Board of Adjustment

MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Carlos Espinosa DATE: September 28, 2021 SUBJECT: BOA Application Considerations for 10/6/21 Meeting Applicant: Tammi Sanchez – 368 Johnson Street Considerations related to Board of Adjustment Variance Criteria are provided below: 1) Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? This property is zoned R-2 which allows 1-4 family dwellings provided lot size and setback requirements are met. Since the applicant is seeking to split a unit in an existing triplex, but maintain the same certified number of people, the variance appears to be in harmony with the ordinance. In addition, the variance would create two smaller, more manageable dwelling units thus promoting public health, safety and welfare. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for traditional neighborhood which promotes 1-4 family dwelling units. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Given the applicant is seeking to split a unit in an existing triplex, but maintain the same certified number of people, the variance appears to put the property to use in a reasonable manner.  4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The property has historically been certified as a triplex with one unit certified for 5 since at least 1983. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Splitting up the current unit will have a positive effect on the character of the neighborhood because smaller rental units are generally more manageable and less disruptive to the neighborhood. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Applicant: Bruce Reed 1128 & 1130 East Fifth Considerations related to Board of Adjustment Variance Criteria are provided below: 1) Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? This property is zoned I-2 which generally allows all types of business and manufacturing type uses including storage buildings. Thus the proposed building is an appropriate use of the land. Also, given the lot’s location at the end of East 5th Street – construction of a building with a zero front and rear setback will not detract from public health, safety, and welfare. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial style uses – which isn’t proposed to change. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Given the lot’s location at the end of East 5th Street and since it’s bordered in the rear by a rail spur – construction of a building with a zero front and rear setback is reasonable.  Page 2  4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? The property is small and has a triangular shape – which makes conformance with required setbacks difficult. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? The locality is comprised of similar style industrial buildings. In addition, the new building is proposed to be placed in-line with an existing Quonset hut structure. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied. Applicant: Christian and Courtney Dembiec – 123 Cobblestone Lane Board Members please note that since original application, the petitioners have redesigned the proposed shed to reduce the encroachment from 20’ to 16’. In addition, the Minnesota DNR has provided the input included in the attachment to this memo. Should Board Members move to approve the variance, staff would recommend the following condition:  Gutters shall be installed on the structure and shall direct rain water to the south and east – away from the adjacent stream. Considerations related to Board of Adjustment Variance Criteria are provided below: 1) Is the variance in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The purpose of the 100 foot buffer from the stream is to maintain water quality and the sensitive ecological environment surrounding it. The stream flows into Pleasant Valley Creek – which is a designated Trout Stream. The lot’s Natural State Area was established to reflect the 100 foot buffer and is intended to restrict any type of land disturbance in this location. The house on the lot was constructed in 2013. Between 2013 and 2016, traditional lawn was established in the subject area, prior to the current  Page 3  owner’s purchase of the property. Since 2016, the area has been utilized consistent with its appearance. Addition of a structure in the subject area would increase impervious surfacing in the area – which is not in harmony with the original purpose of the regulations. However, if approved, staff would recommend the installation of gutters per the condition above. 2) Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan classification for this property is low-density residential – which supports housing development, but notes the conservation of sensitive natural resources. 3) Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Addition of a pool and associated structure is a reasonable addition to a residential property. The pool and shed are proposed for the only flat portion of the lot. Moving the pool and or shed to the south would likely require some type of earth work and retaining walls. Another reasonable approach may be to alter the size of the shed. 4) Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? As noted above, the pool and shed are proposed for the only flat portion of the lot. In addition, the area in question was established as lawn by previous owners of the lot. 5) Will the variance, if granted, retain the essential character of the locality? Addition of a pool and associated structure isn’t likely to affect the essential character of the locality. 6) Are there other considerations for the variance request besides economics? If the findings of questions 3-5 are affirmative this criterion is satisfied.  Page 4