Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 PC & CC Staff Reports & Mtg Minutes & Res 2014-22Applicant: Property. Owners: Location; Request: Existing Land Use: Existing Zoning; Surrounding Land Use: Surrounding Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: History: 1111-: (TIN \KE ELMO ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4B — PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-08 Homing Lot Size Variance — Krause's Addition, Lot 9 Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director 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 Briggs and Morgan (Christine Cirilli), 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 86 Street, Minneapolis, MN acting on behalf of: Suzanne Horning (Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North Suzanne and Robert Homing Trust, 8991 Jane Road North Lot 9 of Krause's Addition to Lake Elmo. P1D Number 09.029.21.11.0015 Variance — Lot Size and Time Limit for Completion Vacant parcel, prior recreation use (tennis courts) accessory to 8991 Jane Road North RS — Rural Single Family Single family residential RS — Rural Single Family Rural Single Family No Change 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/or Action: Applicable Regulations: Application Complete - 2/3/14 60 Day Deadline - 4/3/14 Extension Letter Mailed - No 120 Day Deadline - 6/3/14 154,450 - 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 ininimum lot size should the variance he 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 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 ofJane 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 Staffs 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 ofJamaca 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. Al] 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 ofJamaca 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. I ) 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 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 yet)) 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-wayfrotn 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 he 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: Thal 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 ofpurchase. 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 placetnent 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 normallor any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the variance he 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: ) 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 he approved by the City Engineer. 3) The variance shall he valid for a period of five years, hut may he renewed upon review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. 4) A grading, erosion control, arid 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 Staffrecommendation 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 Larson asked ifpeople from the greater Lake Elmo community can sign upfur programming. Johnson again deferred tothe applicants. Brian Larson, representing Family Means, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the discrepancy ufparking. Henoted that when using the [ity'snew required dimension of 9x18, they were able to site 108 parking stalls. Tom Yuska,the Family Means program director, talked about how most ofthe participants traveled tothe site, Henoted that Lake Elmo Elementary does route abus infront ofthe existing clubhouse. Yuskaalso shared that other participants are welcome beyond the Cimarron Park population, but that the program isfocused onthis population. Larson asked if the center planned on providing before school care. Yuska noted that they do not have the capacity to provide before -school care, Dodson asked how many students could be served by the facility. The program director noted that they likely serve 50-70 kids per day. Dodson asked what would happen to the building if the Public Hearing opened at7:28pmm. Noone spoke. The City received nowritten comments. Public Hearing closed at7.27prn Williams stated he supports the request. M/S/P: Larson/Kreimer, move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment submitted by Family Means to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square - foot youth center based upon the request meeting the City's 12 required findings for a CUP, Vote. 5-0, motion carried unanimously, Public Hearing: Variance '0IDJ921l2.0025(Lot g,Krouce'sAddition ot Jomocoond Jane Rood) Klatt started his presentation by explaining the request for a lot size variance. The code requires the lot size to be 0.9acres and the subject property |sO.705 acres, 0.12acnes short ofthe minimum. The applicant has also requested avariance from the 12'nnonth time limit for the commencement ofwork associated with the lot size variance, The applicant does not plan tobuild onthe lot within aone-year period oftime. L,ake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14 Klatt continued by providing background information about the parcel, starting with the location. The parcel is on the northwest corner of the intersection of Jane Road North and ]arnacoAvenue North. The parcel isjust north ufLake Jane. Hemoved onto present the site plan, describing the topography ofthe lot. K|att noted that the northwest portion of the lot collects drainage, and that ifthe Variance were granted, the City should require that a drainage easement be provided where the water collects. Klatt then described the general area, specifically noting the parcel sizes of the surrounding properties. Henoted that the properties that are located close twLake Jane are all smaller o,similar insize as the subject property. The properties tothe north of the subject parcel were platted at a later date, in terms of history, he noted that the subject property was granted avahance in 1985. The applicants purchased the property at this time, when the lot was likely considered buildable, However, variances are typically valid for eone year period oftime. It should be noted that according to current zoning rules, the lot is not considered buildable. In terms ofadditional info, K|attdescribed two road reconstruction projects, oneinthe8Os and one inZO12. |nthe 0Os the lot was assessed asbuildable. }n2O12,staff determined that the lot was not buildable. Klatt discussed the required findings related to a variance. He noted that Staff has provided draft findings (nthe Staff Report, K|attnoted that the lot isable tosite aseptic system that will meet Washington County approval. Towrap up, K|attnoted that Staff isrecommending approval ofthe variance with S conditions ofapproval: 1. Staff is recommending that the driveway for the future home be located on Jane Rd.N. Z. The applicant must provide drainage easements onthe site. 3. Staff is recommending that the Variance be valid for 5 years, as opposed to the indefinite approval that the applicant iorequesting. 4. The variance isconditioned upon the approval nfafuture building plans. S. The future building plans must meet the approval of Valley Branch Watershed Haggard asked why there iseone year valid time period for variances. She also asked iy the site will be able to be built upon with the condition that the driveway must be on Jane Rd. Nattnoted that the one year time period isstandard because ifthe variance were open ended, there could be a lot of changes of City policy in the long interim period between when the variance isgranted. Also, the site can change over the years. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14 Regarding the second questions, Klatt noted that the septic design that was submitted 10the City included oseptic system onthe eastern side ofthe site. Staff isconfident that ahome can bebuilt with the driveway access condition. Dodson asked what the risks might be related to the Valley Branch Watershed District approval. Klatt noted that the risks are not great, that meeting VBWD standards are a common part nfthe process. Staff isrecommending the condition sothat the applicants are aware that aV8VVDpermit i; likely. Dodson asked about the northwest corner of the lot, where water pools at this time. 0attnoted that the City does not have topographic information ofthe surrounding properties. However, when the building permit issubmitted, staff would work to ensure that the existing drainage condition is not exacerbated by the construction of the home. Kreimer asked if the property was assessed in 2012, Klatt noted that it was not. Williams Following uponKre|rne/searlier question, K/a11noted that ifthe variance were granted, the City may wish torevisit the 2U12assessment. Haggard noted that the assessment should betriggered assoon asthe variance would begranted. Larson asked about the impacts to adjacent properties. He asked if constructing the home would bnanimprovement tothe drainage situation. K|attstated that without a plan to review, it isdifficult to be sure. However, there will bean overall decrease in impervious surface. [hhsdneOhU[ representing the Horning Farniky, provided some background information onthe request. She noted that the applicants have been paying taxes and assessments for the lot from 198Sto2D13asabuildable lot. The status change tonon- buildable |nIOl2w/asosurprisetotheapp|icants' The representative ofthe family noted that the applicants understand that they have to comply with all of the other zoning and building requirements. They intend to build a home that is consistent with the character ofthe neighborhood. Public Hearing opened at 8:06pm. Greg Zeipelt, 4940 Jamaca Ave. N., noted that his property is directly north of the subject property. Henoted that hewas not aware ofthe plans topossibly build ahome onthe property. Heshared that heislived inthe neighborhood for 16years. When his Lake E1rnn Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24'14 family purchased their home, their realtor researched the subject property and determined that the subject property was not abuildable lot. Hecontinued bvtalking about the drainage issue, Henoted that since the road project |n2OlZ,thedrainogehas gotten worse inthe northwest corner ofthe site. Bill and Valerie Brass, 8930 Jane Road North, stated that they live to the immediate west ofthe subject property. She noted that she isconcerned about the precedent of allowing variances for additional homes in the neighborhood. She also noted that all of the smaller parcels inthe area are onthe lake, not tothe north ofJane Road. She finished upbystating her concern about the drainage issue. Bill added that they built their house in 1980, and the subject parcel was always the low spot in the area. He agreed that the drainage issue has gotten worse since the road project in 2012. Williams askedaquestion—theappUcantsenovvered Jason Brash, 9030 Jane Road North, noted that he just moved to Lake Elmo. He noted that they moved here for the open space and large lots. Hesuggested that itstay that Public Hearing closed at 8:18pm. Williams asked ifstaff were aware ofthe drainage issues. K|ottnoted that the City Engineer was aware thatPVVstaffhadvis|tedthesite. However, the Engineer did not note that any future action was pending. Dodson noted that heisconcerned about the drainage. However, henoted that the property owner does need tobeconsidered. Hefeels that the property owner has a right tmsell their property. It(sclear that they have been paying taxesontheproperty asabuildable lot. Dodson noted that heisinfavor ofthe variance and the 5'year dmeframe. Larson noted that due tothe drainage problem, it isnot yet determined ifahome can bebuilt onthat site. |tshould bethe responsibility ofthe City toensure that the land can drain properly toserve all ofthe properties. Williams asked ifcondition #2inthe staff report would address his concern. Kreimer noted that he does have some concerns related to the lack of a building plan. Haggard wanted toclarify that this requested action isnot olot split. Matt confirmed this fact. Haggard also noted that she isconcerned with the drainage. She would like the ultimate drainage situation hobeimproved. |naddition, she does have concern about runoff tothe lake. Also, she added that she would not like tosee additional variances in Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24'14 the future. Klatt noted that any future variance would have to go through the Planning Commission and Council, and staff is not anticipating any future requested variances. Williams noted that ingeneral hesupports granting the variance. However, hewould like t0offer additional ordifferent findings. Williams noted two proposed changes to the findings. He also recommended two additional conditions: Condition #6, The applicant Will submit a letter from Washington County that an approved septic system can belocated onthe site atthe time ofbuilding permit, Condition #7: The owner shall pay anassessment comparable toother properties inthe area related tothe Jane Road reconstruction project, Williams asked if everyone was agreeable to these changes. Everyone agreed. Larson asked if some additional information should be added to better addres's the drainage concern. Klatt suggested that some additional language could be added to state that the post home construction conditions not be worse than the existing condition related to the drainage area on the northwest corner ofthe site. Williams stated that the overall impervious coverage will be reduced. Klatt noted that is correct, but itishard tonote what the future condition will bewithout aplan. Williams asked if \twould behelpful toadd tocondition #2. K|attsuggested adding language tocondition #4 to state that the post -construction condition will not exacerbate the existing drainage situation, Haggard asked ifeveryone was agreeable tothe five year tinnefranne. Everyone agreed that the five-year timeframe is reasonable. Larson asked about the ability torequest anextension. Larson wanted itnoted inthe minutes that the request to extend the time period beyond 5 years should be legitimate and warranted, M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to approve the variance from the minimum lot area requirements for 5 years for 09,029,21,11.0015 based upon the findings of fact as amended by the Planning Commission with the conditions as amended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 5-0, motion carried unanimously. Haggard asked if the City issetting any precedent with the five-year dnneharne. K|at noted that each variance must beconsidered byits own merit. Public Hearing: Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Concept Plan — Launch Properties (PID: 09,[29.2l.2I.0015'Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard) Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-14 01' LAKE ELMO AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: AY0 & COU CIL CO UNICATION DATE: 4/1/14 REGULAR ITEM #6 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-021 Horning Lot Size Variance — Lot 9 of Krause's Addition Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Development Director Report/Presentation... ....... ............. ..... ..Community Development Director - Questions from Council to Staff. ..... ....................................... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ....... ............ ..... ............................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion .......... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion,. ............ Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission considered an application for a lot size variance at its March 24, 2014 meeting. The Commission is recommending approval with the draft findings and conditions of approval as specified in Resolution 2014-021. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A — if the parcel were considered a buildable lot, the City would have collected an assessment for the subject lot as part of a recent road project. The Planning Commission is recommending that the applicant pay a fee in lieu of this dedication at the time a building permit is issued for the site. SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council 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 -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 6] April 1, 2014 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. The suggested motions to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-21 approving a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements in a RS District and the maximum tine for which a variance is valid." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides an overview of the request and the draft findings that have since been slightly modified by the Planning Commission. The Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the variance at its March 24, 2014 meeting and received the following comments from neighboring property owners: Christine Cirilly, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has been paying property taxes on the property as a building lot since 1985. She noted that the applicant intends to build a home that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Greg Zeipelt, 4940 Jamaca Avenue North, stated that, prior to purchasing his house immediately to the north of the applicants lot, he had been informed this lot was not buildable. He discussed the existing drainage in the neighborhood, and pointed out that drainage has gotten worse since the 2012 road project. Bill and Valerie Brass, 8930 Jane Road North, expressed concern about setting a precedence for allowing building on other substandard lots in the neighborhood. They also expressed concern about drainage in the area, and noted that the eastern portion of their lot collects water that drains from the subject property. Jason Brash, 9030 Jane Road North, explained that he recently moved to Lake Elmo and chose it for the open space and large lots. He encouraged the Planning Commission to keep it this way. The Planning Commission generally discussed the drainage around the site; Staff responded that the City Engineer has been out to look at this area, but ultimately found that the water is draining to a low area in the neighborhood that has been previously designated as a ponding area. The Commission recommended the addition of two conditions of approval and asked that an existing condition be modified to require that any future construction on the site not exacerbate the existing drainage situation in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the variance request with the findings and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2014-021. This resolution includes the conditions as revised and recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting (Regular Agenda Item 6J April 1, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats The Planning Commission found that the applicant met the City's four variance criteria. The variance will allow the applicant to build on a lot that has previously been considered buildable by the City. The City will need to track this variance to ensure the five-year deadline is met. The variance will allow the current and past tax assessment for the property to match the classification as a buildable lot. The neighbors in attendance at the public hearing expressed concern over the existing drainage situation on the lot and the loss of open space in the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the 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 and to allow the variance to remain valid for longer than one year subject to conditions. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-21 approving a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements in a RS District and the maximum time for which a variance is valid." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-021 2. Planning Commission Staff Report — 3/24/14 3. Application and Project Narrative 4. Existing Site Conditions/Survey 5. Location Map 6. Krause's Addition Plat 7. Septic System Report -- Tom Trooien -- page 3 -- LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 1, 2014 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 3. 4. 5. Site Plan Review Ordinance; ORD. 08-105 Council Member Smith pulled Item 3 for discussion, Council Member Bloyer pulled Item 4 for discussion, MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. CouncilMember Nelson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 3: 2014 SEAL COAT PROTECT — APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE AD FOR BIDS Council Member Smith asked how the Seal Coat Project is going to be paid for. It was only budgeted for $160,000, Where does the additional $53,000 come from? Mayor Pearson noted that the Council agreed to spend more on roads, City Administrator Zuleger stated that due to the harsh winter conditions and further re -inspection of the road conditions, additional funds are needed. Council consensus is that if there is an item that is over what was budgeted, it should be noted so that Council is aware. City Administrator Zuleger suested that the item go back to the Finance Committee and be brought back * vo to Council on 4/15/14. Ms. Smith thanked the Finance Director and finance committee for catching these items. Mr. Zuleger noted that the staff policy is that if department is over annual budget, the item must be brought to the Finance Committee. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO POSTPONE ITEM UNTIL APRIL 15 SO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN REVIEW. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 4: FAMILY MEANS CUP City Administrator Zuleger and Community Development Director Klatt explained the CUP application. Family Means has outgrown its current space. The proposal would allow an additional 4,000 sq. ft. addition to its current space. Parking will continue to be adequate. Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST BY FAMILY MEANS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE CIMARRON MANUFACTURED HOME PARK. Couluil Member Smith seconded the motion. The Council was very supportive of Family Means and its work in the community. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 6: HORNING LOT SIZE VARIANCE: RES. NO. 2014-22 Council Member Bloyer recused himself from discussing this item. Council Member Bloyer left the room at 7:40PM. Council Member Bloyer returned at 7:47PM. Community Development Director Klatt provided an overview of the variance application. Reported concerns regarding drainage were noted. Staff recommends that easements for the drainage and ponding areas be reserved for the City. It was pointed out that in 1985 a previous variance was granted but has since e<pired. Staff believes that the application meets the City's variance criteria. The Planning Commission recommends approval with 7 conditions as identified in the resolution. Page 2 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 1, 2014 Council Member Smith asked what the amount was for the recent road assessment. Mr, Klatt said that the engineer said it was $2,900, Funds would go into the road fund. Ms, Smith asked how property taxes have been assessed as a buildable lot but the City does not consider it buildable, Mr. Klatt explained that the county's tax determination is different than the City zoning determination of what is buildable. It was explained that the assessment fee is to be paid at time of building permit Council Member Reeves asked about whether the grading should be required to "be improved" instead of "not exacerbate." Mr. Klatt stated that any reviewed building will in fact be an improvement. Ms, Smith noted that the footprint of the tennis court looks larger than many of the surrounding homes, Christine Cirilli, attorney for applicant, spoke on behalf of Suzanne Horning. She reiterated that when the owner purchased the lot, it was buildable, but that she recently learned in 2012 that the variance had expired. Applicant has thought that it was a buildable lot the entire time. Ms. Smith asked if there was a plan to sell or build within the year. Ms. Cirilli stated that the owner would like her estate to have flexibility in time to build or sell. Mayor Pearson asked that the record reflect that it is not the Cities responsibility to track the variance. Council Member Nelson asked if the conditions could terminate the variance if the property is transferred. Mr. Klatt reiterated that the applicant may want to sell the lot to another party who wants to build. Mr. Reeves asked what happens when it expires. Mr. Klatt stated that the applicant can re -apply at that time for an extension or another variance. Mayor Pearson noted that some of the conditions seem superfluous and redundant. It was agreed that several conditions would have to be met anyhow. Mayor Pearson asked about the driveway, Mr. Klatt stated that it is to keep the access on the road with less traffic. It was explained that that the property would have only been assessed on the road section that the driveway would have been on despite it being a corner lot. MOTION: Coma! Member Smith moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-22, APPROVING A VARLINCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN A RS DISTRICT AND THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS VALID. Connell Member Reeves seconded the motion. Council Member Nelson thinks it appropriate that the road fee be paid back to the other residents. Additionally, the fee should be paid up front, not at the time of building permit. Finance Director Bendel stated that if the fee is assessed, it can be assessed to the property taxes. Also, the refunds could be credited to the other properties as an assessment payment. Council Member Reeves asked about if perrnit expires, how would the assessment be addressed? Mr. Reeves is concerned about assessing now if something changes. The possibility of status changes to assessed properties was discussed, MOTION: Council Member _Nelson moved TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT IF FOUND TO BE PERMISSIBLE, THE ROAD ASSESSMENT FEE BE RETURNED TO OTHER RESIDENTS OTHERWISE TO THE CITY, AND THE FEE IS ASSESSED IMMEDL4TELY Countil Member ,SMith seconded the motion. When the fee should be assessed was further discussed. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 (Reeves — Nay, Bloyer abstaining). ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 (Bloyer abstaining). ITEM 7: LAUNCH PROPERTIES CUP CONCEPT PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT; RES. NO. 2014-23. ORD. 08-106 Page 3 of 5 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014-022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING 4 VARL4NCL FROM 1I-IE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN A RS DISTRICT AND FROM THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR WHICH A VARIANCE TS VALID WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Suzanne Horning (as Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North, (the "Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS — Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and to waive the one-year deadline fbr completion of the work proposed under the variance; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recomincndation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated April 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its April 1, 2014 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Valiance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.109 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variance includes the following components: Resolution 2014-029 a) A variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS — Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. The subject lot is 0.785 acres in size and the minimum required size to be buildable is 0.9 acres. h) A variance to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the valiance. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lot 9 of Krause's Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. PID 09.029.21.11.0015. 5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific findings: That the proposed use is reasonable because the lot was platted as a buildable parcel and all other parcels of s-imilar size have had houses constructed on them since the subdivision was approved. The property is very close to meeting the required 0.9 acre mininzum lot size requirement, and construction of a home on this lot not be any more obstructive than structures built 011 lots meeting the 0.9 acre requirement. The applicant also purchased the lot at the time it was a buildable parcel. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to install a complaint septic system on the property. A five year deadline for construction (fa home on the property is a reasonable period of time fOr this work to be completed. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Specific findings: That the applicant's property is unique due to former platting of this proper°, as a buildable lot and continued classification of the properly 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. 7) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: The applicant's lot is larger than several 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. 8) That 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. Specific findings: No impacts above crud beyond those considered normal for any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected .should the variance be granted. Resolution 2014-022 CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing„ the Applicant's application for a Variance is ilralited, subject to the following conditions: 1) The driveway for the future home of the lot shall access Jane Road North, Driveway access to Jamaca Avenue North shall he prohibited. 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 tbr the site. The specific locution 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. This plan shall not exacerbate any existing drainage issues and must be designed to mitigate any additional runoff from any future construction on the site, 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. 6) The applicant shall submit a letter from Washington County that an approved septic system can he located on the site prior to die issuance of a building permit for the site. 7) The owner shall pay a fee comparable to the assessments levied against other homes in the neighborhood for the 2012 Jane Road North road project. The City will investigate options for reimbursing other property owners that were assessed for the 2012 project to account for the additional buildable lot. Passed and duly adopted this 1'1 day of April 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Michael Pearson, Mayur ATTEST: A a Bell, City Clerk Resolution 2014-022