HomeMy WebLinkAbout#19 - 8728 Demontreville Tr. VarianceSTAFF REPORT
DATE: 4/3/18
REGULAR #19
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests for 8728 DeMontreville Trl (Side Yard Setback)
REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUIRED:
The City has received a request from owner(s)/applicant Brooks Moening, of 8728 DeMontreville
Trl, to allow reconstruction and expansion of an existing detached garage. The home was
constructed in 1972 and garage the garage in 1974. The owner is in need of a variance because
Article VI Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings and Structures indicates that all additions or expansions
to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet all requirements of the
Zoning Code unless a variance is granted. The current structure is 7.3 feet away from the side yard
lot line when it should be 10 feet to comply with today’s code.
The City Council is being asked to hold a public hearing, review and make recommendation on the
above mentioned requests.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Legal SUBDIVISIONNAME BERGMANN ADD LOT 5 BLOCK 2
SUBDIVISIONCD 37085
PID# 04.029.21.12.0017
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family detached residential home/detached garage guided
for RR - Rural Residential Family / Rural Area Development.
Surrounding Land Use/
Zoning:
Surrounded by single family homes and guided for Rural Single
(RS) to the south and Rural Residential (RR) to the north.
History: Further information relating to the properties subdivision or
zoning could not be found. However, it is known that the building
permit for the home was issued in 1972 and the building permit for
the garage was issued in 1974. The principal use for the property
has been a single family dwelling, and is made up of .44 acres.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/23/2018
60 Day Deadline – 4/24/2018
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: • Article VI – Non-conforming uses, buildings and
structures
• Article XI – Rural districts
• Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
REQUEST DETAILS
The applicant is requesting to remove and reconstruct the existing garage on the property. The
following information provides a more detailed explanation of the proposal. In summary, the
2
existing garage does not meet the required setbacks for the RR zoning district of 10’. Buildings
or structures lawfully existed prior to current zoning standards are not be altered or improved
beyond normal maintenance, except that any lawful dimensional substandard residential building,
accessory building, or structure may be altered or improved if the existing substandard dimension
relates only to setback requirements and does not exceed the 10% of the minimum setback
requirements. The applicant is proposing to re-build the garage entirely and expand the garage
length, which goes beyond normal maintenance. Additionally, the garage requires a variance of 2.7
feet (required 10 foot setback – proposed 7.3 foot setback), which exceeds 10% of the minimum
setback requirement.
Article XI: Rural Residential
RR
Maximum Impervious Coverage -
Minimum Accessory Building Setbacks (feet)
Front Yard 30
Interior Side Yard 10
Corner Side Yard g 25
Rear Yard 40
Reason for Variance Requests. The variance request is due to the lot width of the property; the lot
being established prior to current zoning criteria; and construction of the garage prior to current
zoning standards. The parcel is 100.13 feet in width, which is much narrower than the required lot
width of 300 feet within the Rural Residential zoning district. Had the home and garage been
constructed with the current standards in mind, it is likely the garage would not have been built to be
non-conforming. The garage is located between the northern property line and the home and is 32
inches from the home’s concrete steps, so there isn’t space to move the new garage location further
from the northern property line. The larger garage is desired for additional storage space and to allow
the applicant to resume with woodworking as a hobby. Additionally, the current garage is bowed and
sagging, and studs are rotted as a result of being built directly on the concrete slab and not elevated
on block. The stucco is crumbling and breaking away from the wall board.
Size and Number. The maximum allowed size and number for accessory structures within rural
district is one 1,200 square foot structure for lots under 1 acre in size. The proposed garage is 1200
square feet in size and is the only accessory structure on the property, and so this requirement is met.
Maximum Impervious Surface. The subject property is unique in that it is zoned RR. Normally
properties which are zoned RR should have a minimum lot size of 10 acres. There is no record as to
why this property was allowed to be divided down past the 10 acre minimum to .44 acres except for
that the lot was likely created prior to current standards. Older zoning maps were reviewed and it
had shown the parcel being zoned RR as well. There is no impervious surface requirements for lots
zoned RR, and so this standard does not apply.
3
Accessory Structure Standards. Below is an analysis of how the proposed garage meets required
accessory structure standards.
C. Structure Height, Rural Districts. No accessory building shall exceed twenty-two (22)
feet in height or the height of the principal structure, with the exception of buildings that
are intended for a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City. Building
projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not
exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height are permitted in rural districts.
• Staff Comment: The applicant has stated that the home is 15 feet 10 inches in height and the
garage is to be 15 feet in height. As the code is currently written this is allowed and under
normal circumstances would be considered a conforming height. This standard is met.
D. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached garages or other accessory buildings
shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot.
• Staff Comment: The garage will not be built any closer to the front lot line than it is now,
the expansion will go off the back of the structure. The garage is 60.3 feet off the front
property line and the home is 49.9 feet off the front line. This standard is met.
E. Exterior Design and Color. The exterior building materials, design and color of all
accessory building or structures shall be similar to or compatible with the principal
building, with the exception of the following accessory building or structures:
• Staff Comment: The garage design and color scheme will need to follow what is
expressed above. Plans have not been submitted, condition of approval.
F. Openings and Doors. Garage doors and other openings shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet
in height for all accessory structures, with the exception of buildings that are intended for
a farming or other agricultural use in the judgment of the City.
• Staff Comment: The door height/design will need to follow what is expressed above.
Plans have not been submitted, condition of approval.
4
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.
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.
FINDINGS: The property had been platted and built on prior to the establishment of the current
zoning code. Because of this the parcel is significantly smaller than others of its kind. Though the
garage is currently non-conforming, this appears to be a reasonable request as everything besides
the side yard setback would be conforming to current code. Staff believes this standard is met.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: The property was platted prior to current zoning standards and does not meet the
current minimum lot width requirements, which makes it difficult to fit a detached garage on the
property meeting required side yard setback requirements. The existing garage was built prior to
current zoning standards and does not meet minimum setback requirements, and the Applicant would
like to re-build and expand the length of the existing garage in the same location. Staff believes this
standard 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.
FINDINGS: The property is wooded on all sides. Also there are other residencies in the area
which have attached or detached garages with some lots also having accessory structures. There is
a heavy woodline on the northern property edge and the nearest dwelling unit to the north is over
4oo ft away. From an aerial perspective it would not seem reasonable to think anyone could
perceivably notice that the garage had been rebuilt and expanded off the rear. Staff believes this
standard is met.
5
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to properties 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.
FINDINGS: A variance from the required side yard setback to expand the structure will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Congestion of public streets or
diminishment or impairment of property values will also not be affected. Staff believes this standard
is met.
Results of Planning Commission and Public Hearing
The planning commission held a public hearing on the night of March 26th, 2018. There were no
written comments submitted to staff and no one spoke on the request beyond the applicant. One
commission member stated that they felt the property to the north would not be easy to develop due
to the wetlands, this further supported the idea that this request would not impose a burden/nuisance
to future neighbor(s). Also future lots would need to conform to the zoning code (size and width)
and buildings would need to meet the zoning code setback requirements.
The variance passed with no amendments 6-0. The Planning Commission as well as staff is
recommending approval of the proposed variance request based on the findings noted in 1, 2, 3, and
4 with the following conditions.
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City
building permit including a grading and erosion control, and by the City Engineer.
2. The structure complies with section 154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts Sub.
(C,D,E, and F)
3. The exterior building materials, design and color shall be compatible with the principal
building.
4. The garage door height not exceed fourteen (14) feet.
6
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact to the City.
OPTIONS:
The City Council may:
• Recommend approval of the proposed variance, subject to recommended findings and
conditions of approval.
• Amend recommended findings and conditions of approval and recommend approval of the
variances, subject to amended findings and conditions of approval.
• Move to recommend denial of all variances, citing findings for denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Brooks
Moening for the requested variances:
“Move to adopt resolution 2018-038 approving the request from Brooks Moening for variances
from the following standard; minimum side yard setback, subject to recommended findings and
conditions of approval identified in the staff report.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Variance Application and narrative
2) Survey
3) Resolution 2018-038
651-747-3900
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Date Received:___________________
Received By: ____________________
Permit #:________________________
LAND USE APPLICATION
Comprehensive Plan Zoning District Amend Zoning Text Amend Variance*(see below)Zoning Appeal
Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.)Flood Plain C.U.P.Interim Use Permit (I.U.P.)Excavating/Grading
Lot Line Adjustment Minor Subdivision Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan
PUD Concept Plan PUD Preliminary Plan PUD Final Plan Wireless Communications
Applicant: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone # _______________________________________
Email Address:___________________________________
Fee Owner: ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone # _______________________________________
Email Address:___________________________________
Property Location (Address):______________________________________________________________________________
(Complete (long) Legal Description: ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
PID#: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Detailed Reason for Request: _____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Variance Requests: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the applicant must demonstrate
practical difficulties before a variance can be granted. The practical difficulties related to this application are as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning
ordinance and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application
procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expense.
Signature of applicant:_______________________________________Date:_________________________________________
Signature of fee owner:______________________________________Date:_________________________________________
A. Current Property Owner: Brooks Moening
B. Site Data
a. Legal Description: Bergman Addition Lot 5, Block 2
b. Parcel Number: 04.029.21.12.0017
c. Parcel Size: 0.437 acres, 19,036 sq. ft.
d. Existing Use of Land: Residential
e. Current Zoning: RR
C. Section 154.402 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements – Setback Requirements,
Minimum Accessory Building Setbacks, Interior Side Yard
D. This proposal is to seek a variance from the Interior Side Yard setback requirement of 10 feet.
The current garage is currently 7.3 feet from the north side property line and is in a state of
disrepair. I would like to tear down the existing garage and rebuild on the existing concrete slab,
but expand the footprint of the garage further to the west, maintaining the existing set-back of
7.3 feet. The current garage footprint is 24’ x 30’ (720 square feet), and the proposed garage
footprint would be 24’ x 50’ (1200 square feet).
E. Discussions were held between Ben Prchal and Brooks Moening regarding the proposed project
and applicable city requirements. Based on existing situation and property limitations, decision
was made to move forward to request a variance.
F. The strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of the lot size
and locations of existing buildings relative to property lines. The current garage is located
between the northern property line and the home. It is offset 7.3’ from the property line and
32” from the home’s side concrete steps, so there isn’t space to move the new garage location
further from the northern property line. A larger garage is desired for additional storage space
and to allow me to resume my woodworking hobby. My home is under 2000 square feet and
75% of my basement is crawl space, which limits functional area and storage inside the home
G. The plight of the landowner is due to how and where the home and garage were built prior to
my purchase of the property, as well as the limitations due to the width of the lot. The current
condition of the garage is due to how the garage was originally built; roof is bowed and sagging
due to the use of non-engineered trusses and the wall board and studs are rotting as a result of
being built directly on the concrete slab and not elevated on block. As a result, the stucco is
crumbling and breaking away from the wall board and creating both an eyesore and intrusion
issues.
H. Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood for several
reasons. One, expanding the garage size would not change the current setback from the existing
garage, only extending an existing setback. In addition, the nearest building to the north of the
garage is over 450 feet away, separated by heavy woods, so it would have no impact on a
neighboring property. Finally, given the heavily wooded nature of surrounding properties in
sparsely populated neighborhood, the expansion of the garage would be difficult to notice from
the roadside and largely unseen from all adjacent neighbor’s homes.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2018-038
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE NOT MEETING SIDE YARD SETBACK OF THE CITY’S
ACCESSORY STURCTURE REQUIREMENTS AT 8728 DEMONTREVILLE TRL N.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Brooks Moening, 8728 DeMontreville Trl N, Lake Elmo MN 55042
(Applicant/Owner), has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for
variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure not meeting the minimum side yard setback
requirement for accessory structures. The proposed addition does not encroach further into the side yard. The
garage will not exceed the maximum allowed size for the property which is 1,200 square feet.
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 26, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 26, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its April 3, 2018 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 requirement s of said Section 154.109 have been met by
the Applicant.
3) That the proposed variance includes the following components:
a) A variance to allow for the expansion and renovation of a currently existing
accessory structure which does not meet the minimum side yard lot line setback.
4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: SUBDIVISIONNAME BERGMANN ADD LOT 5 BLOCK 2 SUBDIVISIONCD 37085, 8980 Hudson Boulevard North, Washington County, Minnesota with the following PID: 04.029.21.12.0017.
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 Finding: The property had been platted and built on prior to
the establishment of the current zoning code. Because of this the parcel is significantly
smaller than others of its kind. Though the garage is currently non-conforming, this
appears to be a reasonable request as everything besides the side yard setback would be
conforming to current code.
6) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner. Specific Findings: The property was platted prior to current zoning standards
and does not meet the current minimum lot width requirements, which makes it difficult to
fit a detached garage on the property meeting required side yard setback requirements. The
existing garage was built prior to current zoning standards and does not meet minimum
setback requirements, and the Applicant would like to re-build and expand the length of
the existing garage in the same location.
7) The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the
property in question is located. Specific Findings: The property is wooded on all sides.
Also there are other residencies in the area which have attached or detached garages with
some lots also having accessory structures. There is a heavy woodline on the northern
property edge and the nearest dwelling unit to the north is over 4oo ft away. From an
aerial perspective it would not seem reasonable to think anyone could perceivably notice
that the garage had been rebuilt and expanded off the rear.
8) 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: A variance from the required side yard setback to expand the structure will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. Congestion of public
streets or diminishment or impairment of property values will also not be affected.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the
following conditions.
1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building
permit including a grading and erosion control, and by the City Engineer.
2. The structure complies with section 154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts Sub.
(C,D,E, and F)
3. The exterior building materials, design and color shall be compatible with the principal
building.
4. The garage door height not exceed fourteen (14) feet.
Passed and duly adopted this 3 rd day of April, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk