#20 - Chavez Property Comp Plan & Zoning Text Amendment

Home Browse Search

Date: March 21, 2024 To: Sophia Jensen Lake Elmo City Planner FROM: Joe and Joan Chavez 3505 Kelvin Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Regarding: Chavez Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment Sophia, thank you for the staff report that will be going to the Planning Commission on March 25 for a recommendation. I have reviewed your staff report and I wanted to share some information that you may not be aware of that is pertinent to your language regarding the Shoreland Variances Required paragraph. I. The Lot is a Lawful Preexisting Lot of Record, Created with the Approval of the City of Lake Elmo: The Chavez and 5 families have owned property in this area for more than 52 years. The separate lot for which we seek needed building approval was created as far back as 1980 and likely before. Although, the property was conveyed to my wife and I in 1993, the property was confirmed by deed on January 16, 1980 and the conveyance specifically confirmed as “entitled to recording and subdividing” by the City of Lake Elmo (see stamp bearing approval on deed). The Chavez property is a pre-existing lot of record and it would not be reasonable or lawful for it to be subdivided and then denied all variances necessary to allow it to be reasonably built upon. II. The availability of, and need for, a reasonable variance does not depend upon a property owner’s ability or willingness to attempt to buy his neighbors land: I noted that your report stated in part: The applicant has the opportunity to purchase additional property from the Northstar development since the 2nd addition has not yet been final platted. This acquisition would increase buildable area and allow them to relocate the home further away from the bluff and reduce or eliminate the need for variances. If the applicant does not pursue the additional land acquisition and requests the variances, they will not meet all of the required variance criteria since the applicant is creating their own hardship. This says, in other words, if a landowner holding a preexisting subdivided lot cannot “pursue” and presumably “acquir(e) ” his neighbors’ property-that the applicant can be claimed to be “creating their own hardship”.