HomeMy WebLinkAbout#13 - CUP for 11459 60th St NPUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – ACTION ITEM
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 10/17/17
CONSENT ITEM#:
MOTION
TO: City Council FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM: Conditional Use Permit Request from the Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Structures Allowed within Rural Districts REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman, Planning Program Assistant
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from Richard, Eileen and Chad Bergmann for a conditional use permit to allow additional accessory buildings beyond those allowed in the Rural Residential zoning district for the property located at 11459 60th Street North (PID# 01.029.21.21.0005).
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Council is being asked to review the above mentioned request.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family detached residential home/Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use/
Zoning:
Surrounded by single family homes and guided for Rural Residential
History: The property has long been used as a single-family detached dwelling.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/30/2017 60 Day Deadline – 10/29/2017
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A 120 Day Deadline – N/A Applicable Regulations: Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Section 154.406 – Accessory Structures, Rural Districts
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
History. In 2006, the applicant was granted a variance which allowed an additional accessory structure than would be allowed by the Zoning Code at that time. The variance was subject to the condition that a minor subdivision be approved by Council. The minor subdivision was ultimately
not approved by Council, however, as the City Attorney at that time explained that the resultant parcel would be considered non-conforming, as it did not meet the minimum size standard of ten acres. It has been verified with the current City Attorney, however, that a lot line adjustment would
2
be appropriate in this case, as Section 153.09: Exceptions to Platting of the Municipal Code states the following:
(1) Each resultant parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel Consolidation Procedure approved by Washington County, equals or exceeds the minimum lot dimension requirements and public road frontage requirements for the
zoning district in which the property is located;
Lot Line Adjustment Request. Prior to application for a conditional use permit, the applicant had requested a lot line adjustment, which would increase the size of the subject property. The reason for the lot line adjustment request was to include an existing barn on the same parcel as the homestead. The barn and homestead are both served by the same well and electricity source. The original property was 60 acres, and was subdivided around 1970 to create 11459 60th St N or PID#
01.029.21.21.0005.For some reason, the subdivision caused the barn to be separate from the homestead. Later, additional acreage was subdivided from the original property (PID# 01.029.21.21.0007) and sold to the Sanctuary Development.
While a lot line adjustment can be processed administratively by Staff, a lot line adjustment must
result in two resultant parcels that are more conforming than would be prior to the lot line adjustment, and as explained below, the number and size of accessory structures that would exist on the resultant parcel exceeds the maximum amount allowed, adding a nonconformity. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow more accessory structures than permitted by
Code, thereby eliminating this nonconformity.
Size and Number Standards. Section 154.406 of the Zoning Code limits the number of accessory structures on properties within rural districts based on the size of a parcel. The proposed lot line adjustment will increase the parcel size to 6.66 acres. A parcel of such size is limited to two accessory structures with a maximum square footage of 2,000. The existing accessory structures on
the site total 2700 square feet.
Need for Conditional Use Permit. While, as previously mentioned, the applicant was previously granted a variance, the variance was conditioned on the minor subdivision being approved. Because the minor subdivision was not approved, and because the Zoning Code states that variances shall
expire if work does not commence (the work in this case being recording of the minor subdivision) within twelve (12) months of the date of granting such variance, the variance is no longer valid.
The Zoning Code has, since the time of the granted variance, been amended to allow additional accessory buildings beyond two total buildings in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning
districts with a conditional use permit, as long as the buildings are agricultural buildings by definition
or clearly serve an agricultural purpose in the judgment of the City. A barn would be considered an agricultural building, and so it is appropriate for a conditional use permit to be granted in this case.
Review by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). The proposed lot line adjustment was sent to MNDOT, which did not have any comment regarding the proposed
adjustment. It has been verified by our City Attorney that the City cannot require right-of-way with this application, as the proposed lot line adjustment is simply moving lot lines. Right-of-way can only be required with a proposed subdivision or platting process.
Recommended Findings. 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.
3
1) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
FINDINGS. The accessory structures already exist, and a lot line adjustment to include more than
the permitted number of accessory structures on one parcel will not affect any of the aforementioned.
2) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the property is guided
for Rural Area Development. The Comprehensive Plan proclaims that “existing operating
agricultural uses and qualifying alternative uses that preserve the open space within the community shall be supported. These uses shall be encouraged to continue operations and to retain large land holdings that contribute to the operating efficiency…the City shall affirmatively establish and pursue
specific strategies and seek resources to assist existing agricultural uses in remaining a viable
alternative to urbanization for landowners, consistent with the concept of a ‘right to farm.’”
3) The proposed use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
FINDINGS: The barn, homestead and additional accessory structures already exist, and so the
proposed use will in no way alter the property’s compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
4) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of this Chapter.
FINDING: There are no specific development standards for additional accessory structures listed in Article 7. The existing structures meet setback requirements.
5) If the proposed use is within a floodplain management or shoreland area, the proposed use
meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Section 154.800: Shoreland Management Overlay District of the Zoning Code and Chapter 152: Flood Plain Management of the Municipal Code.
FINDINGS: The property is not located within a floodplain management or shoreland area.
6) The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
FINDINGS: The barn and other additional accessory structures already exist and are compatible in
appearance with the existing character of the general vicinity.
7) The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance.
8) The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will be served adequately by the aforementioned.
9) The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements.
4
10) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not in any way be detrimental.
11) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not increase traffic.
12) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will allow an existing barn to be located on the same property as an existing homestead, thereby helping to preserve an existing feature.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
proposed CUP at its meeting on October 11, 2017. No one from the public spoke at the public hearing, and only one call was received regarding an easement that is located on the property. It was explained to the caller that no new buildings were being proposed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with a vote of 5-0.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The requested conditional use permit is not predicted to have any fiscal impact on the community.
OPTIONS:
The Council may:
• Grant the proposed conditional use permit subject to Staff conditions.
• Amend Staff-recommended conditions of approval and approve based on amended conditions of approval.
• Deny the conditional use permit, citing findings of fact for denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Council approve the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow an excess of the permitted two accessory structures and accessory structure size requirements in the Rural Residential zoning district for the property located at 11459 60th Street North, based on the following condition:
Conditions:
1) A lot line adjustment, based on the survey dated August 5, 2017 must be approved by Staff and recorded with the County, with proof of recording being provided to the City within 60 days of approval.
“Move to adopt Resolution 2017-__ approving the request from Richard, Eileen and Chad Bergmann for a conditional use permit to allow an excess of the permitted two accessory structures and accessory structure size requirements in the Rural Residential zoning district for the property located at 11459 60th Street North subject to recommended condition of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Conditional use permit application
5
2) Site Plan showing existing accessory structures 3) Resolution 2017-
Resolution 2017- 1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2017-116 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11459 60th STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Chad and Colleen Bergmann, 11459 60th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a Conditional Use Permit to allow additional accessory structures at the property located at 11459 60th Street North (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 October 11, 2017; 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 17, 2017, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its October 17, 2017 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 Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.106.
2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.106 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That Subd. B of Section 154.406: Accessory Structures, Rural Districts, provides that
additional accessory buildings may be considered in Agricultural and Rural Residential
zones via a conditional use permit. 4) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit is to allow additional accessory structures in a Rural Residential zoning district, at the property located at 11459 60th Street North.
Resolution 2017- 2
5) That the Conditional Use Permit amendment is granted for the property legally described
as follows and commonly known as 11459 60th Street North: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and all that part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described together as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter said Section 1; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 33 seconds West, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.17 feet to the northwest
corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, thence South 0 degrees 30 minutes 22 seconds East, along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1418.19 feet to the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 59 minutes 11 seconds East, along the south line
o said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 840.22 feet to the southwest corner of Outlot E, a distance of 675.77 feet; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 35 seconds East, along north boundary line of said outlot E, a distance of 36.73 feet; thence North 0 degrees 00 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 435.55 feet ot the intersection of the
southerly right of way line of Minnesota State Highway No. 36; thence North 89 degrees 45 minutes 35 seconds East along said southerly right of way line, a distance of 739.27 feet to a northwesterly corner of said Outlot E; thence North 0 degrees 19 minutes 54 seconds West along a west line of the Sanctuary of Lake Elmo to the north line of said West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds
West along said north line, a distance of 306.57 feet, to the point of beginning. Subject to easements of record. Orientation of this bearing system is based on the recorded plat of Sanctuary of Lake Elmo.
6) That the Applicant is not proposing to add any new accessory structures on the property beyond what already exists today.
7) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
The accessory structures already exist, and a lot line adjustment to include more than the permitted number of accessory structures on one parcel will not affect any of the aforementioned. 8) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the property is guided for Rural Area Development. The Comprehensive Plan proclaims that “existing operating agricultural uses and qualifying alternative uses that preserve the open space within the community shall be supported. These uses shall be encouraged to continue operations and
to retain large land holdings that contribute to the operating efficiency…the City shall
affirmatively establish and pursue specific strategies and seek resources to assist existing agricultural uses in remaining a viable alternative to urbanization for landowners, consistent with the concept of a ‘right to farm.’” 9) The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Resolution 2017- 3
The barn, homestead and additional accessory structures already exist, and so the proposed use will in no way alter the property’s compatibility with the existing
neighborhood. 10) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of this Chapter. There are no specific development standards for additional accessory structures listed in
Article 7. The existing structures meet setback requirements.
11) If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257 (Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management).
The property is not located within a floodplain management or shoreland area. 12) The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
The barn and other additional accessory structures already exist and are compatible in appearance with the existing character of the general vicinity. 13) The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures.
The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance. 14) The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed use will be served adequately by the aforementioned.
15) The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements. 16) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, Property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The proposed use will not in any way be detrimental.
17) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use will not increase traffic. 18) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance. The proposed use will allow an existing barn to be located on the same property as an existing homestead, thereby helping to preserve an existing feature. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Resolution 2017- 4
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
additional accessory structures beyond those allowed in the Rural Residential zoning district on the property located at 11459 60th Street North is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1) A lot line adjustment, based on the survey dated August 5, 2017 must be approved by Staff and recorded with the County, with proof of recording being provided to the City within 60 days of approval.
Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2017 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota. __________________________________ Michael Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk