Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6 - Horning PC ReportPLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-08 ITEM: Horning Lot Size Variance – Krause’s Addition, Lot 9 SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Suzanne Horning (as Trustee of the Suzanne R.W. Horning Trust) for a variance that would classify Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo as a buildable lot. The lot currently does not meet the City’s minimum lot size for a lot of record in a RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant has also requested a variance from Section 154.017 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that any variance granted by the City “shall expire if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of the granting of the variance. The applicant has asked that the 12-month time limit be waived for this request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Briggs and Morgan (Christine Cirilli), 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN acting on behalf of: Suzanne Horning (Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North Property Owners: Suzanne and Robert Horning Trust, 8991 Jane Road North Location: Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo. PID Number 09.029.21.11.0015 Request: Variance – Lot Size and Time Limit for Completion Existing Land Use: Vacant parcel, prior recreation use (tennis courts) accessory to 8991 Jane Road North Existing Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Surrounding Land Use: Single family residential Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family Proposed Zoning: No Change History: Krause’s Addition was platted in 1963. The home at 8991 Jane Road North (across the street and also owned by the applicant) was constructed in 1979. The City granted a lot size variance for the subject property in 1985, but no home was ever PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 2 built on the site. A permit to install a tennis court on the subject property was approved later in 1985. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/3/14 60 Day Deadline – 4/3/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 6/3/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.450 – RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District 154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement) 150.250 – Shoreland Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. The application also includes a request for the City to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance. In this case, the applicant has requested that the variance be granted without a deadline so that a home could be built on the lot at an unspecified time in the future. The applicant is therefore not proposing to construct any buildings on the property, and is instead seeking a variance to classify the lot as a buildable parcel in advance of any specific building plans for the property. The lot under consideration is 0.785 acres (34,195 square feet) in size and the minimum lot size within the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district is 1.5 acres. As an existing lot of record, otherwise known as a lot that was platted prior to the City’s zoning regulations becoming effective, this property would be considered buildable if it met 60% of the district’s minimum lot size. The applicant would therefore need at least 0.9 acres (39,204 square feet) for this lot to be considered buildable under the current zoning regulations. The site is currently occupied by a tennis court that was built in the mid-1980’s, and has served as an accessory use to the home located at 8991 Jane Road North. Should the variance be approved, the applicant intends to convey the lot to her children as a buildable lot, although she has not provided any specific time frame for a home to be constructed. The application materials include a septic system analysis documenting that a system compliant with Washington County septic regulations may be constructed on the property. For the purposes of this report, the septic designer assumed that a new home would be built on the same area presently occupied by the tennis court. In addition to the above-referenced septic report, the applicant has provided a detailed project narrative with an analysis of the required variance findings. The applicant has also provided a detailed survey of the lot showing the existing topography, drainage patterns, tree cover, and improvements that are currently situated on the property. There are no specific site development plans, and any future construction on this property will need to comply with the City’s zoning and subdivision requirements (with the exception of minimum lot size should the variance be granted). BACKGROUND The lot that is the subject of the variance request is part of Krause’s Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, which was platted in 1963 when this area was still part of East Oakdale Township. The attached copy of the plat shows that the lot is the same size as it was when originally subdivided. It PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 3 likely would have been considered buildable up to the incorporation of the area into the City of Lake Elmo and the adoption of City zoning regulations in the late 1970’s. The home at 8991 Jane Road North was constructed in 1979, and it appears that this property (Lot 7) and the subject property (Lot 9) have been under common ownership since at least this time. In June of 1985, a previous owner applied for and was granted a variance by the City to grant Lot 9 status as a buildable lot. It appears that this action was taken in response to the City’s adoption of the 1.5-acre minimum lot size for single-family residential lots in this neighborhood. No home was ever constructed after the granting of the variance, and a tennis court was installed on the property later in 1985. As noted in the application materials, the present owner acquired the property sometime in 1985. It appears that the property transfer occurred after the construction of the tennis court. Additionally, the applicant has described that City assessed the subject property as a buildable lot in 1985 for a City project. Based on this information, it does appear that the City would have considered the lot to be a buildable lot at the time the property was purchased by the applicant. The applicant has also pointed out that the property has been assessed as a buildable lot the entire time that they have owned it. When the City was planning for the reconstruction of Jane Road North in 2012, the Planning Department was asked to review the assessment rolls for the project and to identify vacant, buildable parcels that would need to pay an assessment. Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition was not deemed buildable because it does not meet the 60% size requirement referenced above. Because the current Zoning Regulations include a one-year time limitation concerning the time frame for construction of projects subject to a variance, it is Staff’s opinion that the 60% requirement does apply in this situation. The applicant has therefore submitted a variance request in order to re-classify this property as a builable lot. The applicant’s parcel is situated at the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Jane Road North, and is approximately 230 feet north of Lake Jane. Other than a tennis court, there have been no other improvements constructed on the site. There is a fairly heavy amount of tree cover surrounding the tennis court around the periphery of the lot. All of the surrounding lots are occupied by single family residential homes. In general, the properties to the north and west are larger lots (1.5 acres), while the properties to the south and east are smaller lots (generally under 1 acre). In particular, there is a cluster of homes along the northern edge of Lake Jane than are very similar in size, and sometimes smaller, than the applicant’s parcel. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES In reviewing the applicable codes that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request: • RS District Setbacks. Any new construction on the lot will need to comply with all required setbacks for the RS District. The portion of the lot that abuts Jamaca Avenue North is considered the front property line, and is therefore subject to a slightly larger setback. • Driveway Access. Although the City Code does not include any restrictions on the location of a driveway on the property, Staff is recommending that any future driveway access Jane Road North instead of Jamaca Avenue North, since the latter is the less traveled roadway in adjacent to the lot. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 4 • Impervious Coverage. The RS District allows a maximum impervious coverage of 25% while the Shoreland Ordinance limits lot coverage to 15% or 6,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The tennis court currently occupies 7,395 square feet, which is 21.6% of the lot. At the time a new house is constructed on the property, the applicant will need to comply with the maximum impervious coverage allowed under the Shoreland Ordinance. • Shoreland Setbacks. The lot is far enough away from Lake Jane that any new structure will be able to comply with structure and septic system setbacks. • Drainage Area. There is an existing drainage area immediately to the west and to the northwest of the applicant’s lot, and it appears that a portion of the drainage area is also located on this lot. While the adjacent Sprinborn’s Green Acres plat includes a drainage easement over the adjacent lots, there is currently no such easement in place on the applicant’s property. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to provide a drainage easement over the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff as a condition of approval and prior to the issuance of any building permits for the property. • Septic and Drainfield Areas. The subject parcel is large enough to meet the City’s minimum requirement of 20,000 square feet for a primary and secondary septic system site. • Surrounding Lots. The neighboring lots within the public hearing notification area range in size from 11,424 square feet (0.26 acres) to 83,025 square feet (1.9 acres), and of these 13 lots, the average size is 41,592 square feet (0.95 acres). • Variance Expiration. The City Code specifies that variances are valid one year from the date a variance is issued. If construction has not taken place within one year, the variance becomes void. While the applicant has requested a full waiver of this requirement, Staff is recommending that the City maintain a specific deadline for construction of a home on the parcel. Staff is suggesting five years as a reasonable expectation. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Under this standard, the City would need to find that the classification of the subject parcel as a buildable lot is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. In this instance, the property was originally platted as a buildable lot and there is evidence in the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 5 City’s records that the current owner purchased the property with the understanding that it was a buildable lot. Additionally, the lot is consistent in size with other parcels platted at the same time and that have subsequently been built upon. The property has direct access to a platted and improved street, and a house can be placed on the property in manner consistent with the surrounding homes. Concerning the time extension associated with the variance request, Staff is recommending that a 5-year deadline is a reasonable expectation for construction of a new home. Proposed findings related to this criterion are as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed use is reasonable because the lot was platted as a buildable parcel and all other parcels of similar size have had houses constructed on them since the subdivision was approved. The property is very close to meeting the required 0.9 acre minimum lot size requirement, and construction of a home on this lot will not be any more obstructive than structures built on lots meeting the 0.9 acre requirement. The applicant also purchased the lot at the time is was a buildable parcel, and the continued use of the property for a tennis court is not reasonable given the separation of this parcel by road right-of-way from any others under common ownership. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to install a complaint septic system on the property. A five year deadline for construction of a home on the property is a reasonable period of time for this work to be completed. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification. In this case, the lot was platted as a buildable lot within an older subdivision. Other properties in the area were platted at a later date and under a different set regulations. The property owner also purchased the lot as a buildable lot, and the site has been assessed as such for the past 25 years. Again, Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant’s property is unique due to former platting of this property as a buildable lot and continued classification of the property as buildable since the lot was subdivided. The applicant purchased the property with the understanding that a house could someday be built on the property, and City records indicate that the lot was indeed buildable at the time of purchase. Other homes on neighboring smaller lots were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s zoning regulations. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. A formal set of findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: The applicant’s lot is larger than many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood and is close to the minimum size needed to be considered buildable. The lot is of sufficient size to allow the installation of a compliant septic system and to allow the placement of a home on the parcel consistent with neighboring structures. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Propose findings for this criterion are as follows: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 6 FINDINGS. No impacts above and beyond those considered normal for any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the variance be granted. Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and supporting documentation included with the application. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above and with conditions of approval related to the drainage area on the site, the location of the driveway access, and the time limit for the expiration of the variance. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will be reviewing these findings with the Commission at its meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The driveway for the future home of the lot shall access Jane Road North. Driveway access to Jamaca Avenue North shall be prohibited. 2) The applicant shall provide a drainage easement for the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff from the subject property and adjacent parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. The specific location of the drainage easement shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3) The variance shall be valid for a period of five years, but may be renewed upon review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. 4) A grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan shall be submitted in conjunction with a building permit for the property. 5) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Application and Project Narrative PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 7 3. Existing Site Conditions/Survey 4. Location Map 5. Krause’s Addition Plat 6. Septic System Report – Tom Trooien ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Scource: Washington County, MN2-26-2014 Location Map: 09.029.21.11.0015 KJamaca Ave NJane Rd N Variance Request09.029.21.11.0015 0 200 400100 Feet 1"=200'