Agenda - Council - 08/13/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Zimmerman stated he voted no because this is not a density transition ordinance but a screening ordinance. He noted that on County Road #116 a berm was to be included for the people but it was taken, down so it was not permanent. He stated he does not think this ordinance will do the job with density transition. Councilmember Hendriksen stated he sees it as a half or third of a loaf but that's better than nothing and he hopes the Council will develop a true density transition ordinance at some point in the future. Case #8: Request for an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment Decision Relating to a Request for a Variance from Minimum Lot Size in the R-1 District; Case of Robert Longfield Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that Bob Longfield resides on a 10 acre parcel at 5751 177'h Avenue NW. In May 2002, the applicant requested a variance to the 4 in 40 density restriction and minimum lot size of 10 acres. Under the new zoning ordinance fhat took effect on July 11, 2002, Mr. Longfield's land is no longer restricted by the 4 in 40 density restriction and the lot size minimum for his property was lowered to 2.5 acres. Since the applicant is proposing to subdivide his lot to create a new 2.06 acre lot and keep a 7.94 acre lot for his homestead, he will need a variance to the minimum lot size in the R-1 Zoning District. The Board of Adjustment has previously granted variances to minimum lot size. Most recently, in May 1998, John Gobematz was granted a variance to create several 2.5 acre parcels (At the time, the minimum lot size was 10 acres.) The Gobernatz parcels are located across the street from Mr. Longfield's parcel. In order to grant a variance, there must be a determination that there is some physical uniqueness about the property that is causing the applicant a hardship and a reasonable use of the property. The applicant states that there are two reasons why the variance to lot size is needed; 1) the location of the existing house makes it difficult to create a 2.5 acre lot; and 2) that one-half of an acre of the applicant's land was dedicated as fight-of-way as part of the Echo Ridge Estates platting done in 1991. Staff has looked at the parcel and determined that while it may be difficult, it is not impossible to create a 2.5 acre lot. A lot could be created, that would be 2.5 acres in size and meet all applicable setbacks; however, the lot would be irregularly shaped. The parcel containing the homestead will exceed the lot size minimum of the new ordinance. He noted the drawings included in the meeting information that diagrams possible lot configurations. Additionally, it is StafFs opinion that the fact that the applicant doesn't have enough area for a proper lot size because he dedicated right-of-way as part of the Echo Ridge Estates is a self- created hardship. Under Section 9.03.05 Subd. 2(b)(2)(c) a variance cannot be granted if the special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship result from the actions of the applicant. At the June 6, 2002 meeting, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the variance request. While acknowledging that it might be possible to reconfigure the lot lines to make 2.5 acres, the Board thought it might not be highly desirable. The Board was also informed that as part of the subdivision request, Mr. Longfield would be creating a lot that would be deficient in lot width and would require another variance. The Board of Adjustment instructed staff and the applicant to work on finding an acceptable solution and eliminate the need for variances. Upon discussing the matter with Mr. Longfield, staff was able to determine that the initial measurement of lot City Council/July 23, 2002 Page 21 of 30 -103-