10-01-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2013 Page 2 of 10 may visit the site and acknowledged that the issue is difficult. City Administrator Zuleger explained the City’s actions. Mayor Pearson asked if the issue is resolved as far as the city is concerned. Mr. Zuleger said Building Official Chase says it is. Mayor Pearson said it he would stop by and take a look. ITEM 4: AUTHORIZE CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE UNPAID STORM WATER UTILITY BILLS; RES. 2013-79 Gaylen Springborn 8989 55th St.: spoke on his appeal of storm water fees. His complaint is that he maintains all the water of his area. Mr. Zuleger said $265.69 was reduced to $66.42. This was the maximum reduction in credit policy. There is intentional retention and regional retention. This is the maximum credit that the City employs. Mr. Springborn invited the Council to personally view the property. The Council discussed whether action on the item should occur now or later during the meeting. It was decided to postpone the item to the end. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL THE END OF THE AGENDA. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 9: VARIANCE - 09.029.21.22.0025 (HILL TRAIL NORTH); RES. 2013-82 Planning Director Klatt provided overview of the variance application and background. The proposal does not meet the buildable lot size requirement imposed by City Code. It was determined that 60% of one acre is 26,136 square feet (43,560 * 0.6). The site is 0.27 acres short. The proposal does meet all other code requirements. Washington County did determine that there is enough room for a suitable septic system even though it does not meet the City requirements. Staff limited its review to the immediate area and not the larger tri-lakes area. Council Member Smith asked if all the smaller lots that do not have lake access were used to arrive at the average. Mr. Klatt stated that staff used all the lots of the neighborhood. Ms. Smith does not believe that the smaller lots should be used to calculate the average. Mr. Klatt explained the required variance findings: 1) practical difficulties; 2) unique circumstances; 3) character of the locality; and 4) adjacent properties and traffic. It was explained that the state also requires two other findings: variance is in harmony with the general purpose, and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the comp plan. Staff received letters from neighbors opposed and the applicants and owners supporting the variance. Mr. Klatt explained that the Planning Commission found that the application did not meet three of the findings: 1) was not consistent with comp plan; 2) there are no unique circumstances; and 3) the variance would lead to a degradation of water quality. Planning Commission vote was 5-2 to deny the variance. Clarification was given on the adjacent vacant lots and the ability or inability to split the lots for building. Ms. Smith asked if the lot was buildable at the time of purchase. Whether it was buildable at the time of purchase was discussed; however, due to the amount of time that has passed and the lack of specific records, the original build-ability cannot be easily determined. Council Member Nelson asked how many houses were built in area since 1979. Mr. Klatt thought 2 had variances granted. Mr. Nelson asked to confirm that out of 64 lots, 3 would meet the 1.5 acres size. It was explained that staff could not determine exactly what rules were in place back in 1978. The 1979 Municipal Code was the first adoption of a City Zoning Code. It was explained that the previous rules are not really relevant because the City does have rules in place now that must be followed.