HomeMy WebLinkAbout#8 Horning Variance 10042016MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 10/4/2016
CONSENT
ITEM #: 8
AGENDA ITEM: Horning Lot Size Variance – Krause’s Addition, Lot 9
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The subject property, located near the intersection of Jane Road and Jamaca Avenue, was granted a
variance from the minimum lot size requirements by Resolution 2014-22 in April of 2014. This
Resolution also granted a variance from Section 154.017 of the Zoning Code, 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.” Rather than 12 months, the Council approved variance expires if
work does not commence within five years of the date of the granting of the variance.. The applicant,
Suzanne Horning, has requested the variance be granted in perpetuity as she wishes to convey the
property to her children as an inheritance, but keep the property as open space until then.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The Council is respectfully requested to consider, as part of tonight’s consent agenda, the request for
a variance for the subject property from the minimum lot size requirements and time period for
which a variance is valid.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Requirements:
The property is located in the RS – Rural Single Family zoning district, which requires a
minimum lot size of 1.5 acres.
Section 154.080 of the Zoning Code states that an existing lot of record may be used for single-
family detached dwelling purposes, provided the area and lot width are within 60% of the
minimum requirements of the Code.
Therefore, in order for a an existing lot of record of record to be used for single-family detached
dwelling purposes in the RS zoning district, such a lot must be at least 0.9 acres.
The subject lot is 0.785 acres, which is smaller by 0.115 acres than minimum requirements for it
to be used for a single-family detached dwelling purposes. The subject lot meets the lot width
requirements.
Subject Property:
City Council Meeting 10/4/2016 Regular Agenda Item #8
2
The lot was platted in 1963 as part of Krause’s Addition.
The subject property, along with 8991 Jane Road (across the street, occupied by the applicant),
has been under common ownership since 1979. The applicant bought the subject property when it
was considered a buildable lot; has been under the impression since this time it was a buildable
lot; and has paid taxes for a buildable lot for more than 25 years.
The property has been granted two variances – one in 1985 and one in 2014.
The subject lot is currently used as open space/recreation with a tennis court. No home has ever
been constructed on this property.
The most recent variance was granted for a period of five years, after which it expires, as it was
believed that five years was a “reasonable” time period within which construction could
commence.
The variance will expire in about two and a half years. The applicant would like to continue using
the property as open space/recreation until conveying it to her children as an inheritance. In the
mean time, she does not want to have to continually renew the variance nor does she want her
children go through the process in the future until they decide to build. As such, the applicant has
requested the variance be granted in perpetuity.
Planning and Zoning Issues:
The City Attorney has verified that a variance may be granted in perpetuity because variances, by
nature, run with the land.
A variance cannot be amended, so a new variance, by a new Resolution, must be granted in order
to be valid.
There are no plans to develop the lot, therefore, it may be reasonable to waive the requirement of
continual re-application unless a change is made that would rezone, re-guide, or put forth more
restrictive regulations in the zoning district in which this property is located.
Any construction on the lot will need to comply with setbacks, impervious surface restrictions,
and shoreland district requirements.
A drainage easement should be provided, as approved by the Engineer, to protect drainage areas
in the west and northwest area of the lot which will inhibit construction. Staff has met with the
applicant to ensure there is an understanding of requirements that will need to be met before
construction may begin.
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, depending on home design and location. The
applicant has provided a septic system analysis documenting that a system compliant with
Washington County regulations may be constructed on the property.
Surrounding, riparian lots are similar in size to the subject parcel, ranging from 0.26 acres to 1.9
acres. Each lot within 1000 feet have homes built upon them.
The applicant would like to use the property as open space until conveying the property to her
children who may construct a single-family dwelling in the future. The Rural Single Family
zoning district permits both of these uses.
Staff has found that there are approximately 190 vacant, existing lots of record that do meet
minimum requirements to be used as single-family detached dwellings. Only 9% of these lots are
more than 0.7 acres in size.
City Council Meeting 10/4/2016 Regular Agenda Item #8
3
Required Findings:
The attached resolution details recommended findings.
Conditions:
The conditions of the previously granted variance mostly pertain to requirements for obtaining a
building permit. These conditions have all been added to the proposed new Resolution approving
the subject variance. The new Resolution deems the variance valid into perpetuity unless there are
changes to the subject property’s guided use or zoning. The last condition listed still needs to be
verified by the Finance Director, as it has not yet been determined if there are unpaid 2012 Jane
Road project assessments. The recommended conditions of approval are detailed in the attached
Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed variance is not expected to create significant fiscal impact . The site has been assessed as a
buildable lot for over 25 years.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was held on the proposed variance at the September 12, 2016 Planning Commission
meeting. The meeting minutes are attached to this report. At the meeting, the applicant’s son and daughter
spoke on behalf of the applicant. Nobody from the public spoke during the public hearing, however, staff
received one comment prior to the meeting from a resident concerned that the variance will set a
precedent allowing other smaller lots to become buildable. The Planning Commission recommended
approval ( 7-0) with one added condition.
OPTIONS:
The Council may:
Approve the variance request.
Deny the variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests that the Council approve, as recommended by the Planning Commission and as
part of tonight’s consent agenda, the request made by Suzanne Horning for a variance from the City’s
minimum lot size requirements and time period within which construction must commence after a
variance is granted, subject to conditions of approval. If removed from the consent agenda, the approval
may be made with the motion:
“Move to approve Resolution 2016-84 approving 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 for Lot 9, Krause’s Addition, subject to the
conditions of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Meeting 10/4/2016 Regular Agenda Item #8
4
Resolution 2016-84
Variance application and materials
Planning Commission meeting minutes (9/12/16)
2014 Variance Request Materials and City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Resolution 2016-84 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-84
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RURAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AND FROM THE
MAXIMUM TIME FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS 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, 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 of the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and to waive the one-
year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance for the property described
as Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.102; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter
on September 12, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated October 4, 2016,
2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its October 4, 2016 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 Variance 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.
Resolution 2016-84 2
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
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.
b) A variance to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed
under the variance.
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: The lot is very close to meeting minimum size
requirements for an existing lot to be used as a single-family detached dwelling. It is
0.785 acres, only 0.115 acres short of the minimum required 0.9 acres. The lot was
originally platted as, and was bought at a time during which it was, of a buildable lot
size. To deem that it is now of an unbuildable lot size, and requiring that a variance be
renewed every certain number of years unless construction begins, causes difficulty for
the Applicant. The Applicant would like to use the Property as open space now and
convey the Property to her children in the future, as inheritance, to eventually be used
for a single-family dwelling in the future. The Rural Single Family zoning district
permits both of these uses. Placing a time period for which the variance is valid would
incent the Applicant to sell or construct on the lot much sooner than is so desired, as
continual renewal of the variance is not guaranteed. The Property is separated by road
right-of-way and is not adjacent to others under common ownership, so it is not
practical for the owner to be expected to use it as open space indefinitely. The variance
request is a variance from minimum lot size requirements; all other requirements and
standards will need to be met before a building permit will be issued.
6) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. Specific findings: The Applicant’s Property is unique due to
former platting and continued classification of the Property as a buildable lot, up until
the City adopted new zoning regulations. The Applicant purchased the Property with
the understanding that a house could someday be built on the Property; City records
have been verified and indicate this to be true. Other homes on neighboring smaller
lots were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s zoning regulations and
therefore are legal non-confirming uses.
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 riparian lots in the surrounding neighborhood and is close to the minimum size
needed to be considered buildable. All other surrounding lots within 1000 feet have
Resolution 2016-84 3
houses on them. Therefore, constructing a house on this lot would not alter the
essential character of the locality in which the Property is located. It should also be
noted that because the variance will expire within about two and a half years, a house
would need to be built on the lot sooner than if a variance from the time requirements
to build was granted. Allowing the variance to be granted in perpetuity, with the
outlined conditions would allow adjacent Property owners more time to enjoy the open
space the lot provides.
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 and beyond those considered normal for any other
single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the
variance be granted. Granting the variance in perpetuity with conditions would protect
the subject Property’s value for the future while allowing neighbors to enjoy the open
space in the interim. Additionally, granting the variance in perpetuity with conditions
will better inform future potential buyers that the lot is potentially buildable. They will
not be surprised when/if a variance is granted from the minimum lot size standards in
the future.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, 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 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 before a building permit is issued
for the site. The specific location of the drainage easement shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
3) The variance shall be valid until any one of the following events occurs, whichever occurs
first: the Property’s Planned Land Use changes in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; the
Property is rezoned; any changes are made to the City’s zoning regulations for the RS – Rural
Single Family zoning district that would make the lot m ore non-conforming including but not
limited to an increase in minimum lot size requirements; or an increase in minimum lot width
requirements.
4) A grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan shall be submitted in
conjunction with a building permit for the Property and approved by the City Engineer.
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 be located on the site prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site.
7) The Applicant shall submit a Right of Entry Agreement to the City so that it may access the
Property for repairs to the drainage pipe on the Property if need be.
Resolution 2016-84 4
8) All other City, zoning, and development regulations must be satisfied before a building
permit is issued.
9) The owner shall pay a fee comparable to the assessments levied against other homes in the
neighborhood for the 2012 Jane Road North project if the City finds that this has not yet been
done.
Passed and duly adopted this 4th day of October, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Michael Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Data Scource: Washington County, MN
2-26-2014
Location Map: 09.029.21.11.0015
K
Ja
m
a
c
a
A
v
e
N
Jane Rd N
Variance Request
09.029.21.11.0015
0200400100 Feet
1"=200'
0
0
0
4.21
3.58
3.24
2.95
4.28
1.9
2.51
2.38
2.36
2.03
2.02
1.5
1.5
1.97
1.96
1.4
1.72
1.68
1.68
1.5
1.66
1.62
1.59
1.54
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.48
1.45
1.43
1.431.34
3.12
1.23
1
.
2
1
1.17 1.16
1.14
1.12
2
.
3
5
1.17
1.12
0.93 0.93
0 .7 8
0.75
0.76
0 .8 6
0.75
0.71
1 .1 7
1.55
0.5
0.67
0.5
0.61
1
.
5
5
0
.
4
8
0.38
0.36
0
.
3
2
Parcel 0902921110015