| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
April 5, 2018
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING - Variances of Lot Widths and Side Yard Setbacks for Windermere South |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall approve Resolution No. PC2018-004, a resolution approving Variances of reduced lot widths and side yard setbacks for certain properties located within Windermere South. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Staff recommend the Board approve the proposed Variances for lot widths less than 60 feet wide for 33 lots in Blocks 9, 10 & 11, as identified in the Windermere South preliminary plat, and side yard setbacks of 7 ½ feet, where 10 feet is the min. requirement, subject to the conditions noted in the draft resolution. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
Site Information
Applicant: D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota
Property Owner: Joe Theis
Location: South of 17th Avenue, west of CSAH 15/Marystown Rd., north of CSAH 78
Current Zoning: R-1B Zone
Adjacent Zoning: North: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone
South: Jackson Township
East: Jackson Township/ Proposed Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone
West: Unzoned
Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential
Lot Size: 69.4 Acres
Introduction
D.R. Horton, Inc. - Minnesota has made application for variances to lot widths and side yard setbacks within the proposed Windermere South development. The subject property is approximately 69.4 acres, and is located south of 17th Avenue, west of CSAH 15/Marystown Rd., and north of CSAH 78.
The applicant has proposed a Preliminary Plat for Windermere South, a single family residential subdivision. The proposed plat includes 158 single family residential lots. Planning staff note that within a few neighborhoods of the project, there are 33 lots that are less than 60 feet in width (the minimum lot width within the R-1B Zone), which would require approval of a Variance of the min. lot width requirement. They are also proposing a Variance to allow 7.5’ side yard setbacks within the development, where 10 feet are the required minimum. The proposed density is well within the requirements of the single family residential guiding and the R-1B zoning.
This property was part of the West End Study Area, which staff, the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed and approved. The current plat plan submitted generally follows the approved plan, which identified this area to be primarily medium density small lot single family and medium density mixed (townhouse/small lot single family) properties. Although they are not proposing any townhouse lots, they are proposing villa style homes on the smaller lots that could be slab on grade homes, vs. two-story with lower level/basement type structures. Their proposal for reduced side yard setbacks is generally following the design of Windermere Addition and Windermere 2nd Addition, which has received final plat approval and building permit applications are presently being processed by the City. Those phases were approved are part of their mixed use Planned Unit Development located north of this project.
The applicant has provided a narrative supporting their Variance request (attached). In that narrative, they mention that they are generally following the standards that were established in the first two phases of their development, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. They also reference the introduction of a new type of home that are one level structures, with options to add upper and/or lower levels. They are marketing these homes as detached townhomes with an association providing services to these lots.
Additionally, the applicant also offers the following information as support for the Variance requests:
“Windermere South neighborhood is a portion of the area that used to be called the Bluffs of Marystown development. This area along with the Windermere development to the north were annexed into the City at the same time under the same City action. The idea at the time was to develop this area into a larger neighborhood development that had similar feel and standards throughout the 320-acre annexation area. By allowing Windermere South to continue with the 7.5’ side yard setbacks it will strengthen the neighborhoods feel of the already approved Windermere development.
The 7.5’ setbacks are also needed to overcome many existing conditions within Windermere South neighborhood. Windermere South is bounded on two sides by County Roads which require additional right of way above and beyond a normal City street. These limit the sites flexibility when laying out lots. The site is further bisected by two gas mains. One of them on the west boundary and one in the eastern part of the site. These two mains limit flexibility of what can be constructed over the top of them and divide the site into smaller workable areas. The site also contains two City collector routes as shown in the West End Study. These two collector routes further divide the site into smaller area of development. Lastly there is a bluff/wood area through the north central portion of the site that we are trying to preserve. All of these factors when combined together limit our ability to layout lots and build homes that can meet the City current 10’ side yard setback. To overcome these difficulties we need to have the flexibility of a 7.5’ side yard setback.”
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 homes with setbacks that still propose adequate separation from the adjacent structures and 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 was part of a planned proposal that received reduced setback approvals with their original proposal. The current proposal is not out of character with the balance of the development, as represented in the first two phases of Windermere Development located adjacent to the north.
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 similar to 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 and consistent with the West End Study plan which identified this area for townhouses and small single-family lots in a medium density neighborhood.
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 be 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 and Preliminary Plat will regulate the use of the property by providing for ways of mitigating the impact of reduced setbacks and lot widths.
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.)
|
|