HomeMy WebLinkAbout#31 - Variance Request for 2038 Inwood Ave STAFF REPORT
DATE: 12/17/2019
REGULAR
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Request to Allow Expansion of A Non-Conforming Structure
REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a variance application from Vance and Haupheng Vang of 2038 Inwood Ave. to allow an
expansion of a legal non-conforming structure. The applicants would like to construct an addition onto the existing
home that is on the property. The proposed addition would conflict with the required front and side yard setback(s).
With the home being legal non-conforming, the proposed improvements from a dimensional standpoint would more
than likely trigger the need for a variance.
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council is being asked to approve or deny the variance requests.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Vance and Haupheng Vang
Property Owners: Haupheng Vang
Location: 2038 Inwood Ave. PID# 21.029.21.34.0013, Subdivision name Torre Pines 2nd
Addition Block 1 Lot 3
Request: Variance for Expansion of a Non-Conforming Structure for Front and Side
Yard Setbacks
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Residential Dwelling
Surrounding Land
Use:
Surrounded by other single-family detached residential dwellings. Lake Elmo
Park Reserve is to the East of the property.
Existing Zoning: RE – Residential Estate
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family
History: This property holds an old home that currently does not meet the front yard
setback. The Torre Pines development established around the home.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 10-15-2019
60 Day Deadline – 1-1-2020
Extension Letter Mailed – Yes
120 Day Deadline – 1-1-2020
Applicable
Regulations:
Article V – Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XI – Rural Districts
Request Details. The applicant is proposing to build an addition off the north side of the existing structure. At this
point the existing setback from the side lot line (north line) is 64 ft. 6 inches. and the setback from the front lot line is 50
ft. 9 inches. There is no issue with the side setback as a 50 ft. side yard setback is required but the front yard setback
falls short by 50 ft. (100 ft. required). The applicant would like to invest and improve the property so that it will become
more accommodating for the family’s needs. There is language in the Zoning Code that would allow certain
improvements without the need for a variance. However, the language is not flexible enough to assist with obtaining
the addition. (See Code Reference Below)
Page 2
154.151 Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings and Structures
C. Preservation of Dimensionally Substandard Buildings or Structures. Except as provided in this chapter,
buildings structures lawfully existing on the effective date of this chapter or on the effective date of any
amendment to this chapter may be maintained although the building or structure does not conform to the
dimensional standards of this chapter. However, any such building or structure shall 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. Additionally, the alteration or
improvement shall conform to all of the provisions of this chapter and shall not increase the existing substandard
dimensions.
The Applicant is seeking variances on the following items
Structure Setbacks:
There is language in place that would allow the home to be
altered. However, the code only allows for construction if
the setback is 10% or less of the existing requirements. The
current side yard setback is conforming but the proposed
addition will conflict with the required 50 ft. side yard
setback and 100 ft. front yard setback becomes difficult to
comply with.
Example:
For discussion purposes if the addition was
placed on the home where a variance would not
be required from the front yard setback Staff
believes that the home/addition would not be
functional (see image below). Staff created a layout
that would not conflict with the front yard
setback which ends up placing the addition
behind the existing garage (not to scale).
Furthermore, shifting the addition to a position
on the home where neither the front nor the side
lot line setbacks would violated then appears to
directly interfere with the access to the garage,
driveway, and possibly the drain field.
Code Location Code Setbacks Proposed Setbacks
Front yard setback (garage) 154.402 table 9-2 100 ft. 50 ft. 9 in. not compliant
Side yard setback (garage) 154.402 table 9-2 50 ft. 27 ft. 11. not compliant
+/- 100 ft.
Garage
Addition
EXAMPLE
Page 3
LOT DETAILS AND DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT:
Lot Details. The property was established during the development of the Torre Pines Subdivision. The lot itself does
not have any issues when it comes to zoning. With the lots being established around the existing home it is not surprising
to Staff that the home would become Legal Non-Conforming.
One important aspect worth a discussion is the approving resolutions for the development. Phase 1 of the development
consisted of 15 lots with the discussed home being on lot 15. The issue then comes up during the approval for Phase 2.
At first there doesn’t seem to be any issues and it’s a fairly straightforward development with no issues (except the legal
non-conforming home). The problem that Staff found is condition number 7. Of the approving resolution (2008-038) for
Phase 2. The condition states:
“The driveway access from Lot 13, Block 1 shall be moved to 21st Street prior to any expansion or replacement
of the existing house on
this lot.”
The issue here is that there is no
lot 13 for block 1 of the second
addition. However, there is a lot
13 of block 1 in the first
addition (see phase 1 graphic).
With that said, Staff speculates
that there was a mistype and it
should have said Block 1 Lot 3
and further believes that the
driveway condition was
intended for the existing home
of the property at 2038 Inwood
Ave.
The intent was to redirect the
driveway but it was miss-stated. This would
be an appropriate time to correct the location
of the driveway for the house from Inwood
Ave to 21st St. but Staff does not believe it
is entirely necessary. The driveway enters
out onto a County Road and though the
driveway connects to a road that is
obviously busier than 21st St. the existing
owner would like to have it remain in place.
At the time when Inwood Ave (Hwy 13) is
improved the homeowner may want to
connect to 21st St (Which the County would more
than likely require). The City would also need
to accept that by requiring the driveway to
connect to 21st St. it would technically create
another non-conformity. With the driveway
connecting out to 21 St. the accessory
building would then be closer to the front lot
Code Location Code Setbacks Proposed or Existing Setbacks
Lot area 154.402 table 9-2 2.5 acres 2.5 acres
Front yard setback 154.402 table 9-2 100 ft. 50 ft. 9 in. – Existing setback
50 ft. 9 in. - Proposed setback
Side yard setback 154.402 table 9-2 50 ft. 64 ft. 6 in. (North) – Existing
27 ft. 9 in. (North) - Proposed
Impervious Surface 154.402 table 9-2 15% 11.5% - Proposed
Phase 1
Phase 2
Page 4
line than the principle structure (the home). Though, that would conflict with the code it would not appear to be terribly
detrimental to the neighbors. Although some individuals may find it more desirable to connect to 21 St. Staff does not
necessarily see a gain in requiring the current owner to re-direct the driveway. Unless the City Council has different
thoughts, this may be an appropriate condition to have Washington County enforce as everything is already existing. It
is unknown when Inwood will be improved.
OTHER AGENCY REVIEWS:
Washington County Comments.
Washington County has stated that they
would not like to see additional access
created onto Inwood Avenue and instead
have a new driveway installed for
connection to 21st St.
Staff Comment - City Staff agrees that
additional access should not be created but
does not necessarily agree that enforcing a
connection to 21st St. would need to be
required at this time. Instead that
connection could/should be required when
Inwood Avenue is improved (expanded).
Valley Branch Watershed Comments.
The Watershed did respond but was
uncertain if a permit would be required.
Staff Comment – It would be appropriate to apply a condition requiring the property owner to reach out to the Watershed
District and provide feedback on what will be required.
City of Lake Elmo Engineer Comments.
The comment memo from the City’s Engineer is attached.
To summarize the memo, additional encroachment is not recommended in anticipation of the expansion of Highway 13
(Inwood Ave.) and the setback line should be measured from the ROW line with an addition 15 ft. as that is what the
County would expect to acquire during the time that Hwy 13 is improved, eliminate one section of the driveway onto
Highway 13, acquire an addition 15 ft. of ROW in anticipation of the expansion of Hwy 13.
Torre Pines HOA.
The applicant has obtained approval from the HOA architectural advisory board for the addition. The HOA would
also require the driveway to be improved beyond gravel. If the City were to require the applicant to move the
driveway now there would only be one expenditure for the driveway. However, if the applicant would need to connect
to 21st St. in the future they would be required establish a new driveway, making the existing a “useless” improvement.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code
Section 154.109 before an exception or modification to the property can be granted. The criteria is listed below, along
with recommended findings from Staff regarding applicability of the 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:
Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduced setback from the front lot
line, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing
to use the property in a reasonable manner. The request to expand the existing home on site does appear to be
reasonable. Considering that the home is existing and the development was established around the home, property
Page 5
owners would be limited when it comes to improvements that could comply with the code. Also, the addition does not
further increase the non-conformity to the front lot line, the reduced setback does appear reasonable.
Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduced setback from the side lot line,
strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing to
use the property in a reasonable manner. With the Residential Estate requiring a minimum of 50 ft. as a setback from
the side lot line, which is the largest of all rural zoning districts only being less restricting than the Agricultural
district, which requires a 100 ft. setback. The City must also keep in mind that perhaps there is an alternative to the
request to avoid a variance. But placing the addition to the South of the existing home would more than likely infringe
on the existing driveway, access to the garage, and possibly the septic system. The addition to the north does appear
reasonable and they are still able to maintain a 27 ft. and 9 in. setback from the north property line.
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner.
FINDINGS:
Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback, the plight of the
Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. Although the lot is large enough to accommodate the
size of home that is desired the applicant was not involved with the construction/placement of the existing house or
with the platting process that triggered this home to become legal non-conforming. With the structure being legal
non-conforming, additions become difficult especially with when the required setback is 100 ft. The location to the
roadway is no fault of the property owner. Furthermore, given the circumstances, approval for the addition on the
structure with a setback less than 100 ft. from the front lot line does appear to be reasonable.
Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the side yard setback, the plight of the
Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. Generally speaking property owners do not have to
contend with legal non-conforming structures and it appears that there was little anticipation to one day build onto the
existing structure. Although the home as existing, is capable of meeting the required setback from the northern side lot
line there is limited room and options to expand to the north. Beyond this, it is impractical to expand the structure to
the south where the setbacks can be met. This is justified because an expansion would then being to conflict with the
driveway, garage, and the driveway would be forced south towards where the drain field is located. The standard
appears to be 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: Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback, the
addition would not appear to alter the character of the locality. Though affiliated with the Torre Pines Development
the home primarily appears to have a limited impact on the development due to its location in the rear of the lot, as
compared to the other homes. Allowing a variance to the front lot line appears to have limited bearing on the
character of the locality.
Inwood Avenue
Page 6
Variance For Side Yard Setback:
With respect to the proposed
variance for the side yard setback,
the addition would not appear to
alter the character of the locality.
The City recognizes that allowing a
reduced setback for the side yard lot
line would be different from what has
been allowed by the Zoning Code
and the Locality. However,
understanding that this was the
original home in the subdivision and
given its location on the property
being able reasonably notice the
setback form within the development
appears stretched.
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
Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback, the proposed
variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. Drawing a conclusion that allowing a
variance from the front property line would cause negative impacts appears limited in this situation when reviewed
through the required scope. Since the home is on the opposite side of the lot of where the neighborhood road is
located the impacts of the proposal would be severely limited.
Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the side yard setback, the proposed variance
will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase congestion of the
public streets or substantially diminish property values. The only property that would be perceivably impacted is the
property to the north (vacant). However, there would still be an estimated 77 ft. setback (or more) from the proposed
home and a new home on the neighboring property to the north (8381 21st N.). There is also a strong stand of trees on
the northern not that further helps to minimize the visibility of the structure. Although the required setback is being
infringed on there still appears to be a sufficient setback to
accommodate approval. Furthermore, allowance of the
reduced setback appears to have a limited bearing on
reducing property values when it comes to the setback.
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION/COMMENTS:
Planning Commission Comments:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Variances as presented by a 5-0 vote.
They also expressed concern for the access onto Inwood Ave. There seemed to be a consensus that if the property
were their own they would not like to have their driveway off of Inwood Ave. Further stating that they would not like
to have their children enter and exit onto that road but inevitably thought it would be appropriate to allow the property
owner to determine their own access. The Planning Commission also held a discussion of the existing number of
bathrooms and bedrooms in the home. At the time Staff was not aware, but after doing a search Staff determined there
are 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom in the existing home. The addition would be adding 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms.
Staff Comments:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance requests. Although the lots are larger in the Residential Estate Zoning
classification the property owner is at a disadvantage when it comes to making improvements consisting of expansions
to the home.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1) The applicant shall reduce the number of access points onto Inwood Avenue from two to one.
2) The applicant shall follow up with the Valley Branch Watershed District regarding permitting and provide
their conclusion to City Staff. If a permit is required then an approved permit shall be provided to the City
prior to issuance of the building permit.
3) The applicant shall follow up with Washington County Septic Department regarding permitting and provide
their conclusion to City Staff. If a permit is required then an approved permit shall be provided to City Staff
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) Additional internal alterations to the home may require a permit, before altering internal spaces of the home
the applicant must follow up with the building department for possible permitting requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“Motion to adopt Resolution 2019-093, approving a variance from the front and side yard setback, to allow an
addition onto the existing home on the property at 2038 Inwood Ave.”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Applicants narrative and survey/site plan
• HOA Architectural Board Approval
• Lake Elmo Resident Comments
• Resolution 2019-093
PAGE 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 5, 2019
To: Ben Prchal, City Planner Re: 2038 Inwood Avenue
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer Inwood Avenue setback variance
A variance request was received for the site plans for an addition to the home at 2038 Inwood Avenue, received
on October 31, 2019. Engineering has the following review comments:
1. Additional encroachment toward CSAH13 is not recommended. The County has identified a future 150‐foot
right‐of‐way width along CSAH13, or 75 feet from the current centerline. The current right‐of‐way is 60 feet
from centerline. It should be anticipated that the County will seek to acquire an additional 15‐feet minimum
for the future expansion of Inwood Avenue. Any housing setbacks should be measured using the future right‐
of‐way condition. Setbacks should also consider that Inwood Avenue is designated as a high‐volume County
roadway with emphasis placed on mobility.
2. The secondary access to Inwood Avenue should be eliminated. Residential property should always be
encouraged to access lower hierarchy roadways. In the case of 2038 Inwood Avenue, the lower hierarchy
road is 21st Street North. Since the existing access is already in place to Inwood Avenue the access can be
allowed to remain, however, the property should be required to eliminate the secondary access. Inwood
Avenue is a Washington County roadway designated as an “A Minor Arterial” roadway in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. The road is intended as a high‐volume roadway with an emphasis on mobility and
controlled access.
3. Should any variances be granted for this property, consideration should be made to require the dedication of
an additional 15‐feet right‐of‐way along Inwood Avenue and the requirement to remove the secondary
access.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
To: Ben Prchal – Lake Elmo City Planner
From: M. Selby – Home owner 8311, 21st N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Subject: Variance request 2038 Inwood Ave. N
In response to your notice of November 13th, 2019 I am forwarding 7 concerns related to the variance
request:
1) Concerns for a reduced property value of the lot being impacted by the variance which is not
owned by the 2038 Inwood Ave property owners
2) Concerns for the other property values in the Torres Pines Association given the new structure’s
visibility from Inwood Ave due to the set back of 50FT vs the required 100FT
3) Concerns for the impact on wildlife habits and movement from the new structure during
construction with removal of vegetation, use of heavy equipment and disturbance of soil
4) Concerns for the environmental impact of changes to the landscape from the new structure that
would impact natural drainage into the pond impacting wildlife in the area
5) Concerns for the ability for the city to safely expand the road if traffic increases in the area
6) Concerns that the house will be used for more than a single-family dwelling. The family and
several adult children live in the house today. How can we verify that the new structure will not
be used for more than a single family dwelling which would impact property values in the area
7) Linked to the single-family dwelling issue is the concern that there are already several vehicles
on the property that do not have sufficient garage space and visually impacts the neighborhood
property values
I would appreciate consideration from the council on the negative impact of this variance on the
neighborhood, safety and wildlife.
Thank you.
M. Selby
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE
OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2019-093
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN ADDITION WHICH WOULD NOT
MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2038 INWOOD AVE.
WHEREAS, Haupheng Vang and Vance Vang (the “Applicant”) has submitted an
application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a variance(s) to allow the construction of an addition
onto a legal non-conforming structure which will not meet the front and side yard setback within the Residential
Estate Zoning District for the property located at 2038 Inwood Ave, Lake Elmo MN 55042
(21.029.21.34.0013) (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning
Code, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variances on
November 13th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendations with respect to the requested variances to the City Council as part of the City Staff
Memorandum dated December 17th, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its December 17th, 2019 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in the Section 154.109 of the Lake
Elmo Zoning Code.
2) That all submission requirement s of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code have
been met by the Applicants.
3) That there is an existing legal non-conforming structure on site which the property owners would
like to construct an addition onto. The proposed addition requires variances consisting of the
following:
a) Minimum Structure Setback from the front property line – Allowing a 50 ft. 9 in. setback
b) Minimum Structure Setback from the North side lot line – Allowing a 27 ft. 11 in. setback
4) 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”
• Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduced setback from
the front lot line, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties
and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The request to expand the
existing home on site does appear to be reasonable. Considering that the home is existing and the
development was established around the home, property owners would be limited when it comes to
improvements that could comply with the code. Also, the addition does not further increase the non-
conformity to the front lot line, the reduced setback does appear reasonable.
• Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduced setback from
the side lot line, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and
the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. With the Residential Estate
requiring a minimum of 50 ft. as a setback from the side lot line, which is the largest of all rural zoning
districts only being less restricting than the Agricultural district, which requires a 100 ft. setback. The
City must also keep in mind that perhaps there is an alternative to the request to avoid a variance. But
placing the addition to the South of the existing home would more than likely infringe on the existing
driveway, access to the garage, and possibly the septic system. The addition to the north does appear
reasonable and they are still able to maintain a 27 ft. and 9 in. setback from the north property line.
5) Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner;
• Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback,
the plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. Although the lot is
large enough to accommodate the size of home that is desired the applicant was not involved with the
construction/placement of the existing house or with the platting process that triggered this home to
become legal non-conforming. With the structure being legal non-conforming, additions become
difficult especially with when the required setback is 100 ft. The location to the roadway is no fault of
the property owner. Furthermore, given the circumstances, approval for the addition on the structure
with a setback less than 100 ft. from the front lot line does appear to be reasonable.
• Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the side yard setback, the
plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. Generally speaking
property owners do not have to contend with legal non-conforming structures and it appears that there
was little anticipation to one day build onto the existing structure. Although the home as existing, is
capable of meeting the required setback from the northern side lot line there is limited room and
options to expand to the north. Beyond this, it is impractical to expand the structure to the south
where the setbacks can be met. This is justified because an expansion would then being to conflict
with the driveway, garage, and the driveway would be forced south towards where the drain field is
located. The standard appears to be met.
6) Character of Locality the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in
which the property in question is located;
• Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback, the
addition would not appear to alter the character of the locality. Though affiliated with the Torre Pines
Development the home primarily appears to have a limited impact on the development due to its
location in the rear of the lot, as compared to the other homes. Allowing a variance to the front lot line
appears to have limited bearing on the character of the locality.
• Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the side yard setback, the
addition would not appear to alter the character of the locality. The City recognizes that allowing a
reduced setback for the side yard lot line would be different from what has been allowed by the Zoning
Code and the Locality. However, understanding that this was the original home in the subdivision and
given its location on the property being able reasonably notice the setback form within the development
appears stretched.
7) 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;
• Variance For Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the front yard setback, the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or
substantially increase congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values.
Drawing a conclusion that allowing a variance from the front property line would cause negative
impacts appears limited in this situation when reviewed through the required scope. Since the home is
on the opposite side of the lot of where the neighborhood road is located the impacts of the proposal
would be severely limited.
• Variance For Side Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the side yard setback, the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or
substantially increase congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The
only property that would be perceivably impacted is the property to the north (vacant). However, there
would still be an estimated 77 ft. setback (or more) from the proposed home addition and a new home
on the neighboring property to the north (8381 21st N.). There is also a strong stand of trees on the
northern not that further helps to minimize the visibility of the structure. Although the required setback
is being infringed on there still appears to be a sufficient setback to accommodate approval.
Furthermore, allowance of the reduced setback appears to have a limited bearing on reducing property
values when it comes to the setback.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
1. The applicant shall reduce the number of access points onto Inwood Avenue from two to one.
2. The applicant shall follow up with the Valley Branch Watershed District regarding permitting and
provide their conclusion to City Staff. If a permit is required then an approved permit shall be
provided to the City prior to issuance of the building permit.
3. The applicant shall follow up with Washington County Septic Department regarding permitting and
provide their conclusion to City Staff. If a permit is required then an approved permit shall be
provided to City Staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Additional internal alterations to the home may require a permit, before altering internal spaces of the
home the applicant must follow up with the building department for possible permitting
requirements.
Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
_______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk