D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota has made application to approve the Preliminary Plat of Mount Olive Church Addition, and Variances of Front and Side Yard Setbacks. The subject property is approximately 9 acres, and is located north of 128th Street and West of Marystown Road.

The applicant has proposed a Preliminary Plat that would consist of 4 single-family residential lots, one of which was a reconfiguration of a lot from Windermere South and 3 new lots from land in Theis Highlands 1st Addition (Mount Olive Lutheran Church is located on this property). They are requesting Variances for front and side yard setbacks generally consistent with the Variances approved with Windermere South. The proposed front yard setbacks would be 25 feet (30 ft. min. required), and side yards would be 7.5 feet (10 foot min. requirement). They are also requesting vacations of public drainage and utility easements that cover these 4 proposed lots, and if approved, would provide new easements with the Mount Olive Church Addition Final Plat, which will be reviewed by the City Council on August 20, 2019. The proposed density is well within the requirements of the single family residential guiding and the R-1B zoning.

City departments, Scott County and other outside agencies were given the opportunity to review and provide comments regarding this application. City Engineering, Comcast and SPUC support the request, provided the proposed plat complies with the conditions noted in their memos (attached to this report). Conditions noted in those memos will be incorporated into a draft resolution for the City Council’s consideration at their August 20, 2019 meeting.

Variance Findings:
Criterion 1
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Practical difficulties mean the following:

1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance:
Finding 1.A. The property owner and applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, with the construction of single story homes with setbacks that still propose adequate separation from the adjacent developments and adequate driveways.

1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The property is unique in that the individual lots are smaller with reduced setbacks from the standard R-1B Zone requirements; however, this development is contingent to a development that received reduced setback approvals, and the current proposal is not out of character with the balance of that development.

1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances generally lie with the previously approved Bluffs of Marystown project, which proposed a mixed residential use with reduced setbacks unlike what is presently being proposed.

1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variances would not alter the character of the locality. By all appearances, the proposed structures will function much like compliant structures.

1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute a practical difficulty if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Finding 1.E. The request is not economic in nature, the variance requests allow for construction of structures on property with setbacks generally similar to other adjacent structures.

Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding 2 The proposed variances would in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 151.

Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The request is not a use variance.

Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4 The conditions listed in the draft resolution will regulate the use of the property by providing for ways of mitigating the impact of reduced setbacks.

Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5 (Not applicable since this property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)