Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#17 - 8340 Stillwater Blvd Variances1 632993v1LA515-1 STAFF REPORT DATE: 1/21/20 REGULAR TO: City Council FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Variances and Zoning Amendment Requests for 8340 Stillwater Boulevard. REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director BACKGROUND: The City has received variance requests from applicant Patrick Kinney, for the property located at 8340 Stillwater Boulevard. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Code requirement(s) for minimum lot size and minimum septic size. This request is unique because there are two lots which are relevant to the request which stem from two different developments, which are also zoned differently. One lot is zoned as Rural Single Family (RS) and the other as Residential Estate (RE). The record is blurry as to why the lots were placed with each other yet not combined while also allowing different zoning to remain. ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL: The City Council is being asked to review the requested variance(s) and re-zoning and make a determination on the request. REVIEW/ANALYSIS: PID 16.029.21.34.0008 & 16.029.21.34.0015 Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zone as Rural Single Family/Residential Estate. Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: Single family homes. History: The property has been vacant. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 12/2/2019 60 Day Deadline – 1/30/2020 120 Day Deadline – N/A Applicable Regulations:  Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement  Article VI – Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings, and Structures  Article IV – Additional Regulations and Modifications  Article XI – Rural Districts  Article XVII – Shoreland Management Overlay District PROPOSED VARIANCES 2 632993v1LA515-1 Details. The property (Lot 7) was platted with the Beau Haven Development in 1961. The approval for that development allowed lots to range around .45 acres. The smaller parcels to the north were added later in 1994 with the Eagle Point Creek Development. Staff speculates that the smaller parcels exist because of a variance given during the approval of Eagle Point for “lot ratio” citing “topographical hardships.” Nonetheless, it is clear to Staff that there were different expectations for developments in 1961. With the property in question being substandard in size and never having been built on, the need for a variance is triggered regarding lot size. Furthermore, the City expects to see two distinct locations for a septic drain fields for properties that are not able to connect to City sewer. There are two separate drain fields indicated on the survey, but they fall short of the size requirement. Therefore, a variance from the minimum septic area size requirement is also being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requests. The applicant is requesting to build on a vacant lot that is not capable of meeting the required septic area size of 20,000 sq. ft. and a variance is also required because the lot does not meet the current lot size requirement for the RS zoning district (south parcel) or RE zoning district (north parcel). There are provisions in the City Code to allow properties that are not capable of meeting the code to build without a variance (154.08 A. listed below). However, this property does not meet the qualifiers to meet that provision, so a variance is being requested with respect to the minimum lot size. The applicant’s “primary parcel” (shown as Lot 7 on the survey) is a platted lot. However, the rear lot (Outlot G) is platted as an outlot. Because of the outlot, the lot and the outlot cannot be combined and used as one lot, unless they are replatted into one lot. However, the applicant can combine the lot and the outlot for tax purposes. To explain further, the lot and the outlot will be combined by the applicant for tax purposes but there will still be an artificial line separating the “buildable” area from the outlot. Combining the two parcels will create a lot that is .69 acres in size. The RS (Rural Single Family) district requires a 1.5 acre minimum. Slightly correlated to the lot size is the required septic area. The City Code requires 20,000 sq. ft. for a primary and secondary drain field. If the drain field aspect of the Code were to be fully enforced, the primary/secondary drain field would take up 65% of the useable land between the two parcels. City Code Section 154.080 A. Additions and Expectations to Minimum Area, Height, and Other Requirements. “…Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes, provided the area and width of the lot are within 60% of the minimum requirements of this chapter; provided, all setback requirements of this chapter must be maintained; and provided, it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatment systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling…” “…Any 1-acre lot which was of record before October 16, 1979 may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes…” Because the combined of acreage of the lot and the outlot will only equate to 46% of what is required for minimum lot size by the Code, the property will not qualify for meeting the exemption in the code and therefore a variance is necessary. The lot and the outlot also cannot qualify as a buildable lot under the Code because even though they were platted before 1979, they are not one acre in size (even if they are combined) and therefore a variance is required. Assuming that a septic permit can be obtained from Washington County, all other code requirements appear to be met. Standard Required Proposed Minimum Lot Size Requirement 154.402 table 9-2 1.5 acres .41 acres (Lot 7) .28 acres (Outlot G) (.69 Combined Acreage) Drain field Area Requirement 154.404 B. 20,000 sq. ft. 8,600 sq. ft. 3 632993v1LA515-1 Zoning and Lot Requirements: The City Code states in Section 154.080 C. that parcels that are contiguous to each other, substandard in size, which are under the same ownership must be combined. This would be an ideal time to enforce this Code provision. Currently the southern parcel is zoned as RS while the northern parcel is zoned as RE. Staff believes both parcels should be zoned as RS. This opinion is further supported by a variance that was granted in 2004 for 8384 Stillwater Blvd. This property required a variance for the location of a garage and as a condition of that approval the City required: “[t]hat there be a tax parcel consolidation of Outlot E with Lot 5 of Beau-Haven.” Staff did not find records indicating when the consolidation for 8464 or 8404 Stillwater Blvd took place. Furthermore, the rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Code Requirements:  The northern lot (Outlot G) must be rezoned to RS because it is contiguous to Lot 7, both parcels are substandard in size, and under the same ownership.  The properties, Lot 7 and Outlot G must be combined for tax purposes.  Two variances are required: o Variance for lot size variance. o Variance for not meeting minimum septic area size. Previous Variance Requests: In 2002 Pat Kinney requested a minimum lot size variance from the City for the same properties. Based on previous City staff reports and the resolution denying the variance, it appears that some aspects of the City Code are similar, but others have changed. At that time, the City denied the variance based on the following findings (Resolution 2002-068 attached); - The Kinney Property (given its location, size, prior ownership by an adjacent property owner, and lack of public sanitary sewer) was and can be used in a reasonable manner as part of one or more adjacent parcels, just as it had been used prior to the acquisition of the Kinney Property by Patrick Kinney. - The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances created by the previous owner of the property and by the applicant and is not due to the unique circumstances of the property. - The variance, if granted, may not change the character of the neighborhood, but a final determination on this point cannot be made without a complete set of plans demonstrating that a single family dwelling can be constructed in compliance with all other zoning and flood plain regulations. - The applicant has not proven an undue hardship. N RS RE 4 632993v1LA515-1 Staff believes that the findings are very weak and not very well put together. In fact, one finding explicitly states that the plight of the owner is due to the previous owner. That alone is contradictory when citing findings for a variance of today’s standard. The finding regarding whether granting the variance would change the character of the neighborhood is inconclusive. If the applicant was not requesting a variance from setbacks or impervious surface then it would be out of bounds for Staff to suggest that a single-family home meeting all other code requirements would change the character of the locality. The resolution contains no findings regarding that there is no “undue hardship,” other than to say that “[t]he applicant has not proven undue hardship.” Furthermore, the standard for granting variance has changed since 2002 and is no longer “undue hardship” but rather “practical difficulties” which is a much easier standard for a property owner to meet. Based on what Staff understands the lot/subdivision was created for a single-family home(s), the construction of said home would be in line with that intent. AGENCY REVIEW Washington County Planning Dept. - Washington County did respond with some historical information on the two plats but did not ask the City to apply any conditions of approval. City of Lake Elmo Engineer - The City Engineer memo has been attached for review. Most of the comments are pertaining to the septic system and Planning Staff is recommending that the Applicant comply with the comments in the memo as a condition of approval. MN DNR – The DNR has provided a response to the proposal and stated that the properties should be combined. 8364 Stillwater Blvd. N. – The property owners provided an email to City Staff stating that they are not in favor of the request and stated that they had opposed a similar request in the past (2002). They also stated that additional property owners were also not in favor. (Email and additional information attached). 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 Zoning 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; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6 (2). FINDINGS:  Variance for Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties for the Applicant. The Applicant is requesting to use the property in a reasonable manner (for a single-family home) as it was originally intended. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-family homes. With that said, the 5 632993v1LA515-1 Applicant’s proposal to build a new home on this lot falls in line with the existing neighborhood but a hardship is now created simply because of a lapse in time, which is now only applicable to this lot within the subdivision. There is not a request to further reduce the size of the lot, instead the lot would become further conforming due to the two lots being combined into one lot for tax purposes. The Applicant did not create these lots, so the Applicant’s plight was not caused by the Applicant. The Applicant was not involved with the development of the lots or determining the minimum lot size for the RS district. The issue only appears to exist because the property failed to develop until many years after the development was approved which is not the fault of the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant has established that there are practical difficulties.  Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties for the Applicant. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner as the Applicant will be using it for a single-family home which is the use that the lot was intended for. Furthermore, it has been proven, by the construction of homes on the other lots in the development, that septic systems are capable of functioning on a lot of this size. The requirement of the property to achieve 20,000 square feet of septic area is an overly burdensome request when considering that the required septic area would take up 65.7 percent of the property. If a septic system can be constructed that is acceptable to Washington County, which is the permitting authority for septic systems, then the 20,000 square foot requirement appears arbitrary. The Applicant did not create these lots, so the Applicant’s plight was not caused by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant has established that there are practical difficulties. 2) 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 Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The request to build on the lot is not out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. The lot size(s) will be no smaller or larger than they were in 1961 and 1994. The Applicant is also not seeking a variance relating to setbacks or impervious surface. With Staff being unable to deny a permit strictly based on design, the lot being considered buildable would not conflict with this criterion.  Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the area of the septic area, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There is no way to visually assess the property and come to the conclusion that the septic field requirement has or has not been satisfied. The criteria have been met. 3) 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 Lot Size: With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. A single-family home will not add any significant traffic to the neighborhood. It will also not substantially diminish property values as the surrounding properties are also single-family homes. Since it is only a single- family home, there are height restrictions attributable to single family homes so it should not block any light or air with respect to the adjacent properties. 6 632993v1LA515-1  Variance for Septic Area: With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values for the reasons stated above. The required size of the septic area has no bearing on any of the required metrics that are required for evaluation. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The Applicant shall receive and provide to the City an approved septic permit from Washington County as well as the soil survey used to receive approval from the County. 2. The site design for the property shall comply with the applicable recommendations outlined in the Engineering Memo dated January 2, 2020. 3. The Applicant shall combine Lot 7 of Beau-Haven and Outlot G of Eagle Point Creek Estates to achieve one property tax identification number prior to the City issuing a building permit. 4. Unless future code amendments state otherwise, no improvements, with the exception of the septic system shall be constructed on Outlot G unless Outlot G and Lot 7 are replatted. 5. Outlot G shall be rezoned from RE to RS. 6. The Applicant must submit to the City a building permit application for the new home to be constructed on the property. The building permit application must include a revised grading plan/survey that meets the requirements of the City Code and these conditions of approval. 7. If no action is taken by the Applicant, the variance will expire on January 20, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact on the City. PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission: The Planning Commission did not provide a formal recommendation to the City Council. However, there was a consensus between the members present that the requests were reasonable. City Staff: Staff is recommending the following motion(s). “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2020-007, a Resolution Approving a Variance to Allow the Property Identified as 8340 Stillwater Boulevard to be Considered a Buildable Lot and to Allow a Single-Family Home to be Built.” “Move to approve Ordinance 08-233 which re-zones Parcel 16.029.21.34.0015 from RE to RS.” ATTACHMENTS: 1) Narrative 2) Survey 3) Neighboring Comments 4) Resolution 2002-068/ Neighboring Comment letter 5) Engineer Memo 6) Beau haven Plat 7) Eagle Pont Estates Plat 8) FEMA Map 9) Approving Resolution 10) Ordinance for Re-Zoning Page 1 of 5 Marie and John Duffert 8264 Stillwater Boulevard Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 marieduffert@comcast.net John.Duffert@state.mn.us (651)493-4408 January 6, 2020 ADDRESS THIS AS REQUIRED BY NOTICE OF HEARING Dear Members of the Lake Elmo City Council and Planning Commission: We are writing to voice our strong objections to PJK Realty’s request for a variance allowing it to build a home on a substandard lot located at Beau Haven Lot 7, Lot G Eagle Point Creek Estates; 16.029.21.24.0008 /16.029.21.34.0015. This matter is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at your meeting on January 13, 2020. We own a home at 8364 Stillwater Blvd N, which is located immediately to the east of PJK Realty’s substandard lot. We have owned and lived in our home since 2001. There are clear reasons why a variance should not be granted in this case, and these are explained in Paragraph II below. But, before getting into those specifics, we think it is important to first disclose facts that the City found relevant in previously denying PJK Realty’s similar variance request in 2002 and to explain why those facts were important in 2002, continue to be important today, and support a wholesale denial of this new variance request without further inquiry. I. The Relevant Facts and Analysis Omitted from the Variance Request Support a Denial. This lot was held as vacant land for many years, but previous property owners failed to pay real estate taxes and in 1994 Washington County sold the vacant lot for back taxes to Scott and Kimberly Beaver, the then owners of the residence immediately to its west (Lot 8 with an address of 8308 Stillwater Blvd.). The Beavers purchased the lot for a relatively small price and the vacant lot enlarged and enhanced the value of their residential lot. County records reflect that in August, 2001, they sold the two lots to separate buyers: Lot 8 was sold on August 23, 2001, and Lot 7 was sold to PJK Realty on August 10, 2001. Clearly, a greater price could be extracted by dividing lots among different purchasers in this manner. The sellers and purchasers were aware (or should have been aware) of the zoning restrictions, which have been in place for years. Page 2 of 5 The size of the Beavers’ residential lot and their tax forfeited vacant lot each was less than the required 1.5 acres under Lake Elmo’s ordinance enacted in 1997. When the ordinance became effective, the Beavers’ vacant lot and and their contiguous residential lot merged together into one lot under the mandatory provisions of Paragraph C of Section 154.080 of Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinance.1 Also, according to the specific mandate of that ordinance, the vacant lot could not thereafter be considered a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development. Neither could it be split or subdivided without City approval under the provisions of paragraphs G and D of Section 154.080, respectively. We pointed out much of the ownership history to the City of Lake Elmo when PJK Realty requested a variance for this substandard lot in 2002. See attached copies of correspondence. We also pointed out that the property had merged and that the Minnesota Court of Appeals had affirmed the validity and enforceability of merger ordinances. Recognizing that the two properties had merged, the City Council denied PJK Realty’s 2002 request for a variance. Now, PKJ Realty again asks the City to grant a variance for the same reasons set forth in its 2002 request but does not acknowledge the merger or otherwise provide the City with this relevant historical information. In light of the merger and the inability of PJK Realty’s lot to be treated as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale and development under the zoning ordinance and other applicable law, the 2002 variance request was properly denied and was not appealed. The law and the relevant facts have not changed since 2002, and we respectfully ask the City to again deny the variance request and to instruct PJK Realty that the merger ordinance prohibits the construction of any future residence on this property. II. Even if Construction Were Not Prohibited by the Merger, PJK Realty’s Substandard Lot Would Not Qualify for a Variance. As noted above, the lot cannot be developed at all under the merger ordinance and other applicable law, but even without regard to that controlling ordinance and law, this lot does not qualify for a variance. A landowner cannot build on a substandard lot in Lake Elmo unless (a) the nonconforming use is grandfathered under Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinance; or (b) the property qualifies for a variance. Neither exception applies here. A. The Nonconforming Use is Not Grandfathered Under Lake Elmo’s Zoning Ordinance. 1 “C. Contiguous Parcels. If, in a group of 2 or more contiguous lots or parcels of land owned or controlled by the same person, any individual lot or parcel does not meet the full width or area requirements of this chapter, the individual lot or parcel cannot be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with adjacent lots or parcels under the same ownership so that the combination will equal 1 or more parcels of land, each meeting the full lot width and area requirements of this chapter.” Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Section 154.080, Paragraph C. Page 3 of 5 Grandfathering is a specifically authorized type of variance under Zoning Ordinance Section 154.080,2 which allows a landowner to build a single-family dwelling on an existing substandard lot. But that applies only if the area of the lot is within 60% of the minimum lot size requirements, or 0.90 acres in this case (60% of 1.5-acre minimum requirement for property without sanitary sewer). At 0.66 acres, PJK Realty’s lot simply does not qualify. PJK Realty’s request for a variance is simply a request to apply this grandfathering provision to its nonconforming lot. The only reasons PJK Realty cites in support of its request are the very same reasons behind the intent of the grandfathering ordinance. Recast as such, the lot does not qualify for a variance because it is too small, and PJK Realty’s request should be denied. B. The Property Also Does Not Qualify for a Variance. Even if PJK Realty’s request is not denied as a recast grandfathering argument it still should be denied because it cannot meet the requirements of a general variance. Lake Elmo’s Zoning ordinance allows the City to grant a variance only if (a) strict enforcement of the zoning code would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property; and then (b) only when a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.3 A variance should be denied because neither of these requirements can be met. 2 “Existing Lot. An existing lot is a lot or parcel of land in a residential district which was of record as a separate lot or parcel in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, on or before the effective date of this chapter. Any such lot or parcel of land which is in a residential district may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes, provided the area and width of the lot are within 60% of the minimum requirements of this chapter; provided, all setback requirements of this chapter must be maintained; and provided, it can be demonstrated safe and adequate sewage treatment systems can be installed to serve the permanent dwelling. Any 1-acre lot which was of record before October 16, 1979 may be used for single-family detached dwelling purposes regardless of ownership of adjacent parcels, provided the lot meets all other requirements of this chapter.” 3 § 154.109 VARIANCES. A. In General. The Board of Adjustment shall have the power to grant variances to the provisions of this chapter under the following procedures and standards. 1. A request for a variance from the literal provisions of this chapter may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement 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. All requests for variances shall be reviewed in accordance with the required findings listed in §154.109.F. Page 4 of 5 a. A Variance Cannot Be Granted Because the Practical Difficulties Standard Cannot Be Met. The variance cannot be granted because to do so the City must find that there are “unique circumstances,” and, as defined by Lake Elmo’s zoning requirements, this simply cannot be met. Under this requirement, “[t]he problem for the landowner/applicant which the proposed variance is intended to correct must be due to circumstances that are unique to the property in question and that were not created by the landowner/applicant.” Paragraph F2 of Code Section 154.109. There are no “unique circumstances” here because PJK Realty created its own problem. PJK Realty complains that “the plight of the landowner in this case was created by the City changing its lot size requirements after this subdivision was platted, before the landowner had a chance to build a home.” To the contrary, PJK Realty’s “plight” was caused by its own purchase of a substandard lot in direct violation of Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinances, long after the current minimum lot size was implemented. PJK Realty, a real estate professional with real estate knowledge and skills, purchased this lot from a contiguous homeowner in an area well known to have 1.5 acre size limits for lots without sanitary sewer, without first getting any required permits. In short, PJK Realty purchased the lot with full knowledge that it needed a variance and with no good faith reason to believe the construction of a residence on the lot would be legal. PJK Realty argues that if a variance is not granted, the property would be rendered practically worthless. This argument is flawed because there was no economically viable use when PJK Realty purchased the property (other than to enhance the value of adjoining lots), and the denial of PJK Realty’s variance request will not change that. In fact, a variance would add value to the property that did not exist when PJK Realty purchased it. In addition, there are no “unique circumstances” here. Many lots become nonconforming due to an increase in minimum lot requirements, so much so that Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinance includes a grandfather provision to specifically address this common situation. In addition, other surrounding property owners, including ourselves, own two or more separate lots. If variance requests such as this are granted, why would other Lake Elmo property owners not be encouraged to also seek variances by selling off non-confirming slivers of property? Why would they then not sell one lot while retaining or separately selling another? This is simply not a unique circumstance and the rules should apply to all of us, including PJK Realty. The circumstance was created by the landowner and it is not unique. A variance should be denied for this reason alone. b. A Variance Also Cannot Be Granted Because it Would Not Be In Keeping With the Spirit and Intent of the Ordinance. Page 5 of 5 Numerous Lake Elmo ordinances reflect a spirit and intent that is contrary to PJK Realty’s variance request. For example, the grandfathering ordinance discussed above addresses lots that become noncompliant when zoning laws are changed to increase minimum lots sizes. The relief granted by that ordinance reflects the spirit and intent of Lake Elmo’s ordinances and specifically indicates an intent to limit relief to lots that equal or exceed 60% of the increased minimum lot size. As noted above, the only reasons PKJ Realty cites in support its request for a variance are the very same reasons behind the grandfather ordinance; thus, the intent behind the ordinance’s area limitations cannot be disregarded. In addition, by (a) requiring a merger of contiguous substandard lots; (b) prohibiting construction on separate properties that have previously been merged; (c) preventing the division of lots to create a nonconforming lot; and (d) requiring subdivision approval of the division of any lot, Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinances seek to bring properties in compliance with minimum lot sizes and curtail building on substandard lots. A variance in this situation would be contrary to the intent and spirit of Lake Elmo’s zoning ordinances as demonstrated by all of these provisions. Further, when we purchased our property in 2001, we relied on the zoning protections knowing that minimum lot requirements were 1.5 acres and that Lot 7 and Lot 8 cannot legally be split. We purchased our home in Lake Elmo in large part because of the open space in the neighborhood and Lake Elmo’s historical sensitivity to these and similar issues. The construction of a house on a sliver of neighboring land will not fit into the neighborhood and will negatively affect our privacy, views, and enjoyment of our property. The ordinance was intended to address these issues, and a variance would not be in keeping with its intent and spirit. In summary, we believe that the City should again confirm that the substandard lot was previously merged with the contiguous property to its west and does not qualify for a variance or any residential construction permit, but that if a variance is considered, it should be denied because there are no unique circumstances as required by the ordinance and under all of the facts here a variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinances. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, John and Marie Duffert        PAGE 1 of 1  MEMORANDUM         Date:  January 2, 2020      To:  Ben Prchal, City Planner Re:  8305‐8364 Stillwater Boulevard  From:  Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer    Rural Residential Lot Variances      A variance request was received to build a new home on combined  existing  parcels,  including  parcel  16.029.21.34.0008  and  parcel  16.029.21.34.0015.  The  Rural  Residential Lot is part of an existing plat at an  unaddressed  property  between  8308  Stillwater  Blvd.  and  8364  Stillwater Blvd. The lot does not meet the  minimum lot size requirements for its zoning district and the reserved septic areas, primary and secondary do not  meet the required 20,000 SF.  Engineering has the following review comments:    1. The survey proposes a 4,300 SF area to be reserved for the primary septic system and a 4,300 SF area to be  reserved for the secondary septic system for a combined area of 8,600 SF. The City code requires a minimum  of 20,000 square feet of land to be dedicated for septic system use and suitable for that use.  2. The septic treatment systems for this property fall under the jurisdiction and review of Washington County.     Recommendations:    1. The applicant should be required to submit a proposed septic system design for the property, including sizing  for primary and secondary systems and for the specified home to be constructed on the property (e.g.  number of bedrooms, etc.). A county approved septic system design should be submitted for the city files.  The design should verify that the 8,600 SF of area is sufficient to provide both a primary and secondary  system, or additional area must be identified and reserved as needed for the approved design.  2. The applicant should be required to submit to the City documentation that the proposed septic system areas  are  suitable  for  its  intended  use.  The  documentation  must  be  based  on  detailed  soil  surveys  and  field  inspections by the designer and should not be based on general assumptions.  3. Additional variances to the septic system design should not be permitted without further city review.  4. Lot grading revisions are required to create a more defined drainage swale along the westerly property line.  Drainage should not be allowed toward to west onto the neighboring property, but rather must flow along  the property line to the rear of the lot.             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  632992v1LA515-1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO 2020-007 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MINIMUM SEPTIC DRAINFIELD SIZE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8340 STILLWATER BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Patrick Kinney (the “Applicant”) is the owner of two parcels that have tax identification numbers of: 16.029.21.34.0008 and 16.029.21.34.0015 with an address of 8340 Stillwater Boulevard, Lake Elmo MN 55042 (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the City’s Rural Single-Family Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Property also does not meet the City’s 20,000 square foot size requirement for septic drain fields; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the Applicant submitted an application to the City for variances with respect to the minimum lot size requirement and the minimum septic drain field size requirement with respect to the Property; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the requested variances was published, mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code, Section 154.109; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variances on January 13th, 2020; 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 January 21, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its January 21, 2020 meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following findings: 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 requirements of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variances include the following components: a) That the Property consists of lots identified as 16.029.21.34.0008 (Lot 7) (.41 632992v1LA515-1 acres) and 16.029.21.34.0008 (Outlot G)(.28 acres) and that this lot and outlot be combined for tax purposes so that they consist of a .69 acre lot. b) That Lot 7 and Outlot G as they are combined be considered as buildable for a single-family home. The home would be constructed on Lot 7 and the septic system would be located on Outlot G. No improvements other than the septic system would be allowed on Outlot G. c) That the City would allow the construction of a septic system on Outlot G to service Lot 7 with an area for the septic system that is 8,600 square feet instead of 20,000 square feet. 4) That the Applicant has established and demonstrated compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo Zoning Code Section 154.109. Pursuant to that section of the Code, a variance to a provision of the Zoning Code may be granted by the City upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of Zoning Code 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 the Zoning Code. “Practical difficulties” when 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. The problem for the landowner/applicant which the proposed variance is intended to correct must be due to circumstances that are unique to the property in question and that were not created by the landowner/applicant. The proposed variance must not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Finally, the proposed variance must 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. a) With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties for the Applicant. The Applicant is requesting to use the Property in a reasonable manner (for a single- family home) as it was originally intended. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-family homes. With that said, the Applicant’s proposal to build a new home on the Property falls in line with the existing neighborhood but a hardship is now created simply because of a lapse in time, which is now only applicable to the Property. There is not a request to further reduce the size of the lots, instead the Property would become further conforming due to the two lots being combined into one lot for tax purposes. The Applicant did not create these lots, so the Applicant’s plight was not caused by the Applicant. The Applicant was not involved with the development of the Property or determining the minimum lot size for the RS district. The issue only appears to exist because the Property failed to develop until many years after the development was approved which is not the fault of the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant has established that there are practical difficulties. b) With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties for the Applicant. The applicant is proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner as the Applicant will be using it for a single-family home which is the use that the Property was intended for. Furthermore, it has been proven, by the construction of homes on the other lots in the development, that septic systems are capable of functioning on a 632992v1LA515-1 lot of this size. The requirement of the Property to achieve 20,000 square feet of septic area is an overly burdensome request when considering that the required septic area would take up 65.7 percent of the Property. If a septic system can be constructed that is acceptable to Washington County, which is the permitting authority for septic systems, then the 20,000 square foot requirement appears arbitrary. The Applicant did not create these lots, so the Applicant’s plight was not caused by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant has established that there are practical difficulties. c) With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Applicant’s request to build on the Property is not out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. The lot size will be no smaller or larger than it was in 1961 and 1994. The Applicant is also not seeking a variance relating to setbacks or impervious surface. d) With respect to the proposed variance for the area of the septic area, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There is no way to visually assess the Property and come to the conclusion that the septic field requirement has or has not been satisfied. The criteria has been met. e) With respect to the proposed variance for the size of the lot, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. A single-family home will not add any significant traffic to the neighborhood. It will also not substantially diminish property values as the surrounding properties are also single-family homes. Since it is only a single- family home, there are height restrictions attributable to single-family homes so the new home should not block any light or air with respect to the adjacent properties. f) With respect to the proposed variance for the septic area, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values for the reasons stated above. The required size of the septic area has no bearing on any of the required metrics that are required for evaluation. DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) The City Council hereby approves the requested variances with respect to minimum lot size and the minimum septic area for the Property. The conditions of approval for variance approval are set forth below: 1. The Applicant shall receive and provide to the City an approved septic permit from Washington County as well as the soil survey used to receive approval from the County. 2. The site design for the Property shall comply with the applicable recommendations outlined in the Engineering Memo dated January 2, 2020. 3. The Applicant shall combine Lot 7 of Beau-Haven and Outlot G of Eagle Point Creek Estates to achieve one property tax identification number prior to the City issuing a building permit. 4. Unless future code amendments state otherwise, no improvements, with the exception of the septic system shall be constructed on Outlot G unless Outlot G and Lot 7 are replatted. 5. Outlot G (16.029.21.34.0015) shall be rezoned from RE to RS. 632992v1LA515-1 6. The Applicant must submit to the City a building permit application for the new home to be constructed on the Property. The building permit application must include a revised grading plan/survey that meets the requirements of the City Code and these conditions of approval 7. If no action is taken by the Applicant, the variance approval shall expire on January 20, 2021. Passed and duly adopted this 21st day of January 2020 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-233 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains that Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.032 Zonind District Map, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding Ordinance No. 08-233, as follows: SECTION 1. The following propertiy(s), recognized by its PID and affiliated with the Eagle Point Creek Estates, is hereby rezoned from RE (Residential Estate) to RS (Rural Single Family): 16.029.21.34.0015 SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo also hereby ordains that the Planning Department shall make the applicable changes to the official Zoning Map of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-233 was adopted on this ______ day of ___ 2020, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL _________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2020.