HomeMy WebLinkAbout#20 - 3100 Lake Elmo Ave Variances and Lot Division 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 8-17-2021
REGULAR TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ken Roberts, Planning Director AGENDA ITEM: Variance Requests - 3100 Lake Elmo Avenue REVIEWED BY: Sarah Sonsalla – City Attorney
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND The City has received two variance requests from applicant Dale Dorschner, for the property located at 3100 Lake
Elmo Avenue. The first request is for a variance from the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet for properties in the Rural Single Family (RS) zoning district. The second variance request is to have a front yard setback of 30 feet from the County Road right-of-way instead of 50 feet as required for properties within the Shoreland District. The proposed building would meet the allowed size for the property and should meet all other setbacks and impervious surface requirements. Please see the attached narrative and maps for more information about these requests.
ISSUES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council is being asked to review and make a determination on:
1. The variance request that would allow for the property to be subdivided into two lots resulting in a one lot that would meet all zoning requirements (there is an existing home on the lot) and one lot that would not meet the zoning district’s minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet.
2. The proposed front yard setback variance of 20 feet that would allow for the construction of the new house on the vacant lot with a front yard of 30 feet instead of 50 feet as required by the City Code.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS: Address:
PID:
3100 Lake Elmo Ave. 13.029.21.33.0019 Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zoned as Rural Single Family
Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: Single family homes
History: The property’s use has been a residential dwelling.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 5/30/2021 60 Day Deadline – 7/29/2021 120 Day Deadline – 9/27/2021 Applicable Regulations: • Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
• Article XI – Rural Districts
• Article XX – Shoreland Management
PROPOSED VARIANCES Variance Requests. The applicant is requesting to split the property into two lots with one lot having a reduced lot width of 13 feet (to 112 feet) and having a reduced front yard setback of 20 feet (to have a 30 foot front setback setback) from the right-of-way on the vacant (new) parcel.
Because this property is within the Shoreland District, both the Rural Single-Family District and Shoreland District standards apply. A unique aspect with these requests is the fact that the setback variance being requested is from the front lot line instead of the rear, which is often the subject of discussion for properties in the Shoreland District.
Standard Required Proposed Lot Width.
Table 9-2 125 ft. 112 ft.
Setback – Rural District
Setback – Shoreland District
30 ft.
50 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
2
Applicable code provisions explained: Rural Single Family District Lot Size - The Rural Single Family Zoning District normally requires a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres. However, because this property has and will inevitably be connected to City sanitary sewer, a provision within the Code allows a minimum size of 24,000 square feet for the lots. As it is being requested
both lots will meet the minimum lot size requirement. Rural Single Family District Setbacks – The required
setback from the front lot line is 30 feet in the Rural Single Family District which can be achieved on the property. However, because the property also is in the
Shoreland District which has stricter setback requirements (explained below), the minimum setback from Lake Elmo Avenue (a County Road) is 50 feet. Shoreland District Lot Size – The Shoreland District regulations require a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for non-riparian lots within the Shoreland District. Again, both proposed lots can easily meet this requirement. Shoreland District Setbacks – Because the property fronts onto a County Road (Lake Elmo Avenue), the Shoreland District Regulations state that the “minimum structure setback from County, State or Federal road right-of-way” – must be a minimum of 50 feet. Parcel A already has an existing home on the property (shown on the complete survey)
which meets this requirement and all other code requirements. The applicant is requesting the front yard setback variance of 20 feet for proposed Parcel B. As proposed, the new house would only have a 30-foot setback from Lake Elmo Avenue instead of the required 50 foot setback.
The graphic to the right shows a more complete depiction of what the lot split would look like. Temporarily
excluding the discussion of the variance, Staff would have difficulty or the outright inability to approve a lot split of this nature (because it would create a nonconformity). The primary reason for this is the existing tennis court that is on the property would not meet setback requirements from the proposed new property line. However, the applicant has
indicated the tennis court will be “cut back” in order to meet zoning district setbacks and will not cross over the proposed property line. A quick discussion about impervious surface does need to be considered when one reviews the current impervious surface number that is being proposed. Parcel A is below the allowed limit, but Parcel B will exceed the allowed
amount of impervious surface for the property, if it is built out as shown. The applicant is not requesting a variance for an increase above the maximum allowed impervious
surface at this time. It is likely that a variance will not be required given there are several things the property owner can do to bring this number down to the maximum allowed
25% impervious surface limit for properties in the RS district. Variance: Section 154.109 of the Zoning Code:
Section 154.109 is the variance section of the City’s zoning code which has the “practical difficulties” standard. The City also has a different variance standard in its code for variances from the City’s subdivision regulations (the “unusual hardship” standard), but that standard is not applicable in this case because the applicant is requesting a
3
variance from required setbacks and lot size requirements that are in the City’s zoning code (and not in the subdivision ordinance). Section 154.109 of the zoning code states as follows:
F. Required Findings. Any action taken by the Board of Adjustment to approve or deny a variance
request shall include the following findings:
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. a. 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. Essentially the City needs to determine if the proposed variance request is reasonable. This can often be a difficult to apply since what is and is not reasonable can vary from person to person. The request in itself may be reasonable, but the conditions of the request may not be reasonable. For
example, it is generally reasonable for a property to ask for an accessory building, but it may not be reasonable for a property to request an accessory building that is 2 feet from the property line when a 10-foot setback can be achieved. In this request, is it reasonable for the City to grant the variances with respect to the minimum lot width and reduced front yard setback? 2. Unique Circumstances. 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 land owner/applicant. This is a two-part question. Did you (as property owner) cause the “issues” on site/are they the
reason a variance is required? If you did not create the “problem”, then what is unique about the property that variance approval is warranted? For example, compared to other lots or requests, why does it make sense to allow a reduced setback? This standard could be interesting to address because the decision cannot be dependent upon something that was done by the property owner. 3. Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. a. Definition of Locality. For purposes of this subsection, “locality” shall be defined as all that property within 350 feet of the property proposed for the variance; however, in all events, it
shall include all parcels abutting the affected parcel, including those immediately across a public street, alley of other public property. Will approval of the request lead to a site, structure, etc. that does not blend in with the surrounding and nearby properties? This standard is definitely contextual and is very site specific. For example, a
reduced setback of 10% is going to look a lot different than 40%. In this instance, the reduced lot width will likely have a marginal impact on the surrounding properties but the proposed reduced front yard setback of 30 feet instead of 50 feet will likely be visibly different. 4. Adjacent Properties and Traffic. 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
4
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. Will approval have a negative impact on property values, increase traffic, or prevent air or light from getting to neighboring properties? As proposed, adding one lot for one additional house should not
impair light and air from getting to adjacent properties and will not measurably increase traffic.
AGENCY REVIEW Washington County: No comments from the County about the request, only that driveway access for the new lot(s) would not be granted until after the City approved the lot split. Neighboring Comments: City staff notified all the property owners within 350 feet of this property about the variance requests. City staff received three comments:
- 3160 Lake Elmo Ave – Not Supportive. - 3078 Lake Elmo Ave. – Not Supportive.
- 3025 Lake Elmo Ave. – Supports the lot split but does not support the setback variance request.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Section 154.109 of the Zoning Code before the City grants a variance from the Zoning Code requirements. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from City staff about applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s requests. 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 Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduced lot width, strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations, it will cause practical difficulties because the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner (single family residences). The request to use the property as a single
family residential dwelling unit is not an unreasonable request. The desire to have the new lot line parallel to the existing lot lines instead of an angled property line is preferred and it is believed that the variance is warranted in this respect. Furthermore, it is expected that strictly following the code to have the new lot be
125 feet wide would result in a less desirable outcome than if the City approves a variance to have the new lot be 112 feet wide with a new lot line parallel to existing property lines.
• Variance for Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a 20-foot reduction from the required 50-foot front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, it will cause practical difficulties because the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner (single family residences). The request
to abide by the Rural Single Family zoning district setback of 30 feet is a reasonable request given that is the applicable standard for the property’s Zoning District when the Shoreland District regulations do not apply (although in this case, they do apply).
2) Unique Circumstances. 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 land owner/applicant.
5
FINDINGS:
• Variance for Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the minimum lot width,
the applicant did not create the current size of the property, so the applicant did not create the problem. Although the lot can be split and divided in a way that would allow both properties to meet the minimum size and minimum frontage, such a configuration would be awkward. The City concedes that the circumstance is
unique in that the general objective can be achieved though it would create an unfavorable layout for the new lot line.
• Variance for Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduction from the required front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, the plight of the property was not created by the property
owner as discussed above but there is no unique circumstance. The applicant has not established a unique circumstance that would warrant a reducing the front yard setback by 20 feet. Especially when it is taken into consideration the rear yard setback from the high-water level, which is normally the point of discussion is not
needed. By all measures it appears the applicant can meet all City-required front and rear yard setbacks on the proposed lot without a variance. Although the Shoreland Regulations are more restrictive than the setback regulations in this zoning district, a unique circumstance has not been noticed or identified on the site that
would warrant a reduced front yard setback. Also, there are no contour lines/evidence presented on the site survey to further support the claims being made about geography or water flow. 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 Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the lot width, the
proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A reduced lot size, width, etc. within this area of Lake Elmo is not uncommon and it is very unlikely that the reduced lot width will change the
character of the neighborhood.
• Variance for Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a reduction from the required front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, the proposed variance will alter the essential character of
the locality. With the exception of homes on 31st Street, the majority of the homes within 350 feet of the property do appear to have front yard setbacks that are closer to 50 feet than 30 feet. It does appear that the homes immediately east are set back closer to 50 feet than the requested 30 feet. For the area on the west side
of Lake Elmo Avenue, it would certainly appear out of character to have a home that is only 30 feet from the front property line when the neighboring properties have homes with setbacks of 100 feet or more.
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.
• Variance for Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the front lot width, 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. The proposed reduced front lot width would not lead to the shading of the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow.
• Variance for Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the front yard setback from the front property line, 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. The allowance would not shade the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
6
Options:
The City Council may:
• Approve one or both of the proposed variances, with recommended findings and conditions.
• Amend the recommended findings and conditions for approval or denial of the variances.
• Deny both variance requests, citing findings for denial for each request.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has achieved positive findings for all points of review for the requested lot width variance but has failed to meet the findings and requirements for “Unique Circumstances” and “Character of Locality” for the proposed front yard setback variance. Staff recommends approval of the lot split by recommending approval of the variance of 13 feet to allow for a new lot with a width of 112 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the lot width variance with the
following conditions of approval: 1. That the applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit.
2. The applicant update the survey to include accurate impervious surface information. 3. The applicant shall remove a northern section of the tennis court so it will be at least 10 feet from the side property line. 4. That the applicant provide the City with $3,600 per lot for the satisfaction of park dedication (Total $3,600) 5. If approved, the variances shall be valid for 1 year and will expire on August 17, 2022 (date set after Council approval). The applicant must record the deeds creating the new lot (Parcel B) by August 17, 2022 or the approval will automatically expire. 6. The applicant must provide the City with any drainage and utility or right-of-way easements that are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 7. That if approved, the applicant pay the City any required SAC ($5,485 - 2021 Fee) or WAC ($3,000 – 2021
Fee) charges before the City issues a building permit for the new lot (Parcel B). 8. Parcel A shall maintain a minimum lot width of 125 feet.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variance request. Staff is recommending the City Council deny the requested variance for a reduced front yard setback of 20 feet (30 feet
versus 50 feet). Suggested Motions:
The suggestion motions for the City Council to take action on the two recommendations are as follows:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2021 - 090, approving a lot width variance to allow for the creation a new lot (Parcel B) that would 112 feet wide for the property located at 3100 Lake Elmo Avenue, subject to conditions
of approval as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission.”
“Move to adopt Resolution 2021 - 091, denying a front yard setback variance of 20 feet that would allow a 30
foot front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet for the property identified as Parcel B, south of the property addressed as 3100 Lake Elmo Avenue with recommended findings for denial.”
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Narrative 2) Location Map 3) Property Line Map
4) Survey 5) Neighboring Comments
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON
COUNTY STATE OF
MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2021 – 090
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT-WIDTH VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY
IDENTIFIED AS 13.029.21.33.0019 (3100 LAKE ELMO AVENUE), TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO
TWO LOTS ONE OF WHICH WILL BE SUB-STANDARD IN WIDTH
WHEREAS, Mr. Dale Dorschner (the “Applicant”) owner of 13.029.21.33.0019 (3100 Lake
Elmo Avenue.), Lake Elmo MN 55042 (the “Property”) has submitted an application to the City of
Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a variance to allow the creation of a new lot with the subdivision of the
Property that does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 125 feet for residential lots in
the Rural Single Family (RS zoning district; 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 July 26, 2021; 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 August 17, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variance request at its August 17, 2021 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 the proposed variance includes the following components: a) That the lot identified as Parcel B of the survey for the division of the property identified as 13.029.21.33.0019 measured at 112 feet in width shall be considered as a buildable lot for the construction of a single family home.
4) 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;
2
Variance for Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduced width of the
proposed lot (Parcel B), strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations, it will cause practical difficulties because the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner (single
family residences). The request to use the property (Parcel B) for a single family residential
dwelling unit is not an unreasonable request. The desire to have the new lot line parallel to the existing lot lines instead of an angled property line is preferred and it is believed that the variance
is warranted in this respect. Furthermore, it is expected that strictly following the code to have the new lot (Parcel B) be 125 feet wide would result in a less desirable outcome than if the City approves a variance to have the new lot be 112 feet wide with a new lot line parallel to existing
property lines. 5) Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner;
Variance for Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the minimum
lot width for proposed Parcel B, the applicant did not create the current size of the property, so the applicant did not create the problem. Although the lot can be split and divided in a way that would allow both proposed lots to meet the minimum lot size and minimum frontage, such a
configuration would be awkward. The City concedes the circumstance is unique in that the general objective can be achieved though it would create an unfavorable layout for the new lot line and an awkward shape for the new lot.
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 Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the reduction of the lot width for proposed Parcel B, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
A reduced lot size, width, etc. within this area of Lake Elmo is not uncommon and it is very unlikely that the reduced lot width to 112 feet will change the character of the neighborhood. 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 Lot Width: With respect to the proposed variance for the width of the proposed lot (Parcel B), 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. The proposed reduced front lot width to 112 feet would not lead to the shading of the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1) The City Council hereby approves the requested variance for a reduced lot width of 13 feet for the creation of a new lot that will be 112 feet wide in RS zoning district for the property identified as 13.029.21.33.0019 located at (3100 Lake Elmo Avenue). The conditions for approval for variance approval are outlined below: 1. That the applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit.
3
2. The applicant update the survey to include accurate impervious surface information. 3. The applicant shall remove a northern section of the tennis court so it will be at least 10 feet from the side property line.
4. That the applicant provide the City with $3,600 per lot for the satisfaction of park dedication (Total $3,600) 5. If approved, the variance shall be valid for 1 year and will expire on August 17, 2022 (date set
after Council approval). The applicant must record the deeds creating the new lot (Parcel B) by August 17, 2022 or the approval will automatically expire. 6. The applicant must provide the City with any drainage and utility or right-of-way easements
that are deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 7. That if approved, the applicant pay the City any required SAC ($5,485 - 2021 Fee) or WAC
($3,000 – 2021 Fee) charges before the City issues a building permit for the new lot (Parcel B). 8. Parcel A shall maintain a minimum lot width of 125 feet. Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2021 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
________________________________ Mayor Charles Cadenhead
ATTEST:
________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON
COUNTY STATE OF
MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2021 – 091
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
PLACEMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPOSED PARCEL B OF THE
PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 13.029.21.33.0019 (3100 LAKE ELMO AVENUE) WITH A 30-FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD THE REQUIRED 50-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, Mr. Dale Dorschner (the “Applicant”) owner of 13.029.21.33.0019 (3100 Lake
Elmo Avenue.), Lake Elmo MN 55042 (the “Property”) has submitted an application to the City of
Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a 20-foot front yard setback variance to allow the placement of new
single dwelling on a new lot with the subdivision of the Property (Parcel B) that would not meet the minimum front yard setback requirement from Lake Elmo Avenue of 50 feet; 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 July 26, 2021; 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 August 17, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variance request at its August 17, 2021 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 the proposed variance includes the following components:
a) That the front yard setback for a single family dwelling on the lot identified as Parcel B of the survey for the division of the property identified as 13.029.21.33.0019 be 30 feet thus requiring approval of a 20 foot front yard setback variance. 4) 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;
2
Variance for Front Yard Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for a 20-foot reduction from the required 50-foot front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, it will
cause practical difficulties because the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner (single family residences). The request to abide by the Rural Single Family
zoning district setback of 30 feet is a reasonable request given that is the applicable standard
for the property’s Zoning District when the Shoreland District regulations do not apply (although in this case, they do apply).
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 a reduction from the required front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, the plight of the property was not
created by the property owner as discussed above but there is no unique circumstance. The applicant has not established a unique circumstance that would warrant a reducing the front yard setback by 20 feet. Especially when it is taken into consideration the rear yard setback from the
high-water level, which is normally the point of discussion is not needed. By all measures it appears the applicant can meet all City-required front and rear yard setbacks on the proposed lot without a variance. Although the Shoreland Regulations are more restrictive than the setback
regulations in this zoning district, a unique circumstance has not been noticed or identified on the site that would warrant a reduced front yard setback. Also, there are no contour lines/evidence presented on the site survey to further support the claims being made about geography or water
flow. 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 a reduction from
the required 50 foot front yard setback of the City’s zoning regulations, the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the locality. With the exception of homes on 31st Street, the majority of the homes within 350 feet of the property do appear to have front yard setbacks that are closer
to 50 feet than 30 feet. It does appear that the homes immediately east are set back closer to 50 feet than the requested 30 feet. For the area on the west side of Lake Elmo Avenue, it would
certainly appear out of character to have a home that is only 30 feet from the front property line
when the neighboring properties have homes with setbacks of 100 feet or more. 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 reduction of the
front yard setback from the front property line, 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. The allowance would not shade the
neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow.
3
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1) The City Council hereby denies the applicant’s variance request for a 20 foot reduction of
required 50 foot front yard setback that would allow a 30 foot front yard setback for a new lot (Parcel B) in RS zoning district and in the Shoreland Management Zone for the property identified as 13.029.21.33.0019 to be located at 3100 Lake Elmo Avenue. Passed and duly adopted this 17th day of August, 2021 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Charles Cadenhead
ATTEST:
________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk
Comments on Variance request by Dale Dorschner, to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 28,
2021
I will be out of town on June 28 and will not be able to appear in person at the public hearing. Please
accept this letter and have it become part of the official record of the hearing.
I have no objections to the lot split variance. The resulting lots will be close enough to the zoning code
requirements. However, I totally reject the applicant’s arguments in his submission about “disputes and
complaints” in the future if the new lot did not have nice, straight and parallel lot lines. The maps the
applicant submitted himself clearly show that none of the nearby lots have such lot lines and have not
had them for decades. Yet, the City has not suffered from “disputes and complaints” regarding where
the lot lines are. The applicant’s arguments in this regard are unconvincing.
However, I object to the building setback variance being requested. The applicant has produced no real
evidence that such a variance is warranted or needed. I reject his comment that “the natural drainage of
the property” would be disrupted if the house were a full 50 feet back, rather than the 30 feet
requested. The land does not change that much in elevation over the lot. The applicant does not provide
any contour diagram to justify his claim. The applicant does provide a “Survey Detail” map which shows
a total of 10 feet (or so) change over the whole lot east-west dimension. One can estimate an elevation
change from a 50 foot setback of 6-8 feet. Many people would welcome such a change in elevation in
order to build a home with a nice walkout basement.
Also, in the same “Survey Detail” map and in the supplied “Property Line Map” the neighboring homes
are clearly shown as in line with a setback of approximately 100 feet from Lake Elmo Avenue. If the
applicant’s new structure were built at a setback of only 30 feet, it would be conspicuously out of line
and very much disruptive of the neighborhood character. The setbacks of the homes on the east side of
the road are not really an issue, since they are in line with each other and would not be viewed
simultaneously with the proposed new structure. Finally, there is more than enough room to build a 40 x
40 foot home with a 50 foot road setback and no impingement on the tennis court.
I ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant the lot split variance but reject the road
setback variance.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Williams
3025 Lake Elmo Ave N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
June 21, 2021
1
Ben Prchal
From:Ken Roberts
Sent:Tuesday, June 22, 2021 8:16 AM
To:Ben Prchal
Subject:FW: Planning Meeting
Ben –
Regarding Dales request.
Ken
From: ted kohn [mailto:xitchie@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 5:43 PM
To: Ken Roberts <KRoberts@lakeelmo.org>
Subject: Planning Meeting
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Ted and I are opposed to granting the requested variances for 3100 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Dale Dorschner needs to
use his own property to install a driveway to his 1st property at 3150 Lake Elmo Avenue North. We see no reason for
using our property. The current driveway is an easement through the middle of our property at 3160 Lake Elmo Avenue
North. Dale Dorschner needs to take this into account when making plans on his properties. The city should enforce
current property lines because of his encroachment onto our property already. Everything in his plans to the city needs
inclusion of this.
Ted and I would appreciate communication as to the outcome of this matter.
Ted and Ellen Kohn
3160 Lake Elmo Avenue North