Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-062 Council ResolutionCITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 03-62 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150 -FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE OHWL OF LAKE AMELIA, FOR A PROPOSED HOME ADDITION LOCATED AT 6174 CENTERVILLE ROAD WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance from the required 150 - foot setback requirement from the OHWL of Lake Amelia, a natural environment lake, for a proposed home addition for property located at 6174 Centerville Road, and WHEREAS, the City's Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance requires a 150 -foot setback requirement from the OHWL for structures located within 1,000 feet of the OHWL of natural environment lakes, and WHEREAS, the narrowness of the lot precludes siting a structure in such a way that it could both meet the required 150' setback from the OHWL as well as the 40' setback from Centerville Road, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lino Lakes City Council approves the proposed Variance, as described in the attached staff report, dated May 27th, 2003, with the following condition: 1. That the existing septic system be inspected and issued a certificate of compliance by a certified septic inspector, with replacement/improvement of the system to be required, if indicated. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of May, 2003. ATTEST: STAFF ORIGINATOR: C.C. MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 7D Tanda Gretz May 27, 2003 Resolution No.: 03 -62 Variance to allow the construction of a home addition within the required shoreland (OHWL) setback, for property located at 6174 Centerville Road. Thomas Laumeyer ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Thomas Laumeyer owns property located at 6174 Centerville Road, on the west side of Lake Amelia. Mr. Laumeyer's existing home is non - conforming in that it is located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Amelia, but does not meet the required 150 -foot setback requirement from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). Mr. Laumeyer would now like to add an addition onto his home, however the proposed addition would likewise not meet the required setback from the OHWL. As a result, the applicant is asking for a variance from the required 150 -foot setback from the OHWL, as specified under the Lino Lakes Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance (Chapter 1102.07, Subdiv. 2.A.1). This review is based on the following exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. OHWL Location/Hult Assoc. Letter 3. Marked Up Survey 4. P & Z Draft Minutes (May 14, 2003) City Council May 27, 2003 Laumeyer Variance ANALYSIS Shoreland Ordinance The Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance was adopted by the City of Lino Lakes in response to Minnesota Statute requirements. The Ordinance applies to land ( "shoreland ") located within 1,000 feet of the OHWL of the public water bodies noted within the ordinance. Lake Amelia is classified as a Natural Environment Lake under the Shoreland Ordinance, and as such, requires all structures maintain a 150 -foot setback from the OHWL, which is defined as 908.10. The existing house has a setback of 90 feet. The proposed addition, which would be on the north side of the home, would have approximately the same setback. The Shoreland Ordinance directs that all additions /expansions to nonconforming structures "must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of (the) ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance." Zoning & Land Use The following chart summarizes the zoning and land use designations for the subject property, as well as surrounding properties: Location Guided Land Use Zoning Subject Site Rural Land Use Rural Executive (R -X) North t4 " East Lake Amelia Lake Amelia South Rural Land Use Rural Executive (R -X) West Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural (R) The property is somewhat isolated, with the nearest neighboring house located south of the subject property at the intersection of Ash Street and Centerville Road. The nearest houses north of the property are located along Centerville Road, on the west side of the road, and thus not on Lake Amelia. The property is only 175 feet wide, with the OHWL located approximately 90 feet east of the existing home. In this respect, the property is too small to allow compliance with the setbacks required under the Shoreland Ordinance: if the structure were setback the required 150 feet from the OHWL, then it would not meet the required setbacks from Centerville Road. Septic Issues The Shoreland Ordinance also specifies a 150 -foot setback from the OHWL for the septic system of properties located within the Shoreland Overlay District of a Natural Environment Lake. The septic system for the subject property is located southeast of the City Council May 27, 2003 Laumeyer Variance house and is non - conforming in that it does not meet the required setback, being approximately 80 feet from the OHWL. Additionally problematic is the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance which specifies that properties subject to its provisions, and applying for a variance, must have conforming septic systems (Chapter 1102.04, subdiv. 3.C): "For existing developments, the applications for variance must clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, must require reconstruction of a non - conforming sewage treatment system." Specifically, the septic system must comply with Chapter 402 of the City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards (Chapter 7080), as outlined under Chapters 1102.08 and 1102.11 of the Shoreland Ordinance. As the City has no information as to the compliance status of the septic system on site, a Certificate of Compliance from a certified septic system inspector should be required. Please note that the ordinance specifically states that "a sewage treatment system shall NOT be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage system's improper setback from the ordinary high water level." In this respect, then, the goal is just to establish functional compliance of the system, and not necessarily to relocate it. A last issue to note is whether the proposed addition implies greater use of the septic system. That is, if additional bedrooms are being installed, then the implication is that the existing septic system will be subject to greater useage. Depending on the status of the system, this increased usage may or may not impact the system. Building Issues • There are a number of different ordinances which address the issue of how high above the 100 -year flood elevation a structure must be elevated. For construction purposes, the lowest floor of a structure should be located a minimum of two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, which is defined as 910.0 for the Lake Amelia. The applicant has submitted information indicating that the lowest floor elevation of the existing home is at 914.2 (Exhibit 2), which meets the two -foot separation requirement. Elevations are not available for the proposed addition, and it would be required that the addition likewise meet the two -foot separation. Please note that this requirement pertains to the 100 -year flood measurement (910.0), and not the OHWL (908.10). DNR Tom Hovey of the DNR has reviewed this application. Mr. Hovey has stated that the DNR does not oppose the applicant's plans for an addition, as long as such an addition is not built any CLOSER to the OHWL than the current non- conforming structure. 3 City Council May 27, 2003 Laumeyer Variance FINDING OF FACT The Shoreland Ordinance specifies that variances to its provisions be evaluated as outlined in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, which directs that when considering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property has been put to reasonable use, but cannot be expanded or improved under the constraints of the Shoreland Ordinance. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, and not created by the landowner. Comment: the unique physical circumstance is the narrowness of the lot, which precludes siting a structure in a way that both meets the setback requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance as well as those required for Centerville Roadd, 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: the property has been put to a reasonable use in the past, but cannot be expanded or improved under the constraints of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: there do not appear to be other properties similarly situated. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: the spirit and intent of the ordinance is upheld when hardship is identified. 4 City Council May 27, 2003 Laumeyer Variance CONCLUSION The City of Lino Lakes has adopted the Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance as required under Minnesota State Statute. The applicant's property is subject to the ordinance, being within 1,000 of the OHWL of Lake Amelia, a natural environment lake. The Shoreland Ordinance requires that any additions constructed within such an area be setback 150' from the OHWL, with a septic system that is fully compliant. In this case, the narrowness of the lot precludes siting a structure in such a way that it would meet the required 150' setback from the OHWL as well as the 40' setback from Centerville Road, and so hardship is demonstrated. The City has no information as to the compliance status of the existing septic system and, as a result, a certificate of compliance should be required, with replacement/improvement of the system to be required, if indicated. Thus, staff would recommend approval of the proposed variance, with the condition that the septic system by proven compliant. P & Z BOARD RECOMMENDATION Staff had initially recommended against this variance at the May 14th meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. At that meeting the board voted 5 -0 to approve the proposed Variance. Draft minutes of the meeting are attached. OPTIONS 1. Approval of the proposed variance. 2. Denial of the proposed variance. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 EXHIBIT # . April 29, 2003 HULT & ASSOCIATES, INC. A division of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, l Engineering, Planning, Surveying & Wetland Delineating Telephone 651-464-3130 Facsimile: 651-464-4822 Thomas Laumeyer 6174 Centerville Road Lino Lakes, MN 55038 Re: Elevation of existing house Dear Mr. Laumeyer: On April 7, 2003, we located the Amelia Lake Ordinary High Water (OHW) adjacent to your home, the existing garage, and the existing house (sketch below). We located the lowest opening of the existing house where the lower level door opens towards the lake. The lowest opening elevation is 914.2. This is 6.1 feet above the Amelia Lake OHW of 908.10. Once again, elevations were based on a DNR bench mark located on the east side of Amelia Lake. If you have any questions or if you need any additional services, please feel free to give me a call. EXHIBIT # Z Sincerely, .-719"Fr77 Torry kraftson, P.E. EXISTING HOUSE t� i i<OHW Xo"w -ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE EXISTING � r- AMELIA LAKE 908.10 (NAND 1929) GARAGE 1 XoHW • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 37- Forest Lake, MN. 55025 • • Email: hultemfra.com • 500 W. HWY. 96 ST. PAUL 12. MINN. 484.3301 CERTIFICATE .4F SURVEY EXHIBIT# 3 MILNER W. CARLEY & ASSOCINI CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 314 OAK ST. SAUK CENTRE. MiNN. 352.3664 18 4 E. S.E. ST. CLOUD. MINN 251.7751 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Reg. No. _7JZ5i Date Aug. 23 , 1968 /t < 171.7 33 =n r rx:'s iove 74.7 1 • 'O ef6 Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 4 EXHIBIT # go through. He the rules were what they were, however, things had changed with the existing homeowner and when they purchased the home, it was a different setback. Chair Schaps stated every lot had potential and every lot would have some type of a restriction. Unfortunately, Ordinances changed but they needed to follow today's Ordinances. He stated he believed they had other options including reducing their square footage. Mr. Corson stated they had the Ordinances for a reason and if they granted this variance for 31/2 -feet, the next person who came before the Board requesting a 3%z -foot variance, they would have a difficult time denying it. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow an addition (home and garage) for property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane, Rebecca Keller for the reason that the lot had unique characteristics and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -2 (Tralle, Lyden, and Rafferty — Aye. Corson and Hyden — Nay). Thomas Laumever, 6174 Centerville Road, Variance Staff stated applicant's home was non - conforming in that it was located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Amelia, but did not meet the required 150 -foot setback requirement from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). Applicant would now like to add an addition onto his home, however the proposed addition would likewise not meet the required setback from the OHWL. As a result, the applicant was requesting a variance from the 150 -foot setback from the OHWL. Staff presented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the variance because it did not demonstrate a hardship. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Thomas Laumeyer, 6174 Centerville Road, stated he believed his unique circumstances were tied to the physical property. He presented his Certificate of Survey and noted he had 174 feet to the easement and if they went 150 feet with a 28 -foot house, that would put him over the easement line by 4 feet, so it was impossible to place these structures anywhere within the Code. He stated the home was built in 1959 by his parents. He noted the home was very small. He stated he had lived there for 8 years. He stated the home was 80 square feet, noting it was smaller than a 14x80 mobile home. He noted he believed he had a hardship. He stated he did not believe there was an absence of hardship. He indicated his situation was unique to the area because he was the only existing home on the lake that was this close and he did not believe anyone would ask for a variance because there were no other homes that close. He stated the DNR had been notified and they did not have a problem as long as he did not go closer to the lake. He stated his proposed addition would not bring it closer to the lake. He indicated he had spoken with his neighbors and they did not have any problem with this proposal. He indicated this would not hurt anybody to add onto his home. Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Hyden asked what state was his septic system in. Mr. Laumeyer stated he had it pumped yesterday and he received an inspection report from the City noting it had passed the inspection. Mr. Hyden asked if the septic system would accommodate the new addition. Mr. Laumeyer replied he would need to investigate this further, but he was not opposed to putting in another septic system if necessary, but he did not want to put a septic system in if the City came through with City water in the near future. Chair Schaps stated he would have the option of hooking up to the City water when it becomes available. Mr. Rafferty asked if he was doubling the size of he home. Mr. Laumeyer replied it would be a 24x30 addition. Mr. Rafferty stated based on the guidelines, it appeared the home should never have been placed where it was. Ms. Gretz replied those guidelines did not exist when the home was built. She noted the Ordinance allowed what existed to continue, but once something was changed or added onto, the current Ordinance existed. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was another option for applicant to expand. Ms. Gretz replied it was not possible for applicant to expand his home and stay within the setback. Mr. Rafferty asked how old was the garage. Mr. Laumeyer replied the garage was built in approximately 1968. He noted the DNR flooded the lake and at the time the garage and home were built, Lake Amelia was considerably smaller. Mr. Corson asked if applicant had spoken with the DNR and asked if the DNR had any concern with the septic system. Mr. Laumeyer stated he had not spoken directly to the DNR, but City staff had. He noted the septic system should not be considered non- conforming according to the Ordinance. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be any additional bathrooms, or water usages with this addition. Mr. Laumeyer replied there was not. He was proposing to add a family room and storage space only. Mr. Hyden asked at what point were they to deem this a hardship. He noted applicant had no other options. He stated it looked as if applicant had a hardship. Ms. Gretz replied in her interpretation, she was looking at past use and that this property had been put to reasonable used in the past. She agreed expansion would be better, but that did not get away from the fact that this property had been put to reasonable use in the past. She stated while applicant could not improve his property, he still had a reasonable use of this property. Mr. Lyden stated the home was built in 1959 and many years had passed and he believed applicant had the right to upgrade his home to bring it up to par with other homes in the City. He noted this was in the best interest of Lino Lakes to allow him to improve his property. He indicated it was a reasonable, fair use of this property to expand the home. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 6 He stated structure did define function and the hardship was the property, not that the home was not put in the right place. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to allow variance to allow the construction of a home addition within the required shoreland (OHWL) setback for property located at 6174 Centerville Road, Thomas Laumeyer, for the following reasons: The Board did not believe the landowner was being allowed to put the property to a reasonable use; there were unique characteristics to this property; the State had mandated the 150 foot setback as a part of the Shoreland- Overlay District and the applicant had a special situation that would be denied by this Ordinance; applicant's home was the closest to the lake in the area and there would be no other variance requests from neighbors; they were staying within the spirit of the Ordinance; and the applicant is to maintain the septic system, have it inspected and obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. PUBLIC HEARING, Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street, Site Plan Review and CUP Amendment Staff stated applicant was proposing to construct two building additions. One was a 950 square -foot locker room. The other was a 3100 square -foot expansion of a maintenance garage. Staff presented it analysis and recommended approving the CUP amendment with the conditions as noted in their May 14, 2003 report. Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Randy Moline, 415 Lilac Street, stated they had lost about 1/2 of the pine trees over the winter and those trees would be replaced after June 1. He noted they were meeting all of the required specifications regarding the seeding around the ponds also. Chair Schaps asked if everything worked out, when would all of the landscaping be done. Mr. Moline replied they would have everything done my July 1, depending upon the weather. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Motion carried 5- 0. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Moline Concrete, Randy Molin with the conditions as noted in staffs May 14, 2003 report. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. D. REMOVED FROM AGENDA E. PUBLIC HEARING, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Elm Street Area Staff stated the City was preparing to move forward with the reconstruction of Elm Street from Grey Heron Drive to its intersection with Sunset Avenue. As part of the project, the City was proposing to expand sanitary sewer and water main to currently unserviced DRAFT MINUTES