Agenda - Council - 07/27/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I prohibits "basement homes" may need to be amended to clarify that such a I prohibition does not extend to earth-sheltered homes. It should be noted that the statutes treat earth sheltering as a type of construction and not a separate use. In a single-family zoning district, a single-family earth-sheltered dwelling should be viewed as a permitted use. I The descriptive term for the use of the building, in this case "single- family," is consistent with the use permitted in this district. In the residential zone, an earth-sheltered shopping center would not be permitted I because "shopping centers," regardless of whether they are located above or below ground, are not a permitted use in the single-family zoning district. ...... 'l ~on~ol Da~ ~orporation'~ Terrate~h Center in St. P~ul. lhe first amendments to the municipal and county p]annSn~ acts sub,est that local jurisdictions can continue to apply setback, bulk, floor area ratios and s~m~lar provisions of the zon~n~ ordinance to earth-sheltered buildings, lhe second amendment to both acts, however, appears to caution local off~cSals that they should 'be ~l]~n~ to ~rant variances to such provisions for earth- sheltered While the language of the second amendment states that "variance shall be granted...," the added clause "when in harmony" suggests that local officials retain the power to deny variances for earth-sheltered buildings when they are not in harmony with the ordinance. The question of defining the word "harmony" is left up to 'local discretion. For example, a board of appeals and adjustments may decide to permit a variance to allow a 45-foot wide earth-sheltered building to be constructed on a 50-foot wide lot where the normal sideyard setback requirement is 10 feet, if that portion of the building that infringe~ on the sideyard is below grade. It may decide, on the other hand, to deny a variance to someone wishing to locate a 45- foot wide building on a sideyard if the lot is 80 feet wide. It is not clea~ from the legislation whether aesthetics and site plan provisions were considered as regulations that may not prohibit earth-sheltered