3B - Variance for a Structure Encroaching on the Bluff Setback, Ridgley

Home Browse Search

�- • Setback,OHW(GD)—feet,minimum................................................................ .100 • Setback,bluff—feet,minimum............................................................................... • Setback,side yard—feet, minimum.......................................................................10 • Impervious surface—percent,maximum ...........................................................20% • Building height—feet, maximum...........................................................................25 Section 11.7 contains provisions regarding the review of variance applications and directs the Planning Commission to make a decision on a variance request with consideration for the following factors: 1. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would create undue hardship,and 2. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would be impractical because of circumstances relating to lot size, shape, topographic, or other characteristics of the property not created by the land owner,and 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance,and 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone,and 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality,and 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone, but reasonable use of the property does not exist under the Ordinance. Staff Findings: The Staff provides the following findings of fact for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1. The proposed use meets almost all of the required setbacks, except for the 3o-foot bluff setback.The proposed dwelling has a substantial portion falling within the bluff setback, with a corner touching the edge of the bluff itself. 2. The proposed use meets the required impervious coverage limit of 20%,with a proposed 14.22%of the lot area as impervious surface. 3. The applicant proposes to remove the existing non-conforming dwelling on the property. 4. The proposed dwelling meets the maximum structure height of 25 feet, being approximately 22 feet high. 5. While this property certainly presents constraints for development, the strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not create an undue hardship. With the bluff falling in roughly the middle of the property, any property owner is limited to the eastern portion of the property for an oddly shaped building envelope. The building envelope itself, however, is large enough to contain the footprint of the proposed dwelling, albeit in a likely less-desirable layout. This lower desirability, however, does not constitute a hardship as defined by the Ordinance. 6. The property is constrained by the presence of a bluff just east of the center of the property and steep slopes throughout most of the property; however, the remaining area falling within the building envelope is large enough to accommodate a typically-size dwelling and strict interpretation would not be impractical. 7. The deviation from the Ordinance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. The bluff setbacks contained within the Ordinance are intended to protect these key topographic features as well as to protect a property owner from potential future engineering issues with their structures. Allowing the construction of a structure in such proximity to the top of a bluff would not provide those protection purposes. 8. The variance, if granted, will not create a land use that is not permitted in the zone. Residential uses are permitted in the Shoreline Residential zone, and,were it not for the L City of Pequot Lakes Staff Report 2-2 September 20,2007