Loading...
7.2. SR 12-15-2014 City of Elk Request for Action River To Item Number Mayor and City Council 7.2 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearinj December 15, 2014 Zack Carlton,Planner I Item Description Reviewed by Minimum Lot Depth Reduction and a Lot Split for Jeremy Barnhart,Deputy Director CODD 19375 Oxford Street Reviewed by Cal Portner, City Administrator Action Requested 1. Approve,by motion,with conditions, or deny the proposed variance that would allow two parcels below the minimum lot depth of 130 feet in the R-1c Single Family Residential district. If the variance is denied, specific reasons shall be stated. A formal resolution for denial would come back to the next consent agenda. 2. Pending approval of the variance: approve,by motion, the request by Reg Powell to split the lot at 19375 Oxford St. NW into two parcels,with the following conditions: 1. Existing retaining walls within proposed easements or over a property line be relocated. 2. The new lot must connect to city sewer and water. 3. Park dedication shall be paid for one buildable lot at time of recording. Background/Discussion Case Nos.V 14-02 &LS 14-05 Reg Powell, representing the property owner,is proposing to split the lot at 19375 Oxford St NW into two buildable parcels. In order for the lot split to be approved,a variance reducing the required minimum lot depth by 20 feet must be approved first. The request is for the creation of two parcels, both of which will be below the minimum lot depth of 130'in the R-1c District. The current parcel is connected to city services and,if approved,the new lot will also be required to connect. The new lots meet design standards for minimum lot size at 11,000 SF, and minimum lot width at 100 feet measured at setback line. City ordinance describes the R-1c District as "intended to provide single-family residences ... in areas that are a continuation of existing residential development patterns and the infilling of existing lots in established areas."The current parcel is larger than average for the zoning district, and the new lot would be sold for use as a single-family residence in an established neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed split aligns with the zoning district goal to provide for "... the infilling of existing lots"in an established area. The current lot is uniquely shaped due to the angle of Norfolk Street as it approaches Highland Road. The proposed lots meet the minimum depth nearest any residential property with proposed depths of 130 feet and 142.6 feet along the southern property line. However, along the northern property line,nearest a P a w E R E U 6 Y NaA f RE] collector roadway, the lot depths are approximately 111 feet each. City code defines lot depth as the minimum horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines. With the minimum distance between the front and rear lot lines at 111 feet,the applicant requires a variance of 20 feet from the minimum lot depth. Variance Criteria The applicant addresses the criteria for granting a variance as follows: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. The request creates two lots with buildable areas large enough to accommodate a single-family home of similar size to the surrounding neighborhood. The request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance in that it provides for the infill development of an existing area. 2. The variance is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan guides this area for Urban Residential uses with an intended average density of 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots are 0.28 and 0.33 acres in size, aligning with the intended average density. The variance,if granted,will not alter the use of the property and it will remain consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The petitionerproposes to use the property in a reasonable manner notpermitted by the Zoning ordinance. The proposed lots meet the minimum depth of 130 feet along the southern property line,but due to the unique shape of the lot do not meet the minimum along the northern property line which abuts a busy collector roadway. Both lots will be used for single-family residences, consistent with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. The lots were platted in the late `70s and early`80s as a rural residential neighborhood. At that time larger lots were a requirement of the zoning district due to a need to accommodate well and septic systems. The city expanded the urban service area and provided city services adjacent to the parcel,making the lot split possible. Additionally, the unique lot shape is due to the location of the streets which were designed with rural residential zoning standards in mind. 5. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The minimum lot depth is met along the property line abutting residential properties, and both lots are large enough to accommodate a home of similar size and configuration as the surrounding neighborhood. The lots will be smaller in area than adjacent parcels,but they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\12-15-2014\Final\x7.2 sr Reg Powell Variance.docx The planned lot split is consistent with the intent of the zoning district,but due to the unique configuration of the existing road network,a variance is necessary. Staff does not believe the proposed variance from the minimum lot depth will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Board of Adjustments The Board of Adjustments expressed concerns about the smaller lots being out of character with the neighborhood. There was also concern that the plight was not due solely to the property owner's request to split the lot. The Board of Adjustments voted 6-1 to deny the request based upon the finding that the following criteria for granting a variance cannot be met: 1. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. 2. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Public Hearing Kendra Lindahl, neighbor to the subject property, stated that she believes proposed lot split was not consistent with the neighborhood since most of the lots were 30,000 square feet in size or larger. She also stated that the Comprehensive Plan states the intent is to preserve the character of neighborhoods. Ms. Lindahl does not believe the request meets the standards for granting a variance and that her and her husband oppose the variance request. Ryan Schneider,neighbor across the street, stated he bought his home because of the large lots and mature trees and does not support the variance. Staff has also received four letters opposing the variance request. Financial Impact None Attachments • Board of Adjustments Packet dated November 25, 2014 • Property owner letters opposing the variance request N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\12-15-2014\Final\x7.2 sr Reg Powell Variance.docx f .� Request for Action River To Item Number Board of Adjustments 4.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Board of Adjustments I November 25,2014 Zack Carlton,Planner I Item Description Reviewed by Request by Reg Powell for 20 Foot Reduction of Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director CODD the Minimum Lot Depth Reviewed by Case No.V 14-02 Action Requested By motion, approve,approve with conditions,or deny the proposed variance that would allow two parcels below the minimum lot depth of 130 feet in the R-1c Single Family Residential district. If the variance is denied, specific reasons shall be stated. If the Board finds that the request does not meet the requirements for a variance,the item will appear before the City Council on appeal December 15,2014. Background/Discussion Reg Powell,representing the property owner,is proposing to split the lot at 19375 Oxford St NW into two buildable parcels.The variance request is part of an application packet that includes the lot spit request,which the City Council is scheduled to review on December 15,2014. The variance is for the creation of two parcels,both of which will be below the minimum lot depth of 130'in the R-1c district. The new lots meet design standards for minimum lot size at 11,000 SF, and minimum lot width at 100 feet measured at setback line. City ordinance describes the R-1c zoning district as "intended to provide single-family residences ... in areas that are a continuation of existing residential development patterns and the infilling of existing lots in established areas."The current parcel is larger than average for the zoning district,and the new lot would be sold for use as a single-family residence in an established neighborhood. The current lot is uniquely shaped due to the angle of Norfolk Street as it approaches Highland Road. The proposed lots are deep enough along the southern property line with proposed depths of 130 feet and 142.6 feet. However,along the northern property line the lot depths are approximately 111 feet each. City code defines lot depth as the minimum horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines.With the minimum distance between the front and rear lot lines at 111 feet,the applicant requires a variance of 20 feet from the minimum lot depth. P 0 1 1 8 E 0 81 NATURE Variance Criteria The applicant addresses the criteria for granting a variance as follows: 1. The variance is in harmony ndth the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. The request creates two lots with enough buildable area to accommodate a single-family home of similar size to the surrounding neighborhood.The request is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent udth the City of Elk Diver comprehensive plan. The variance,if granted,will not alter the use of the property and it will remain consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the -oning ordinance. The proposed lots meet the minimum depth of 130 feet along the southern property line,but due to the unique shape of the lot, do not meet the minimum along the northern property line. Both lots will be used for single-family residences. 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. The lot shape and street locations were in place before the property owner purchased the lot. 5. The variance, ifgranted, n ill not alter the essential character of the locality. Both lots are large enough to accommodate a home of similar size and configuration as the surrounding neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The planned lot split is consistent with the intent of the zoning district,but due to the unique configuration of the existing road network,a variance is necessary. Staff does not believe the proposed variance from the minimum lot depth will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Financial Impact None Attachments • Location Map • Applicant Narrative submitted October 27, 2014. • Certificate of Survey dated August 20, 2014 • Survey Sketch N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\V\V 14-02 Reg Powell\V 14-02 SR Reg Powell 11-25-2014.docx •�, ,,.a '�� sue—;.. _.���, * f—�.--.. - 1 1 �1+� ��r'`r •� � �,� a ,. ,1 7.�y'{� *20. +k "r a+•r-'=� 'it's �� tit, f����� ray, � y ! Y � - ♦ J 4 r..yy f . '� � ti-'• -.il+ttia��+�� ♦ � ?11 a *+�� '�",�r � • a i r~ � Fk�1►_ i '' Lea • '4 t • . ,r I VL a x.77- it i `YrY N i #?�1'. -,771st' •.�3-t..� � — ► �k 1 F ,� ��r � rr 4�� 1 i 1TT� w VARIANCE We are seeking a variance for lot 7 block 2 Ridgewood East to split the existing lot into two residential lots.A 20ft depth variance is needed on both lots to meet city requirements. We would like to build a home on the new lot, now that city sewer and water is available.The new home will be a single family home which is what the neighborhood is now zoned and will fit perfectly with existing neighborhood.We need this variance because of the shape of the existing lot. Thank you Reg Powell W � Giza fig E co ',, 't Q g % ail. i iH E all ^ N � 1 / 1 n�pr,KS�' W tiBy M I I 4 n {40 €o U ►fir i' /' a d a° a: Me his 12 «_ fill; 1 111111' ' � Lilt It tj flit s a RRR 1F IP� 2 O er N :. �' 3 rs-� s�YOa-a a .m-v � SI a € b ++ =a, N lit I I &gym 1 0"' $ 8 B SHEET ND. _ vj / � o / so. uj U- CD 0 R/ M \ \mZ / • 11T/ \ O0 0%•�' 63 / Q M N \ ^ a •1N \y ac I o 4 o ° I JZJI r � I � c o oN c p I IX I m v w I 3 4tz N �j r �$a • e � E 7e2/ vi$ I I II I .a 5 Ilt liLift ryo,N — / J o N o <Pr�osa ° 2 N C), t L 'W I I Z ^ 'nN NI '.'s O-F 13 ff°c OIL t o tg° ♦w F9Z I a0 mo 1 �•3 a I v 1 a .G \�\ ., _ r L I O ct°I am �V Iayomfxo am =m I Nao Carlton, Zachary From: Aaron Tice Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:22 PM To: Carlton, Zachary Subject: Variance Opposition Importance: High We, Aaron and Paula Tice, 19319 Norfolk Street NW,Elk River,oppose the requested variance from to allow a 20 foot lot depth variance for each of 2 proposed lots(40 feet total). The proposed lots would be completely out of character with our neighborhood where the lots average 30,000 square feet. The 11,000 square foot lots seem tiny and would be out of place in this existing neighborhood. Furthermore, while we understand that subdivision is possible when sanitary sewer and water become available, we expect that the city will at least uphold the minimum lot size standards. This parcel is simply too small to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the variance should be denied. The application does not meet the variance standards outlined in Sec. 30-325 (Variances)nor does it meet the standards in Sec. 30-635 (Variances)of the City Code. The applicant does not meet the standard for practical difficulties needed to grant the variance. It appears that the primary reason for the request is financial benefit to the owner,but it does not pass the reasonableness,uniqueness or essential character test as approval of this variance would be a dramatic departure of the character of this existing neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. We implore the Board of Adjustments to deny the variance request based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met. Sincerely, Aaron C.Tice Founder/Financial Advisor Cirrus Retirement Solutions 19319 Norfolk Street NW Elk River, MN 55330 P:(763)355-9945 Www.cirrusretirement.com 1 Carlton, Zachary From: vicki h Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:58 PM To: Carlton, Zachary; Carlton, Zachary Subject: Variance for 2 proposed lots on Norfolk ST. Board of Adjustment in care: zcarlton @ElkRiverMN.gov We, Tim and Victoria Hiller, 19340 Norfolk St., oppose the requested variance from to allow a 20 foot lot depth variance for each of 2 proposed lots (40 feet total). The proposed lots would be completely out of character with our neighborhood where the lots average 30,000 square feet. The 11,000 square foot lots seem very small and would be out of place in our existing neighborhood. Furthermore, while we understand that subdivision is possible when sanitary sewer and water become available, we expect that the city will at least uphold the minimum lot size standards. This parcel is simply too small to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the variance should be denied. The application does not meet the variance standards outlined in Sec. 30-325 (Variances) nor does it meet the standards in Sec. 30-635 (Variances) of the City Code. The applicant does not meet the standard for practical difficulties needed to grant the variance. It appears that the primary reason for the request is financial benefit to the owner, but it does not pass the reasonableness, uniqueness or essential character test as approval of this variance would be a dramatic departure of the character of this existing neighborhood. Financial benefit alone does not constitute practical difficulties. We implore the Board of Adjustments to deny the variance request based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met. Sincerely, Tim Hiller and Victoria Hiller i Carlton, Zachary From: Bob Olson Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 1:57 PM To: Carlton, Zachary Subject: Lot 7 Ridgewood East Variance Attachments: Scan019.pdf We, Bob and Annette Olson, oppose the requested variance from to allow a 20 foot lot depth variance for each of 2 proposed lots (40 feet total). The proposed lots would be completely out of character with our neighborhood where the lots average 30,000 square feet. The 11,000 square foot lots seem tiny and would be out of place in this existing neighborhood. Furthermore, while we understand that subdivision is possible when sanitary sewer and water become available, we expect that the city will at least uphold the minimum lot size standards. This parcel is simply too small to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the variance should be denied. The application does not meet the variance standards outlined in Sec. 30-325 (Variances) nor does it meet the standards v in Sec. 30-635 (Variances) of the City Code. The applicant does not meet the standard for practical difficulties needed to grant the variance. It appears that the primary reason for the request is financial benefit to the owner, but it does not pass the reasonableness, uniqueness or essential character test as approval of this variance would be a dramatic departure of the character of this existing neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. We implore the Board of Adjustments to deny the variance request based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met. Sincerely, Bob and Annette Olson 19337 Norfolk St. NW Elk River, Mn 55330 BOB OLSON Plant Manager Office: 763-452-0920 Cell: 763-350-4579 Fax: 763-792-4400 Toll Free: 866-406-4100 bolson @aggressivehydraulics.com AGGRESSIVE HYDRAULICS = muss 1 Carlton, Zachary From: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 9:04 PM To: Carlton, Zachary Subject: 19375 oxford st NW lot variance Board of Adjustment in care: zcarlton(c_t�',E1kRiverMN. og_v I Ryan Schneider. 12104 Highland RD NW Elk River MN 55330 oppose the requested variance from to allow a 20 foot lot depth variance for each of 2 proposed Iots (40 feet total). The proposed lots would be completely out of character with our neighborhood where the lots average 30,000 square feet. The 1 1,000 square foot lots seem tiny and would be out of place in this existing neighborhood. Furthermore, while we understand that subdivision is possible when sanitary sewer and water become available, we expect that the city will at least uphold the minimum lot size standards. This parcel is simply too small to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the variance should be denied. The application does not meet the variance standards outlined in See. 30-325 (Variances)nor does it meet the standards in Sec. 30-635 (Variances) of the City Code. The applicant does not meet the standard for practical difficulties needed to grant the variance. It appears that the primary reason for the request is financial benefit to the owner, but it does not pass the reasonableness, uniqueness or essential character test as approval of this variance would be a dramatic departure of the character of this existing neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. We implore the Board of Adjustments to deny the variance request based on the finding that the variance standards have not been met. Sincerely, Ryan Schneider f