2817 Laport Drive December 3, 2003 Page 2 If this variance request is denied, the applicant must remove eight (8) feet of blacktop at the curb cut. Beyond the curb cut, the driveway meets code and would be permitted to remain as is. The applicant has now applied for a permit. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property is approximately fifteen thousand square feet (15,000 ft²) and has eight-five (85) feet of street frontage. This lot exceeds the minimum lot requirements. Staff is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, unless a hardship is proven. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The driveway expansion was constructed without a permit. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The Planning Commission must first determine whether a hardship exists. Driveway Variance Report 2817 Laport Drive December 3, 2003 Page 3 f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined that a hardship is present. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The expansion should not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects Summary: In order for the Planning Commission to approve this variance request, the above criteria must be satisfied. Although each of the cases brought before the Planning Commission are viewed individually and on their own merit, it is worthwhile to note that a similar case was brought before the Planning Commission by Violet Woods in 2002. A driveway with a curb cut that exceeded the permitted width was constructed without a permit and the owner requested to be allowed to leave it as constructed. The request was denied. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 744-03 is attached for the Commission’s denial if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Mounds View Zoning Map Photographs of Driveway Expansion Line shows portion of driveway that would need to be removed if variance is denied. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 744-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM CURB CUT WIDTH REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY ADDITION TO REMAIN; PLANNING CASE NO. VR03-012 WHEREAS, Jim Thompson has applied for a variance from the maximum curb cut width requirement to allow a previously constructed driveway addition to remain on the property located at 2817 Laport Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject parcel is legally described as follows: Eigenheer 4th Addition Lot 3, Block 1 Ramsey County, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and, WHEREAS, the maximum curb cut width allowed in R-1 zoning districts is 24 feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has constructed a driveway addition without a permit that increased the curb cut width to 32 feet; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this request on December 3, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to the hardship criteria identified in Section 1125.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code: 1. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The maximum curb cut width allowed in R-1 zoning districts is 24 feet. 3. A driveway addition has been constructed on the property, which increased the curb cut width to 32 feet. 4. The property is regularly shaped and is neither exceptional nor extraordinary given the number of properties within the City that are zoned R-1. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would NOT deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the property is not unique compared to other properties in the same zoning district. 6. Granting a variance in this case WOULD confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. The variance WOULD be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 8. The hardship criteria as identified in Section 1125.02 have NOT been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the hardship criteria, testimony presented at the public hearing and the identified findings of fact, does hereby deny the variance request to allow a driveway to exceed the maximum curb cut width on the property located at 2817 Laport Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the applicant shall be notified of the right to appeal this denial to the City Council. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 10 business days of the adoption of this Resolution. Adopted this 3rd day of December, 2003. _________________________________________ Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson Attest: _________________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (Seal) Item No: 7 Meeting Date: December 3, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Side-Yard Setback for a Second-Story Addition at 5072 Brighton Lane; Planning Case VR03- 013 Introduction: The applicants, Mark and LeeAnn Loken, are proposing to construct a second-story addition above their garage located at 5072 Brighton Lane. The garage was constructed in 1972 and at that time was built eight (8) feet from the side lot line. Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the living area of a home is ten (10) feet from the side property line. The requested variance is for two (2) feet. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” however, that is not applicable in this case. The applicants desire to expand their home by constructing a 682 square foot second-story addition above the garage. The existing house has 940 square feet, which is less than the current minimum square footage requirement. Zoning Code requires 960 square feet for a one-story house. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Setback Variance Report 5072 Brighton Lane December 3, 2003 Page 2 The property has an area of 10, 115 square feet; less than the required minimum of 11,000 square feet. Because of the relatively small size of the home, the homeowners wish to add more living area. The homeowners are limited as to where an addition can be constructed because the front yard is sloped and a deck and mature trees exist in the rear yard. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, because of the way the home was placed on the lot, the applicant is unable to make desired improvements. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants are not the original owners of the property and had nothing to do with the placement of the home, the location of the trees or the slope of the front yard. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their home. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant is requesting a two-foot variance, which is the amount that would allow the proposed addition to match with the existing structure and use the existing foundation for load baring walls. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting a variance to allow the addition to encroach two (2) feet into the side setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code given that the attached garage already exists eight (8) feet from the property line. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Setback Variance Report 5072 Brighton Lane December 3, 2003 Page 3 The proposed addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor should it impact congestion of streets. The proposed addition will not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 746-03 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate Mounds View Zoning Map Photograph of Existing Garage Photograph of Garage Roof and Backyard Photograph of Existing House Drawing of House with Proposed Addition MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 746-03 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT SIDE- YARD SETBACK FOR A LIVING-SPACE ADDITION AT 5072 BRIGHTON LANE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR03-013 WHEREAS, the applicants, Mark and LeeAnn Loken, have applied for a variance to allow for an eight-foot, side-yard setback for a proposed 682 square-foot living space addition over the existing garage on their property located at 5072 Brighton Lane; and, WHEREAS, 5072 Brighton Lane is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 13, Block 4, Twelve Oaks 2nd Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, December 3, 2003, with regard to this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that the garage was constructed only eight (8) feet from the side property line, the front yard is sloped and mature trees and a deck currently exist in the rear yard, which causes limitations as to how the property can be improved. 2. The literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would restrict the property owner’s ability to expand and improve upon the layout and functionality of the home. 3. The variance is requested due to the building setback, the presence of mature trees, the existing deck and the grade change in the front yard, factors over which the applicants have had no control. 4. Granting a variance to allow for the eight-foot side yard setback would allow the applicants to expand living space without increasing the footprint of the home resulting in a more efficient utilization of living space and property. 5. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions present on the site. 6. The two-foot variance is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicants’ hardship. 7. The construction of a second-story living space addition above the existing garage would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 8. An eight-foot setback would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve the variance request for an eight- foot side yard setback for a proposed second-story living space addition constructed over the existing garage at 5072 Brighton Lane, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain approval of a building permit for the expansion prior to any work being accomplished. 2. The variance applies only to the portion of the home on the south side of the lot that currently exists eight (8) feet from the side lot line. Adopted this 3rd day of December, 2003. __________________________________________ Jean Miller, Acting Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 8 Meeting Date: December 3, 2003 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Possible Revisions to the Zoning Code to Allow for an Administrative Variance Approval Process; Special Planning Case SP-120-03 Introduction: Currently, a resident may seek relief from Zoning Code by applying for a variance. The process of applying for a variance entails submitting an application and a fee, staff reviewing the application and situation, staff presenting the case to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission voting to approve or deny the variance request. The process can take up to one month and is somewhat time consuming for the resident, Staff and the Planning Commission. Due to the number of variance requests received, Staff has researched another option called an administrative variance. Discussion: Administrative variances are used in many other cities in Minnesota and the United States. The process for an administrative variance is similar to the formal variance process, except that Staff makes the decision in approving or denying the variance instead of the Planning Commission. This process is allowed only for variance requests within certain limitations, set by the Planning Commission. For example, an administrative variance could be requested if the request is within 10% of the code requirement. In order to qualify for this process, a hardship must exist and the same variance criteria will be evaluated for each request. Staff researched administrative variance processes in other cities and has developed a chart for comparison of each of the requirements. (See attached). If the Planning Commission wishes to go forward with an administrative variance process, the process will need to be discussed and a recommendation for a code amendment will need to be made to the City Council. Some of the topics that need to be discussed include: 1) Limits and Standards – There are many different options when it comes to deciding what qualifies for an administrative variance and how much deviation from code to allow. For example, the City of White Bear Lake, MN limits administrative variances to the square footage of accessory structures, the location of air conditioners and pre-existing, nonconforming structures. In this case, the administrative variance process does not apply to other requests. Another example is Boulder, CO. They grant administrative variances for up to 20% of a required setback. The Planning Commission may review the chart and based on past experience with variances in Mounds View decide which topics would be suitable for administrative variances. All other topics would need to go through the formal variance process. In addition, limits need to be set for how much a request can differ from code. Administrative Variance Report December 3, 2003 Page 2 2) Application Review – Many cities allow the Community Development Director to grant administrative variances. In some cities, the request is reviewed by three members of the staff, and yet in others by “qualified staff”. 3) Requirements for Approval – White Bear Lake, MN, and a few other cities require written consent to the variance from adjacent landowners. Many cities require that the City or the applicant notify the adjacent neighbors and allow ten to fourteen days for the neighbors to respond. In addition, many cities require that the neighbors be informed of the decision made. If neighbors object, the applicant needs to apply for a formal variance. These requirements are in addition to proving a hardship and meeting the variance criteria, as evaluated by staff. 4) Denial and Appeals – All cities will allow a resident to apply for a formal variance if Staff denies the request. The applicant may also appeal to the Planning Commission if they disagree with conditions required by Staff. 5) Fee Requirements – There was a wide range of fees charged for administrative variances. The range went from $15 in White Bear Lake, MN to $227 in Boulder, CO. For a formal variance, Mounds View charges $150 for properties in R-1 and R-2 districts and $325 for properties in all other districts. Recommendation: Staff is seeking input from the Planning Commission as to whether the Commission is interested in developing a process for administrative variances. If interested, please direct Staff to further investigate the possibility or begin writing a code amendment. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend a code amendment, decisions must be made by the Commission in regards to the five topics addressed above. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Prososki Planning Associate