12-15-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r I Variance Tvoes • •• Table 4 lists the number of variances by type. The study confirms that approximately of all variances during the study period »-ere for hardcover. Side setback variances represented 14.24 of all the variances. Average lakeshore setback variances accounted for 10.2% of all apphcations. More than 80% of all average lakeshore setback variances were approved. Lakeshore setback variances represented 34 applications or 8.5 % of all requests. More than 3 out of every 4 l^eshore setback variances were granted. Lot area and lot width variances each represented 5JA of al applications. The approval rate was 87% for both lot area and lot width variances. Structural coverage variances accounted for 6.7% of the total and were granted 7 out of 10 times. Findings The analysis of the applications filed during the last three years appear to indicate several trends. First, as expected, lots zoned as lakeshore residential generate the bulk of variance applications. This seems logical as these are the lots where more restrictions apply—hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. Further, most of these lots were platted at lot area and wid^ sm^ler than the current zoning requirements. The approval rate for these lots is roughly 75%. This is a gh rate of jqiproval. The high rate of approval may indicate that variances are being granted for lakeshore lots where true hardships under the state's definition do not exist. This is driven by the desire to replace smaller, cabin-like structures on the lakefront with newer, larger residences that include bigger garages on lots that have less lot width and area than required by the minimum standards. Does the current zoning scheme and minimum standards for lakeshore lot advance or hinder the City's vision for lakeshore lots? Secondly, this study may suggest that there are some types of variances that could be codified in the ordinance. For example, when a zoning lot is on a point and adjacent residences ok more than a certain distance away and the topography is such that the proposed change doesn't effect views, should an average lakeshore setback variance be required? Should a variance be needed to allow additions to a residence that is already closer than 10' to a swimming pool? Perhaps some vanances could be eliminated. Finally, the study begs the question as to whether there are some types of variances that should not ever be granted. One such issue may be the size of accessory structures. There is a chart in the zoning ordinance that relates size of a lot to the number and size of allowed accessory structures. Why should a variance be granted that strays from this chart? Is the chart unreasonable or does it adequately reflect the community's standard regarding accessory structures? Should criteria be established for when it is appropriate to increase structural coverage beyond 15%? When should a variance be granted for height; when is there ever a hardship? Variance Anafysis December 15. 1997 Page-6