HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 - Variance 3033 Inwood Ave. N.PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 2/23/15
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2015-09
ITEM: Accessory Building Variance – 3033 Inwood Ave N.
SUBMITTED BY: Casey Riley, City Planning Intern Nick Johnson, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
Washington County
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a request from Mike
and Ellen Frits, 3033 Inwood Avenue North, for a variance that would allow an accessory building
forward of the primary structure and within the 100-foot setback from the front property line required by the Residential Estates (RE) zoning district. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the variance request based on the findings listed in the Staff Report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Mike and Ellen Frits, 3033 Inwood Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Property Owners: Mike and Ellen Frits, 3033 Inwood Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Location: Part of Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, at the northeast corner of Stillwater Blvd. (CSAH 6) and Inwood Ave. (CSAH 13).
Address: 3033 Inwood Ave. N., Lake Elmo, MN, 55042. PID Number:
16.029.21.43.0010.
Request: Variance – Accessory Building Forward of the Primary Structure and within the Front Yard Setback.
Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential
Existing Zoning: RE – Residential Estates
Surrounding Land Use: Residential – Residential Estates and Low Density Residential
Surrounding Zoning: RE – Residential Estates and RS – Rural Single Family
Comprehensive Plan: Residential Estates
Proposed Zoning: No Change
History: The subject property was platted as part of the Eagle Point Creek Estates subdivision in 1995.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 1/31/15
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
2
60 Day Deadline – 4/1/15
Extension Letter Mailed – No
120 Day Deadline – 6/1/15
Applicable Regulations: 154.406 – Accessory Structures, Rural Districts 154.402 – Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements: Minimum
Accessory Building Setbacks
154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement)
REQUEST DETAILS
The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Mike and Ellen Frits for a variance from the
accessory structure location requirements in the RE – Residential Estates zoning district. The
proposal involves the construction of a detached garage for the purpose of storage of tools and yard
equipment. The applicants are requesting that the accessory structure be allowed forward of the primary structure and within the front yard setback required by Residential Estates (RE) zoning (100 feet).
The applicant has provided a written statement to the City indicating the reason for the placement of
the detached garage. The written statement includes a narrative addressing how the proposed
variance meets the 4 required findings to grant a variance under the City’s Zoning Code and State Statute.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a corner lot at the intersection of Inwood Ave. N. (CSAH 13) and Stillwater
Blvd. N. (CSAH 6). The attached location map (Attachment #1) highlights the location of the parcel.
The parcel is zoned RE and is 2.5 acres in size. The surrounding residential properties are zoned RE to the East and North and are generally larger than 2.5 acres in size. To the West, across Inwood Ave. N., the zoning is Rural Single Family (RS) with the lots less than one acre in size.
In terms of the physical characteristics of the property, the rear yard of the lot is subject to a BP
easement located in the eastern half of the property running northwest to southeast. In addition to the
BP easement, the applicants have noted that a slope is also present in the northeast corner of the lot. The south side of the property has a septic drain field, which presents another barrier or challenge to locating the accessory building. The attached site plans provide detailed information about the
specific elements of the property.
According to the written statements submitted by the applicants, the owners have made significant improvements to the land, including planting over 130 spruce trees, re-seeding over an acre of grass, removing road-frontage brush, and cleaning up and maintaining the ditch. The owners’ vision is to
“maintain the natural open space to the East and North of the house, and to one day have a wooded
property that is both functional and decorative throughout all 4 seasons.”
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES
In reviewing the applicable codes and planning considerations that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request:
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
3
• Residential Estates Zoning. The RE District allows single family detached dwellings on large lots which provide for an open-space environment that is consistent with the rural
character of Lake Elmo. The proposed location of the accessory structure is 35 feet from
Stillwater Blvd. N., and is screened by mature spruce and maple trees. Despite the fact that
the propose location of the accessory building does not meet the require setback, the established screening in the location proposed for the structure should help reduce the
visibility of the building from the public streets. Therefore, the structure would not
compromise the open space character promoted by RE zoning.
• Surrounding Lots. The surrounding lots are zoned Residential Estate (RE) and Rural Single
Family (RS). The principle structures West of Inwood Ave. N. (zoned RS) are located 35 feet from the front property line. The proposed accessory building at 3033 Inwood Ave. N. would be in keeping with this alignment. In the judgment of staff, the proposed location for the
accessory building would not be inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Visibility and Safety on CSAH 6 and CSAH 13. It should be note that the proposed
variance was reviewed by Washington County Public Works. The review comments can be found in an email in Attachment #3. The review of the County indicates that the appropriate amount of right-of-way is established for the adjacent roadway, and there is no concern over
the proposed location of the structure from a visibility standpoint.
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 placement of the proposed accessory
structure in the proposed location is a reasonable use of the property.
FINDINGS: The proposed use of the accessory structure is a reasonable use of the property. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed location is the most suitable location on the site. In addition, Staff has determined that the intent of the RE district is still being met and the local character not compromised. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
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.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
4
FINDINGS: The proposed location is reasonable because of the unique circumstances of the property not created by the landowner, which make locating the structure in other locations on the
property difficult and problematic. The property has a British Petroleum easement though the back
yard, running from the southeast corner of the lot diagonally through the back yard to the center of the north lot line. The back yard has a slope to the east of the BP easement that prohibits construction. In addition, the property has a septic drain field located between the house and the south property line, creating further difficulties in siting the structure in a location that meets the
required setback. Finally, the subject property is a corner lot on two County state aid highways
(CSAH 13 and CSAH 6), both of which are high-volume roadways. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed location is the most suitable location on the site. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
3) Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality
in which the property in question is located.
Propose findings for this criterion are as follows:
FINDINGS. The applicant has noted that the accessory structure will match the principal home
architecturally. In addition, the structure will be screened by mature spruce and maple trees, limiting
the impact to the open space character of the district. Regarding the surrounding residential properties, detached accessory structures are common to the neighborhood. The addition of this accessory structure is consistent with the intent of the RE district and would not alter the character of the locality. Staff determines that this criterion is met.
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:
FINDINGS. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the 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. The existing
driveway of the property will be utilized and the accessory structure will not influence traffic flow. In
addition, the proposed location of the accessory structure is not abutting any shared property lines.
Staff determines that this criterion is met.
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 that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Mike and
Ellen Frits, 3033 Inwood Ave. N., given that the request meets the four criteria for a variance. In
addition, Washington County has reviewed the variance request and approves of the accessory structure at the proposed location.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
5
The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows:
“Move to recommend approval of the variance request at 3033 Inwood Ave. N. to allow the
construction of an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure and within the 100 foot setback from the front property line based on the findings identified in the Staff Report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Packet and Project Narrative
3. Washington County Review Email
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner
- 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 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User CommunityLocation Map: 3033 Inwood Ave. N.
K
Stillwater Blvd. N.
0 200 400100 Feet
1"=200'Data Source: Washington County, MN2-18-2015
3033 Inwood Ave. N.Inwdood Ave. N.456713
45676
1
Nick Johnson
From:Joe Gustafson <Joe.Gustafson@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent:Friday, February 13, 2015 4:37 PM
To:Nick Johnson; Ann Pung-Terwedo
Cc:Kyle Klatt; Adam Bell
Subject:RE: Land Use Review - Accessory Building Variance
I don’t see any issue from our perspective for the foreseeable future.
Looks like we already have 75 feet of right‐of‐way from the CSAH 6 centerline, and they are not proposing to put the
structure in the right‐of‐way.
Joe
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Ann Pung‐Terwedo; Joe Gustafson
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Adam Bell
Subject: Land Use Review ‐ Accessory Building Variance
I mailed a hard copy to Ann’s attention, but I know she is out of town. Attached is the electronic.
Let me know if you have questions.
Take care,
Nick M. Johnson | City Planner
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
njohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:njohnson@lakeelmo.org>
(w) 651‐747‐3912 | (f) 651‐747‐3901
www.lakeelmo.org <http://www.lakeelmo.org>
1
Nick Johnson
From:Ann Pung-Terwedo <Ann.Pung-Terwedo@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent:Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:08 AM
To:Nick Johnson
Cc:Joe Gustafson
Subject:FW: Land Use Review - Accessory Building Variance
Nick,
I’m back. My only comment is that there should be no direct access to CSAH 6 from the property/ structure.
Although the county would not permit an access it is good to add to conditions of approval for the record.
See you,
Ann
From: Joe Gustafson
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:37 PM
To: 'Nick Johnson'; Ann Pung‐Terwedo
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Adam Bell
Subject: RE: Land Use Review ‐ Accessory Building Variance
I don’t see any issue from our perspective for the foreseeable future.
Looks like we already have 75 feet of right‐of‐way from the CSAH 6 centerline, and they are not proposing to put the
structure in the right‐of‐way.
Joe
From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Ann Pung‐Terwedo; Joe Gustafson
Cc: Kyle Klatt; Adam Bell
Subject: Land Use Review ‐ Accessory Building Variance
I mailed a hard copy to Ann’s attention, but I know she is out of town. Attached is the electronic.