| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
December 7, 2017
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING: Caselog #17-055; Variances of front and rear yard setbacks in Church 2nd Addition. |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
Approve Resolution No. PC17-055, a resolution approving the proposed Variances of front and rear yard setbacks for certain properties located at 4126 – 4142, 4150 – 4166, and 4172 - 4180 Blakewood Drive in Church 2nd Addition, subject to the conditions noted in the resolution. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Staff recommend the Board approve the proposed Variances for Front and Rear Yard Setbacks, subject to the conditions noted in the draft resolution. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
Summergate Companies have made application for variances for front and yard setbacks for 13 properties located in the Planned Residential District (PRD) of Church 2nd Addition. The proposal would be to allow minimum front yard setbacks of 25 feet to the public right-of-way, where a minimum of 35 feet is presently required, and zero (0) foot rear yard setbacks, where five (5) feet is the current rear yard setback (zero feet for a deck).
The residential development of Church Addition was first approved in 2004, with Church 2nd Addition approved in 2013 (consisting of replatting these 13 lots and an additional 17 adjacent lots on Blakewood Drive). The PRD classification provided areas for mixed-use development; including single-family detached, medium-density, and high-density residential, as well as compatible community commercial and service uses. However, shortly after this project was platted, the PRD zone was rescinded. Since this project already received all the platting and zoning approvals, the PRD design standards still apply and were utilized in the evaluation of this application request. All elements of the PRD are being met with the exception of the Variances of the required setbacks.
The lots in question are 48 feet deep, and ranging from 34.12 feet to 46.42 feet wide. There exists an Outlot beyond the individual lots boundaries with approx. 30 feet between the individual rear property lines and the south line of Church 2nd Addition, and approx. 25 feet from the individual lot front property lines to the public right-of-way line. Essentially, it would appear that there is a 25 foot front yard setback and approx. 30 foot rear yard setback.
Planning staff did not receive any comments from reviewing agencies. Planning staff has included a condition that references compliance with all other elements of the City Code design and performance standard requirements should this request be approved.
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 means 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 proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, with the construction of single story townhomes rather than two story townhomes, 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-2 Zone requirements; however, this development was part of a planned proposal that received conditional use permit and reduced setback approvals with their original proposal, and the current proposal is not out of character with the balance of the development.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances generally lie with the previously approved PRD project, which has made it practically difficult to complete the development of this subdivision without some relief of the setback requirements.
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 below 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.)
|
|