Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2011 WorkshopANLb Y O F 6 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda December 13, 2011 Andover City Hall Conference Rooms A & B 6.00 a.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Planning Commission's responsibilities in reviewing variances 3. Other Business 4. Adjournment A 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannci SUBJECT: Planning Commission's responsibilities in reviewing variances DATE: December 13, 2011 INTRODUCTION This item is intended to allow a discussion of variances and the role of the Planning Commission in reviewing them. In addition to the information below, two items from the League of Minnesota Cities are attached. DISCUSSION The discussion will begin by focusing on the following questions: What are the criteria for reviewing variances? 1. Reasonableness 2. Uniqueness 3. Essential character What information can the Commission use to establish findings? 1. Findings provided by applicant 2. Information provided in staff report, such as: a. Intent of ordinance b. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan c. Site conditions 3. Discussion at the meeting What should a recommendation from the Planning Commission Include? 1. Approval or denial 2. Findings 3. Minutes can provide additional information (discussion points, dissenting views, etc.) When should a variance be granted? The Commission has discussed creating a menu of findings that could be used to complete the resolution. In the future, staff will provide a summary of the intent of the ordinance and comparison of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan in variance staff reports. If the Commission agrees with this information it can be used to complete these two findings. If the Commission disagrees with this information, the dissenting view(s) can be used to complete these findings. Staff suggests that the following questions be applied to complete the remaining three findings: Test: Reasonableness Can the project be completed and within the requirements of the City Code? Are adjustments needed to meet the City Code reasonable? Test: Uniqueness Is the variance requested due to the physical conditions of the land? Is the variance request due to the desire or preference of the applicant? Test: Essential character Is the proposal compatible with the surrounding area? Will the variance result in something that looks out of place? Attachments Sample Resolution 2011 Variance Legislation — League of MN Cities Variances — League of MN Cities Sample Variance - Approval Sample Variance - Denial City Code 12 -14 -7 ACTION REQUESTED The Commission is asked to review and discuss this information. Respectfully submitted, 4 y z CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: [Insert legal description] WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -6 -3 to allow an accessory structure to exceed the height of the existing home, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the property owner does /does not intend to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds there are /are not circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the variance will /will not maintain the essential character of the locality because NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to allow upon the findings in this resolution and with the following conditions: 1. The variance shall be subject to a sunset clause as provided in 12 -14 -7 E.6. based Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of 2011. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor o® LEAGUE OF CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES 2011 Variance Legislation The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or statutory cross - references. After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amending Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also provides consistent statutory language between Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 and the county variance authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7. In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The new law was effective on May 6, the day following the governor's approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at the time of application. new law renames the municipal variance standard Learn More Read more about variances in: Land Use Variances: Frequently Asked Questions from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three - factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." In addition, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (6S1) 281-1200 FAx:(651)281 -1298 INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB:WWWLMC.OPG In evaluating variance requests under the new law, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory language, or that have their own set of standards. For those cities, the question may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be made that that the statutory language pre -empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions. Under a pre - emption theory, cities could apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute. Attached are a collection of sample documents reflecting the 2011 variance legislation. The attached samples include a draft ordinance, application form, and findings of fact template. While the attached materials may contain provisions that could serve as models in drafting your own documents, your city attorney would need to review prior to council action to tailor to your city's needs. Your city may have different ordinance requirements that need to be accommodated. If you have questions about how your city should approach variances under this new statute, you should discuss it with your city attorney or contact Jed Burkett, LMC land use attorney, at jburkett @lmc.org or (651) 281 -1247, or Tom Grundhoefer, LMC general counsel, at tgrundho@lmc.org lmc.org or (651) 281 -1266. Jed Burkett 06/11 LEAGU E OF MINNESOTA CITIES What is a variance? CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 VARIANCES Frequently Asked Questions (Reflects 2011 law change) A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Who grants a variance? Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council. For more information, see Minn. Stat. $ 462.357. When can a variance be granted? A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three- factor test for practical difficulties. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357. What kind of authority is the city exercising? A city exercises so- called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. In contrast, when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance, the city is exercising "legislative" authority and has much broader discretion. What is practical difficulties? Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering applications for variances. It is a three- factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAx: (651) 281-1298 INSURANCE TRUST ST. PAUL. MN S5103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.OPG What are the practical difficulties factors? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Are there are other factors a city should consider? Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three- factor practical difficulties test, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. What about economic considerations? Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. What about undue hardship? "Undue hardship" was the name of the three- factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19, amended Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. 2 What did the 2011 law change? The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Can a city grant a use variance? Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota -state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. For more information, see Minn. Stat. & 462.357. Is a public hearing required? Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. What is the role of neighborhood opinion? Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. What is the role of past practice? While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not generally bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. When should a variance decision be made? A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60 -day rule and must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60 -day period. Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. For more information, see Minn. Stat. § 15.99. 3 How should a city document a variance decision? Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. In the case of a variance denial, the 60 -day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Even when the variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor. Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision? If a variance is denied, the 60 -day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation, provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval motion passed. Can a city attach conditions to a variance? By law, a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For more information, see Minn. Stat. $ 462.357. What happens to the variance once granted? A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Jed Burkett 2011/06 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R152 -05 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 29 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15461 MARTIN STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 1, Block 5 Fox Hollow, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4 to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 29 feet, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The existing house and two stall garage predate the surrounding development. An irregular lot was created when the surrounding neighborhood was approved. The house sits more than 120 feet back from the front property line yet only 35 feet from the rear property line which limits the area for a garage to be located. 2. There is a substantial curve in the street along the side of the property influencing the building setback line and causing the front corner of the proposed garage to encroach into the side yard setback. 3. Comer lots have either a 25 foot or 35 foot side yard setback. The 35 foot setback is intended to keep sides of homes and garages on corner lots in line with the front of adjacent homes that face the same street. The substantial curve of the street and the different orientations of the houses eliminate this possibility. 4. The distance from the closest corner of the proposed garage to the curb would be greater than 40 feet. WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission found that the surrounding property was platted after the home was constructed and the installation of streets and resulting orientation of lots created the greater setback requirement and significantly reduced the area in which the proposed addition could be constructed. As a result, the Planning Commission determined that the request satisfies the criteria for a hardship and recommended approval of the request, and; WHEREAS, City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves the proposed variance request to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 29 feet. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 6th day of September, 2005. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Alichael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk AND ZONING COM ESSIONMEETING— AUGUST 23, 2005 The Regular N called to order 1 City Hall, 1685 Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was ,-rson Daninger on August 23, 2005, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover n Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. APPROVAL OFMINUTES. August 9, 2005 hairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex G nwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper, Michael Casey and Vhlorie Holthus. There were City Planner, Courtn Bednarz Others Motion by Kirchoff,.seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. VARIANCE (05 -04) FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR GARAGE ADDITION LOCATED AT 15461 MARTIN STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow a garage addition on the subject property as shown in the plans. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald wondered how old the house was. Mr. Bednarz was not sure. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if there was a thirty -five foot sideyard setback when the house was originally built. Mr. Bednarz stated it was not, originally it was a ten foot side yard setback and the road was put in to allow additional lots to be platted and the applicant purchased the home after the fact. They did not own the home when the —/O Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — August 23, 2005 Page 2 development went in. The home was built when there was a substantial amount of land around it. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the applicant looked at moving the garage back to meet the setback. Mr. Bednarz stated they talked to the applicant at length regarding this and the proposed addition is setback a little bit to try and reduce the amount that would be in the setback. Mr. Jay Norgaard, 15461 Martin Street NW, indicated he was at the meeting to answer questions. Commissioner Holthus wondered what would happen to the large oak tree next to the house. Mr. Norgaard stated it would have to be taken out. Mr. Norgaard stated they did look at moving the garage back but they have a deck and patio door off of the back which would create a U- shaped tunnel. He stated the house was built in 1988. Commissioner Jasper wondered if the business was run from the home. Mr. Norgaard stated it was not and he has his own business elsewhere. Mr. Norgaard stated they would like to have more room to park their cars and allow their boat to be stored inside. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the curve of the street brought this out of character for a hardship. Chairperson Aaninger stated they could consider that. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, to approve the variance for a side yard setback for a garage addition located at 15461 Martin Street NW because the street added after the fact created circumstances unique to this property that were not created by the landowner. Commissioner Vatne stated he was not going to go along with the hardship because he did not see it was necessarily a hardship at the time and did not fully meet it. He thought there maybe some other alternatives in the setup of the garage that could be examined. He did not see a clear hardship. Commissioner Jasper concurred. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 2 -nays (Jasper, Vatne), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 6, 2005 City Council meeting. J rok, • orry r 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Variance (05 -04) for side yard setback for garage addition located at 15461 Martin Street NW. DATE: August 23, 2005 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow a garage addition on the subject property as shown in the attached plans. DISCUSSION The property has a 35 foot side yard setback requirement because it is a comer lot and adjacent lots have driveways on the street side of the subject property. The proposed garage addition would encroach 5.2 feet into the setback area near the front corner of the addition. As the attached plans illustrate, the lot widens as the street curves away from the house to the point where the rear comer of the proposed addition would exceed the setback requirement. As with all variances, hardship must be demonstrated to vary from the City Code. The standards used to evaluate hardship are as follows: 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. The applicant has included the attached letter to address the findings. The curve of the street and relationship of adjacent homes is better illustrated on the attached aerial photograph. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings presented and make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Aerial Photograph Lot Survey Garage Details Respe tfully submitted Co do Cc: Jay rgaard 15461 1 in Street NW CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 29 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15461 MART Ni STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 1, Block 5 Fox Hollow, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3-4 to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 29 feet, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The existing house and two stall garage predate the surrounding development. An irregular lot was created when the surrounding neighborhood was approved. The house sits more than 120 feet back from the front property line yet only 35 feet from the rear property line which limits the area for a garage to be located. 2. There is a substantial curve in the street along the side of the property influencing the building setback line and causing the front comer of the proposed garage to encroach into the side yard setback. 3. Corner lots have either a 25 foot or 35 foot side yard setback. The 35 foot setback is intended to keep sides of homes and garages on comer lots in line with the front of adjacent homes that face the same street. The substantial curve of the street and the different orientations of the houses eliminate this possibility. 4. The distance from the closest comer of the proposed garage to the curb would be greater than 40 feet. WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds recommended approval/denial of the request, and; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 29. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2005. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Variance Side Yard Setback 15461 Martin Street NW 1 bbl H to IMIHLN 'rte ,ss3, j s� 2119 15629 to w ° 21u zoos ,ssro y C7 78ps 1 ° mmr.m�o u1Oi _ mm� w m Z p N / C V p cJ 1776 w 15486 m X543 15450 6 1�6 I.Zm a m +, N 15472 15476 15473 15456 r. 5467 15466 1 5451 15440 wq`6h 15435 15424 15400 2121 'p c W' ,5419 2060 ,A, p w ry q' 15408 p 15403 0 0116 5421 15491 15389 p m 15400 74SM7 15378 15377 15376 5373 15364 15365 15355 p c 15349 15316 m 135345 15344 T. O w 5341 a 'u• 15339 15336 Zl5= w w r`r7p8 > a 1S3 15328 15325 2048 r`s3 15302 15320 15317 � r �'! s'77 15312 15309 15293 15295 'w P V 1526$ ,5277 75216' 15279 . 15269 15270 15271 15261 H 15263 +so�� x w-�—g a C I T Y O F NDOVER Project Location Map ayout Name: LOCATION MAP LAYOUT Project Location: H:\ GLSDA7A \PLANNING\PRO]ECTS\NEWCkSFS -APR Date Printed: 08/16/2005 - 02:91:12 PM JAY AND DEB NORGAARD 15461 Martin Street NW Andover, MN 55304 July 28, 2005 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: Garage Addition To Whom It May Concern: The following is a summary for our variance request: We live in Fox Hollow where we purchased an existing home in a new development. We currently have a two car garage and would like to add an additional attached two car garage to accommodate our six teenagers and their vehicles. The South side of our lot has a 35' setback easement because it is a comer lot. Due to the curve of the street the garage addition would only encroach the setback easement a couple of feet on the Southwest corner of the garage (the front). Because of the way the land was subdivided around our home, we believe the garage addition would look much nicer than trying to stuff something in the back yard right outside of the neighbors bedroom window. We appreciate your consideration to this matter. cerely, Pul y an Deb Norgaard _y_ I I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for JAY NORGgARD 1 y Scale. 1 " = JO' 2005 V« w 9m po. mnno f (and rtrkd s !0917'. 7ha o fmwk+n of Ihh 0--+9 S)-l- b bawd upm N. r&c ldd Pbl of f" H=Dit 0 A a" km *A. At m G o =rn rn C D O Z A K 11 1 I I I I I O P 0 ® NING d X510N LLC. NORGAARD HOMES INC, UAUTNOR¢EO USE OF THE PLAN THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT glz �' 7✓ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R036 -09 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3443 135TH AVENUE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 10, Block 1, Chapman's 5t" Addition, City of Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -6 to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for the attached garage and detached accessory buildings by 144 square feet total (from 1,200 square feet to 1,344 square feet) and recommends denial, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following condition does not constitute an undue hardship for the subject property: 1. Lack of additional storage space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover denies the proposed variance request to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for the attached garage and detached accessory buildings based on lack of proper findings. Be it further resolved, that the detached storage shed (12 ft. x 20 ft.) shall be removed or modified within 30 days from the date of this approved resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 21St day of April, 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: C. MAehelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk chael R. Gamache, Mayor ,%? AC wp'm PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —APRIL 14, 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Angie Perera Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. March 10, 2009 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. PCtBLICHEARING. VARIANCE (09 -01) TO VARYFROM CITY CODE 12 -6 TO ALLOW MORE THAN THE MAMMUMACCESSORYSTR UCTURE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PROPERTYLOCATED AT 3443135TffAYENUE NW. Ms. Perera noted the applicant is seeking approval for a variance to allow an existing shed to exceed the maximum square footage area allowed by 144 square feet for the combination of existing accessory structures. Ms. Perera reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Tim Christianson, 3443 135"' Avenue NW, stated there is no other avenue for him to get to this point. When he got a permit for the garage he asked if he could get a variance to keep the shed and was told no but he kept the shed until the City carne out and gave him a letter. He thought he could shave off part of the shed and rebuilt it to make it conform but he would rather not do that. The yard looks nice with the shed on it and does not seem to bother anyone. He did not see that the shed is detrimental to Andover. Commissioner Holthus asked if the City gave him a reason why he was not allowed to apply for a variance. Mr. Christianson stated they did not. He stated he did call when he was ready to build the shed to see if he needed a permit. He stated that the City asked if the shed would have a cement slab and he told them it would not and was informed by the city that he did not need a permit. Chairman Daninger asked if Mr. Christianson was notified that the shed needed to be removed when he came in to build the two car garage. Mr. Christianson indicated that he was informed that the shed had to be removed when he applied for the detached garage. Then he found out afterwards that he could file a variance to keep the shed which is what he did. He stated the shed is being used for building materials, lawn supplies and not vehicles. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the requirements are for needing a building permit. Ms. Perera explained the requirements to the Commission. Mr. Christianson stated he would not object to having the shed inspected and he would change what needed to be corrected, if need be. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Cleveland stated many of the homes in the neighborhood have accessory structures similar to this shed and he thought the issue was that there is more garage and shed than house and he thought that was the intent of the City Code. He thought the City's interest was in maintaining the property as a residence and not as a storage area. Chairman Daninger stated part of his concern is that there is a rule in place and has been established. The two car garage could have been 144 square feet less at the time it was built and then both could stay. It was also his understanding that when he received the permit to build the detached garage, the applicant was told that the shed needed to be removed and was agreed to and the shed was never removed, so he did not see a hardship. Commissioner Falk concurred. He stated there are certain rules they have to follow and he cannot find a hardship with this at all. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he agreed. He stated there is no hardship here and does not fit the criteria for a hardship. 9 C I T Y O F kri N 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmemebers CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Will Neumeister, Community Development Director A,6L FROM: Angie Perera, Associate Planner IN --" SUBJECT: Consider Variance/Maximum Accessory Structure Square Footage /3443 135'x' Ave. NW- Planning DATE: April 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking approval for a variance to allow an existing shed to exceed the maximum square footage area allowed by 144 square feet for the combination of existing accessory structures. The applicant's home is a one -story single family house within the R -4 zoning district. The applicant has two detached structures (detached garage and shed) totaling 816 square feet, the attached garage is 528 square feet and the total of all three combined is 1,344 square feet. As a result, the applicant exceeds the maximum area allowed by 144 square feet. The sketch of the property attached with this report references the dimensions, setbacks, and locations of the existing structures in their current location. Dimensions of existing structures: Shed: 12 ft. x 20 ft. / 240 square feet Detached garage: 24 ft. x 24 ft. / 576 square feet Attached Garage: 22 ft. x 24 ft. / 528 square feet Principal Structure (foundation): 1,144 square feet 1� ( DISCUSSION City Code Section 12 -6 -4 C of the City Code states the following: The attached garage and detached accessory buildings in a residential parcel in the R -4 zoning district or any property less than one acre shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet total, and in no case shall the detached accessory building be greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the total square footage of the foundation of the principal structure. Section 9 -1 -1 of the City Code states: "State Building Code Adopted." The state building code requires that all structures greater than 120 square feet shall require a building permit and are required to meet applicable building codes. Temporary structures larger than 120 square feet are not allowed. Background An application for the detached garage was approved in 2007 when the principal structure, attached garage and shed already existed on the property. At that time, the proposed detached garage exceeded the maximum square footage allowed by 144 square feet. Upon condition of approval of the building permit the applicant was required to submit a letter to the City stating that they would be removing the storage shed after they completed the detached garage (building permit and letter from applicant dated 10108/07 are attached with this report). Additionally, the existing storage shed exceeds 120 square feet and would have required a building permit from the City. The City does not have records on file of an approved building permit for the structure. On February 25, 2009 a city official from the Building Department went out to do a final inspection of the detached garage and discovered that the storage shed had not been removed. The city official left a tag on the house stating that the storage shed was required to be removed. The notice furthermore stated that the official would be referring the matter to the City attorney for appropriate actions if the shed was not removed within a 30 day follow -up inspection. The City then received the variance application on March 24, 2009, requesting a variance of 144 square feet to allow the continued existence of the storage shed on the property. Review Criteria As with all variances, hardship must be demonstrated to vary from the City Code. The standards used to evaluate hardship are as follows: 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. 2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed variance as listed in the attached resolution with a 7 to 0 vote. The Planning Commission recommended that the 12 ft. x 20 ft. storage shed shall be removed completely or that 144 square feet of the storage shed shall be removed. Attachments Resolution Variance Application Applicant's Letter requesting the variance Sketch of the property Photographs Residential Building Permit (for detached garage) Applicant's Letter to the City (dated 10/8/07) Homeowner Tag from Building Department (dated 2/25/09) Planning Commission Minutes ACTION REQUESTED The Council is asked approve or deny the variance stating the findings of hardship accordingly. Respectful) submitted, *Pa Cc: Timothy Christianson, 3443 135' Avenue NW 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3443 135TH AVENUE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 10, Block 1, Chapman's 5a` Addition, City of Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -6 to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for the attached garage and detached accessory buildings by 144 square feet total (from 1,200 square feet to 1,344 square feet) and recommends denial, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following condition does not constitute an undue hardship for the subject property: 1. Lack of additional storage space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover denies the proposed variance request to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for the attached garage and detached accessory buildings based on lack of proper findings. Be it further resolved, that the detached storage shed (12 ft. x 20 ft.) shall be removed within 30 days from the date of this approved resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 21 s` day of April, 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor v SdAi-,F, 0 R '/)(07 1/ G44965 to 0 V43 4--0 x NoN ver. 57- 0,0 4 /10 A). / --k. 1; 7H 4 /1 4-0 MxL} Y 'j. i N 43 t City Code 12 -14 -7 12 -14 -7: VARIANCES: A. The City Council, as authorized by Minn. Stat. 462.354 subdivision 2, and Minn. Stat. 462.357, subdivision 6, shall have the authority to hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance and other sections of the City Code where variances are authorized, including restrictions placed on nonconformities. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970, Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) B. Review Criteria: 1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) C. Conditions Authorized: The City Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) D. Specific Variances Authorized: No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located, except as follows: (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 1. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Variances may be granted for the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) E. Procedure: The procedure for granting variances is as follows City Code 12 -14 -7 1. Request For Variance; Fee: A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the Community Development Director a request for variance application form together with a fee as set forth by ordinance'. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. (Amended Ord. 342, 3 -6 -07; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: A public hearing shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the provisions of City Code 12 -14 -7. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 3. City Council Action: The City Council may grant the variance based upon the provisions of City Code 12 -14 -7 request if it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this title and if it finds that strict enforcement of this title will cause undue hardships because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this title. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 4. Appeals: The petitioner, if appealing an interpretation of this title by an employee of the city which would require him /her to obtain a variance, shall have the fee refunded if his /her appeal is upheld by the City Council. 5. Emergency Variance Requests: The City Council may waive Planning and Zoning Commission review and take immediate action on emergency variance requests that affect the immediate health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Andover or if time constraints present severe hardship to the applicant. The applicant is required to show the immediacy of the issue and the potential health, safety or welfare threat. The City Council shall determine if the request warrants immediate review. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 6. Time Limit On Implementing Variance: If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the variance, the variance will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 1 See subsection 1 -7 -3H of this code.