Loading...
7.1. SR 09-21-2020Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 7.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearings September 21, 2020 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Lot Size Variance: Eric Toth, 12824 Orono Road Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner Reviewed by Cal Portner, City Administrator Action Requested Deny, by motion, the lot size variance for the following reasons: 1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are not met. 2. The proposed use is not reasonable and is not permitted in the zoning ordinance. --_ 3. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances not unique to the property and are a consequence of the u petitioner's own action or inaction. ` , 33 l 4. The variance could alter the essential character of the locality. Alternatively, if the City Council believes the variance meets all five standards of approval, staff recommends including a condition toyk record a deed restriction on the substandard lot prohibiting the issuance of a building permit unless platted as a conforming parcel or ` !WY 10 - -' combined with an adjacent conforming parcel.i cn iz 7 Board of Adjustments The Board of Adjustments denied the request stating the conforming parcel was serving the purpose the two property owners wanted, a vacant lot in ownership by one of the two parties to prevent it from being built on. The Board also felt the owners were creating the need for a variance themselves and the desired outcome can be remedied without a variance (by platting). Figure I -. The applicant reiterated they do not want to build on the parcel and offered to record a deed restriction on the new nonconforming parcel to prohibit any future development on the parcel. The Board also had concerns regarding the future maintenance of a small undeveloped parcel. If the parcel were to become unkempt and abandoned, would the city be responsible for maintenance. The Board was The Elk River Vision A nelcoming community nvith revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional p Q w E H E u e T service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity g /� URE reminded there are code enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure maintenance, regardless of size or ownership. Since the meeting, the applicant has submitted an updated narrative: In response to the Board of Adjustments reason of denial. Our response is. 9. Is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. This is correct without any avrittenl attached covenants. A covenant recorded on the property deed stating that the parcel is not buildable would meet this intent. The proposed split allows us to maintain the distinct character of our immediate area by maintaining a space that has not been previously built upon. 2. The plight of the petitioner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. Not to split and sell the eastern half of the property is one option. The other, to replat. Option one (above) is a valid reason not to replat. 3. The variance will alter the essential character ofthe locality. The essential charier of the proper will only be altered if.• ■ A structure is built on the properly ■ No covenants are recorded on the property deed ■ Covenants recorded on the deed, are not enforced by the governing agency ire accept a covenant of restriction and want to emphasi.Ze that this simple lot split will ensure that the property mill be maintained as it is today, as a natural green space. This space will allow for families to garden and safely enjoy the outdoor environment. If the City Council determines the variance should be approved, staff recommends a deed restriction be recorded, at the same time the variance is recorded, stating the parcel cannot be developed, unless platted as a conforming parcel or combined with an adjacent conforming parcel. Financial Impact None Attachments ■ Updated Narrative ■ Board of Adjustments Memo dated August 25, 2020 Revised Narrative Eric and Elizabeth Toth — Request for Variance Narrative Eric and Elizabeth Toth, as owners of Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Orono Lake Addition, are requesting a variance with covenants to achieve a simple lot split of Lot 12 (known locally as the "Garden Lot") as more fully described on the attached "Certificate of Survey and Lot Split." This simple split will allow us to sell the resulting Parcel B to our neighbors, Gary and Diane Stritesky (property ID 75-132-4100). We will retain Parcel A, which will be attached to Lot 11. We have been informed by City staff that Parcel B cannot be attached to the Stritesky property because their property was never platted (the Striteskys would own Parcel B as a separate unbuildable lot as recorded on their property deed). Neither party has an interest in further development of the Garden Lot as a new residence, therefore we do not see a need to create a buildable lot from this split (City staff have suggested that the Garden Lot should be split into a buildable lot and an unbuildable lot). Rather, we believe the proposed split will allow both parties to more fully enjoy the use of their respective properties while contributing desirable greenspace to the community. The Stritesky property is bounded by roadways on three sides with structures being effectively restricted to the western edge of the property; Parcel B will give them some "breathing space." Our property includes a historic barn which we wish to protect as a cultural resource for the community, thus our desire to retain a buffer to the east of the barn. We believe the proposed variance for a simple split should be allowed as it serves the interests of the adjoining property owners and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is our understanding that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide future growth, redevelopment, and improvement efforts in the City. The five themes, and our statements regarding conformity, are: • Maintain a distinct identity: Historic Elk River clearly has the character of "small town" Minnesota; the newer parts of the City are more typical of suburban development elsewhere in the region. Both the new and the old are important to the identity of our city; our neighborhood is typical of the older development with larger, irregular lots exhibiting a wide variety of housing styles and, in our specific instance, remnants of Elk River's agricultural heritage. The proposed split allows us to maintain the distinct character of our immediate area by maintaining a space that has not been previously built out. • Create and maintain strong neighborhoods: We believe the proposed split will help maintain this neighborhood as a desirable place to live (we have chosen to retire here) by retaining the historic physical character and property values — desirable neighborhoods make strong neighborhoods with engaged, connected, and concerned residents. • Keep Elk River a "safe" place: In addition to the benefits of a strong neighborhood as it relates to overall community safety, our proposal will eliminate the addition of an additional driveway entrance on Orono Road. • Preserve and maintain the environment: It is the intent of both parties to maintain the "Garden Lot" as a green space in the city with its inherent benefits to aesthetic character, microclimate, wildlife, stormwater management, etc. The retention of a building lot, which we have already stated that we would not sell for a new residence, does not contribute to this goal. • Make Elk River a "complete" place: The division of "Garden Lot" will help ensure that Elk River continues to be a "complete" city by maintaining the diverse character of the city that continues to attract and retain both residents and businesses. This simple lot split, creating two smaller lots from the existing "Garden Lot," is a necessary and unique situation because the Stritesky property was not platted thus preventing a simple property line adjustment. As shown on the original 1960 plat map, Orono Lake Addition was created and platted with exception to the property now owned by the Striteskys. We have not been able to find any further details for this exception; it may have involved the future realignment of the roads adjoining the Stritesky property. We have discussed this simple lot split with Sherburne County Auditor/Treasurer, Diane Arnold; she has told us that she has no concerns with this proposal. In closing, we would like to emphasize that this approved variance with covenants recorded on the property deed stating that the parcel is not -buildable unless platted as a conforming lot or combined with an adjacent parcel, will ensure that the property will be maintained as it is today, as a natural green space. This space will allow for our families to garden and safely enjoy the outdoor environment. The essential character of the property will not be altered. On behalf of ourselves and our neighbors, we would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to your favorable response and the opportunity for us to move ahead with implementing this split for the benefit of all parties. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact us. Thank you, Sincerely, Eric and Elizabeth Toth Request for Action To Item Number Board of Adjustments 5.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Public Hearings August 25, 2020 Zack Carlton, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Eric Toth — 12824 Orono Rd. Chris Leeseber , Senior Planner Lot Size Variance — 3,388 sq. ft. less than required Reviewed by 11,000 sq. ft. - Case No. V 20-10 Action Requested Deny, by motion, the lot size variance for the following reasons: 1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are not met. 2. The proposed use is not reasonable and is not permitted in the zoning ordinance. 3. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances not unique to the property and are a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. 4. The variance could alter the essential character of the locality. Background/Discussion The applicant, Eric Toth and his neighbor, Gary Stritesky, want to split the vacant parcel between their two parcels and combine them with each of their adjacent lots. Normally this is a lot line adjustment the city signs off on and it gets recorded at the county. In this case, Gary's lot (east of the vacant lot) is legally described in metes and bounds and Eric's vacant lot is platted. Due to state regulations, Sherburne County cannot approve property line adjustments across platted and non -platted properties and will only combine these lots through a platting process. To address those limitations, the City Council approved a shortened platting process in 2017, only requiring Council approval on a consent agenda. Figure I Eric is requesting a subdivision exemption (lot line adjustment), to combine the western half of the vacant lot with his adjacent parcel, leaving the eastern half as a standalone parcel, not meeting the minimum lot size standards for the R-1c zoning district. As mentioned, this standalone parcel cannot be combined with Gary's parcel to the east without platting. The Elk River Vision A nyelcoming community nyith revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional p Q W E A E o s r service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity;, g /� JfUR The property is zoned R1-c which requires lots to be 11,000 sq. ft. in size with a minimum width of 80- feet. The applicant would like to complete a lot line adjustment where Lot 11, Block 2, Orono Lake Addition (75-468-0265) will expand/absorb into Parcel A (8,779 sq. ft. & about 44' wide) leaving Parcel B (7,612 sq. ft. & about 44' wide) as a stand-alone buildable lot, but which does not meet the lot size standards of the zoning district, thus requiring the variance. Applicable Regulation Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that the variance satisfies all five of the criteria described below. The variance is: Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to maintain uniform development in a neighborhood or zoning district, provide a reasonable buildable area for asingle-family home, and to provide reasonable distances between structures, as established by the ordinance. While the current property owners have no intention of developing Parcel B, the undersized parcel can support a structure approximately 22' x 100'. The minimum house width allowed by ordinance is 22 feet. The variance is not in harmony with general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River Comprehensive Plan. The property is guided for residential. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Variances may be granted when the petitioner establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties means that: 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; While adjusting lot lines to make one parcel larger is reasonable, it is not reasonable to leave a standalone remnant parcel nearly 1 /2 the required size for the zoning district. The use is not reasonable nor permitted by the zoning ordinance. 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; and The plight is a consequence of the petitioner's own action. They are trying to execute a lot line adjustment on two conforming parcels resulting in one parcel becoming non -conforming, requiring the variance. They can accomplish the same goal by platting the parcels as the city streamlined that platting process in 2017. 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locale could be altered if a non -conforming parcel is approved and a home is built on the site. Financial Impact None Council Meeting If denied, or an appeal is made by any interested party by August 4, 2020, this item will go to the September 21, 2020, City Council meeting. Attachments ■ Location Map ■ Applicant's Narrative ■ Survey of 75-468-0270 ■ Before and After Exhibits r -' 75-132115 ow I 000 75--' f _ n - _.- - — - 6-4($lH4 21 75-468-�125f - 75-dFr1-f?15r-+16d- 75460-l" d 76 608 226 t -,titi�TS _F 75. 13-026 1,41A-:}l10 ' 75-132 100 � �• , Lam- r 704a 110 EricToth .�i ll e Case o.-V -1 ever 7�_ AUG U 4 2020 Eric and Elizabeth Toth — Request for Variance Narrative Eric and Elizabeth Toth, as owners of Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Orono Lake Addition, are requesting approval to achieve a simple lot split of Lot 12 (known locally as the "Garden Lot") as more fully described on the attached "Certificate of Survey and Lot Split." This simple split will allow us to sell the resulting Parcel B to our neighbors, Gary and Diane Stritesky (property ID 75-132-4100). We will retain Parcel A, which will be attached to Lot 11. We have been informed by City staff that Parcel B cannot be attached to the Stritesky property because their property was never platted (the Striteskys would own Parcel B as a separate unbuildable lot). Neither party has an interest in further development of the Garden Lot as a new residence, therefore we do not see a need to create a buildable lot from this split (City staff have suggested that the Garden Lot should be split into a buildable lot and an unbuildable lot). Rather, we believe the proposed split will allow both parties to more fully enjoy the use of their respective properties while contributing desirable greenspace to the community. The Stritesky property is bounded by roadways on three sides with structures being effectively restricted to the western edge of the property; Parcel B will give them some "breathing space." Our property includes a historic barn which we wish to protect as a cultural resource for the community, thus our desire to retain a buffer to the east of the barn. We believe the proposed simple split should be allowed as it serves the interests of the adjoining property owners and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is our understanding that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to guide future growth, redevelopment, and improvement efforts in the City. The five themes, and our statements regarding conformity, are: • Maintain a distinct identity: Historic Elk River clearly has the character of "small town" Minnesota; the newer parts of the City are more typical of suburban development elsewhere in the region. Both the new and the old are important to the identity of our city; our neighborhood is typical of the older development with larger, irregular lots exhibiting a wide variety of housing styles and, in our specific instance, remnants of Elk River's agricultural heritage. The proposed split allows us to maintain the distinct character of our immediate area by maintaining a space that has not been previously built out. • Create and maintain strong neighborhoods: We believe the proposed split will help maintain this neighborhood as a desirable place to live (we have chosen to retire here) by retaining the historic physical character and property values — desirable neighborhoods make strong neighborhoods with engaged, connected, and concerned residents. • Keep Elk River a "safe" place: In addition to the benefits of a strong neighborhood as it relates to overall community safety, our proposal will eliminate the addition of an additional driveway entrance on Orono Road. • Preserve and maintain the environment: It is the intent of both parties to maintain the "Garden Lot" as a green space in the city with its inherent benefits to aesthetic character, microclimate, wildlife, stormwater management, etc. The retention of a building lot, which we have already stated that we would not sell for a new residence, does not contribute to this goal. • Make Elk River a "complete" place: The division of "Garden Lot" will help ensure that Elk River continues to be a "complete" city by maintaining the diverse character of the city that continues to attract and retain both residents and businesses. This simple lot split, creating two smaller lots from the existing "Garden Lot," is a necessary and unique situation because the Stritesky property was not platted thus preventing a simple property line adjustment. As shown on the original 1960 plat map, Orono Lake Addition was created and platted with exception to the property now owned by the Striteskys. We have not been able to find any further details for this exception; it may have involved the future realignment of the roads adjoining the Stritesky property. We have discussed this simple lot split with Sherburne County Auditor/Treasurer, Diane Arnold; she has told us that she has no concerns with this proposal. In closing, we would like to emphasize that this simple lot split will ensure that the property will be maintained as it is today, as a natural green space. This space will allow for our families to garden and safely enjoy the outdoor environment. The essential character of the property will not be altered. On behalf of ourselves and our neighbors, we would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to your favorable response and the opportunity for us to move ahead with implementing this split for the benefit of all parties. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact us. Thank you, Sincerely, Eric and Elizabeth Toth CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 8c LOT SPLIT FOR_ Eric Toth Witness Monumank � \ Cast Iron t with Par poo. No. O �—tas inch a 1/2 IrPipe n mSet Monument 1Tsz1a , a plastic plug stamped 13057 or 24332. I NOR-rra Oanotas a 112 inch itan pipe monumant found. <91 IDanotas a P.K. Nail Found. I SCALE IN FEET I Line Lot 12. of Nw coma, gf Lgx 12. MAGNAIL SETS I 44.$B --- - _ PK Nail F. Am P I m ' `PlID 75-132-4100 r RICO 75-468-0265 PI- 75-468-0270 1RLS 21T29� S- 12� 14 ti 4844 3Qi {\c�-(' Edges of Hit. -' p�ROP�N Existing [Description: Lot 12, Blocic 2, Orono La Ka Addition, Sherburne County, Minnesota. Proposed Parcel A That part of Lot 12, Block 2, Orono Lalca Addition, Sherburne County, Minnesota, lying west of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly lina of said Lot 12, distant 44.88 feet southeasterly of tha northwest corner tharaof; thence South to a point on the southarly line of said Lot 12, distant 44.14 feat northeastarly of the southwest corner thereof. U f Prop —ad Parcel B Ss Lot 12, Block 2, Orono L.ka Addition, Sherburne County, Minnesota, E—pt that part lying west of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly line of said Lot 12, distant 0 44.88 foot southeasterly of the northwest corner thereof; thanca south to a point on the southarly line of said Lot 12, distant 44.14 feet no rthaasterly of the southwest corner tharaof. Ire hareby'w rtiFy that bthis9 ey. plon ePort rr 105 South Fifth Avenue p rapora cl by ma or undo my direct supervision and i Suite 513 tr,at I an-, r� dwy Wean sad Land sr, r..a yr�r .,ndar tr.a L A tV Q F O R M lows of the Stote of Minne�oto. _ Minneapolis, MN 55401 Web: 1—JIform.net Larry Hvut i pate: 4/2-20 - Cleanse. No. 24332 Revisetl: 5/OT/2020 Job No. ZZZ20506 prawing: ZZZ20S09 LOT.dwg gy; pM , 1p z r; e a' -1977 111 , S, r r � f 75 Vi R. :1 Eric & Elizabeth Toth Variance - T5-13��11 75-4+ �3 2 11) r w.* 75a46-0250 7 6-025 IB 75B-412� - i -'� -413 -1.1 "l i} _ 75 �i13i , 75-132-0lOn B8-(F265 5-d6d-027 �; �, 7 5 �6,g' 225 r 75-U245 75�tB6-D23�r 7 R-02dQ-5 sq�5" 16 Eric Toth arlan Case No.- -1 River Background ■ Request to split vacant lot between two developed lots ■ Resulting in one non -conforming lot ■ Two adjacent property owners do not want to see a home build on the new lot ■ Typically a lot line adjustment ■ Platted vs. Metes and Bounds ■ Sherburne County cannot approve property line adjustments across platted and non -platted 50 752468!025 5 .1 0 ; 1 0 0 0 p - 0 AMP7=413 -011 � 75-132-4100 1• Platted ' Not atted 1 - J. Oft 757468'025 5 7 5 —4 6:04.2 6 Oka - - Mgm f -1 ...q 4100 It aR01vo RO Lme of Lot 12. q F 9..97 A ar �� �89T6 �T M J 44.88 \s. cub MAGMAIL SEfJ I qq ` PKfulFMO--/ I o 4 m W Q � W co Q LL ED it N al cn � r U7 I ` m N CD b � coa- O N � N g N CD m Q P o ` C) PID 75-468-0270 W I.P. SET— 4A 1� Aa 14 s1 oggW :ofLot 12., NN eafait RP9N _�1SS�SS1Pp1 .. w F0 1,0 A6 i��-;M2601iuL* 75 - -4100 '413 I'D 11 t Background ■ New standalone lot ■ It is buildable ■ Does not meeting the minimum lot size standards for the R-1 c zoning district ■ 11,000 sgft required 80-foot width ■ 8,779 sgft and 44 feet (A) ■ 7,612 sgft and 44 feet (B) Applicable Regulations ■ The BOA denied the request as the request did not meet 4 of the 5 criteria for approval ■ Currently serves what they desire ■ Creating the need for variance themselves ■ Maintenance of small unkempt parcel Additional Info ■ To address the issues of creating a non -conforming parcel ■ Applicant will be proposing a deed restriction idea on the new lot ■ Prohibiting a structure being built on it ■ Covenant will expire in 30 years Action Requested ■ Deny, by motion, the lot size variance for the reasons outlined in the memo ■ Alternatively, if the City Council believes the variance meets all five standards of approval, staff recommends including a condition to record a deed restriction on the substandard lot prohibiting the issuance of a building permit unless platted as a conforming parcel or combined with an adjacent conforming parcel F0 1,0 A6 i��-;M2601iuL* 75 - -4100 '413 I'D 11 t aR01vo RO Lme of Lot 12. q F 9..97 A ar �� �89T6 �T M J 44.88 \s. cub MAGMAIL SEfJ I qq ` PKfulFMO--/ I o 4 m W Q � W co Q LL ED it N al cn � r U7 I ` m N CD b � coa- O N � N g N CD m Q P o ` C) PID 75-468-0270 W I.P. SET— 4A 1� Aa 14 s1 oggW :ofLot 12., NN eafait RP9N _�1SS�SS1Pp1 lb v 75 h58 U250 City of Eflktmm%�- *ON% River ML ap a LOT 3 OUTLOT A l -OP- ld, ti r - LOT I- ic Re OUTLOT A LOT 1- '7- i51N 87-ro 16 a OLluot B Duda c Lot 2 :--floe Lot;4 _a4W L.Awr