Loading...
6.2. SR 06-18-2007 REQUEST FOR ACTION Meeting Date une 18, 2007 Item Number 6.2. Prepared by erem Barnhart, Plannin Reviewed by Scott Clark, Community Development Director Reviewed by Item Description Request by Kevin Anderson for Lot Size Variance, Case No. V 07 -03 Action Reauested Consider appeal of an amended variance to permit a lot split where one of the lots does not meet the minimum size requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance, section 30-1006. Bac karound/Discussion The Board of Adjustments reviewed the variance request by Kevin Anderson to create a lot .91 acres in size in a 2.5 acre zoning district. This review, including public hearing, was held on May 8, 2007. At the City Council meeting on May 21, the City Council suggested the applicant alter his request, creating two lots that more closely fit the requirements of the ordinance. The applicant agreed, proposing two lots, one 2.5 acres, and the other 2.16 acres. The City Council tabled the discussion to June 18,2007. The Board of Adjustments has not reviewed the amendment. In an objective review of the variance request, staff does not feel that the applicant offers sufficient support for a variance, but concedes that the variance requested does not alter the character of the neighborhood and represents the minimum amount of variance necessary to gain relief from the ordinance. Financial Impact None Attachments . Location Map . Amended lot sketch . Letter of objection General Information A Iicant: Requested Action Kevin Anderson Variance from Sec 30-1006 to permit a lot size of 2.16 acres where 2.5 is re uired Action must be taken on this request by May 26, 2007 MN Statute 15.99 status location and Size: Approximately 4.69 acres south ofHwy 10/169, west of Edison street in the south eastern portion of the community. . location Existing Use land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning Subject Single Family Res Rural Residential (RR) R-ia Property North Single Family Res RR R-ia South Single Family Res RR R-ia East Single Family Res RR R-ia West Single Family Res RR R-ia Overview The applicant desires to subdivide the property, creating two parcels from the existing 4.69 acre parcel. The northern parcel would be 39,936 square feet, or .91 acres. (199.68 x 200 feet). Access to the northern lot is proposed to be from Edison street, which provides the minimum street frontage for the property. There are no structures on the northern parcel. The southern parcel would be 163,038 square feet, or 3.74 acres (approximately 816.5 x 199.68). The existing house on this parcel will be retained, and the existing access onto the property from 154th Avenue will be retained. The property is served by on- site water and sanitation systems. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate the extension of urban services into the property. To date, staff has received one written comment against the proposed variance, attached. Analysis The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2.5 acres for single family lots within this district. There is no way to subdivide the property of 4.69 acres into two 2.5 acre parcels without acquiring additional property. There are several purposes behind the establishment of a minimum lot size, including density goals, and in non services area, adequate space for wells and septic systems. Although a lot split application has not been received, one of the requirements for that process is to show where two septic fields could be located on each property. A portion of the property is also located within the Mississippi wild and scenic river district, which requires a minimum of 2.5 acre lots for non-riparian lots. The northern quarter of the property falls outside this district. Variance Criteria 1. Literal e'?forcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. The requirements for lot size are clearly defined, and not open to interpretation. The applicant has not demonstrated evidence of a hardship. 2. The hardship is caused ~v special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the properry and the structure involved and which are not characteristic ~f. or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same area. The lot is a relatively flat, currently farmed parcel rectangular is shape. There is no uniqueness to the land warranting a variance from the lot size. 3. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. It does not appear that the applicant created the original 4.69 acre parcel; it does not appear that the applicant purchased the property with the intent to subdivide. 4. The literal application ~f the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the petitioner ~f rights ef!iqyed fry other tJrotJerties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. ~ ~ ~ The property owner is afforded rights enjoyed by other R-1a properties, namely the use of the land for single family residential use. There is no loss of rights by not allowing subdivision of property not meeting minimum lot size requirements. 5. The variance will not be if!iurious to or adverselY q(fect the health. sqk!J or welfare ~f the residents ~f the city or the neighborhood where the properry is located and will be in keeping with spirit and intent of the ordinance. A variance would allow subdivision of lots not meeting minimum standards established by the zoning ordinance, and with the exception of the on site water and sanitation requirements, its negative impacts may be negligible, especially from a visual standpoint. The applicant contends that the character of the neighborhood has been established with the creation of one acre lots or smaller south and west of the subject property. These lots do range in size from 20,000 to 48,600 square feet, with the average 29,000 square feet. These lots were platted in 1974, as part of the township, before initiatives to protect the river and soils and maintain a maximum density were developed. Summary It appears that the standards for variance have not been satisfied. While the applicant could pursue the minimum variance, (one lot at 2.5 acres and the second lot at 2.19 acres) and this may increase on site septic and water options, the property is not unique and no hardship has been offered indicating support for a variance. Board of Adjustments decision The Board of Adjustment reviewed the request, and felt that the request was not supported by hardship or uniqueness and felt that was a request out of convenience versus need. Respectfully Submitted Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Planning Manager Action Motion by _ Second by _ Vote Follow Up City Council Minutes May 21, 2007, 2007 Page 4 Gary Peterson, 1943 6th Lane-Stated he would be willing to volunteer to assist with landscaping the median. He stated he supports the prairie plantings because they conserve funds and water and help promote Energy City. It was noted that it is cheaper to build new medians then it is to re-do existing ones. The Council directed staff to find less expensive alternatives for Council consideration. 6.1. Request by Kevin Anderson for Lot Size Variance, Case No. V 07-03-Public Hearing Mr. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance for a lot split. The Board of Adjustments denied the variance request because they felt it did not meet the requirements needed for a variance as outlined in the staff report. Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing. Kevin Anderson, 9927 154th Avenue-Stated most of the properties in the area are less than one acre. He stated the Wild and Scenic District won't be affected because his parcel will be three acres. Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. Councilmember Farber stated he concurs with the decision of the Board of Adjustment and felt the applicant could more equally split is parcel to meet the 2 V2 acre requirement. Councilmember Motin suggested continuing this item to give the applicant a chance to amend his application. Mr. Beck suggested this item be continued so that staff could prepare findings to support and approve the variance on the condition that it be split as Council is requesting. He noted a 60 day extension letter would need to be sent to the applicant. MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER FARBER AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 18, 2007 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 6.2. Request by Dale Beaudry for Lot Split. Case No. LS 07-01-Pub/ic Hearing Mr. Leeseberg stated the applicant is requesting a lot split as outlined in his staff report. Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this issue, Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. Councilmember Farber expressed concerns with a new house not fitting in with the design of the homes. He questioned if there was anything in the Old Town designation that would dictate the type of home that could be built. Mr. Leeseberg stated the current designation is vague but that the Downtown Taskforce is working on creating some design standards. Mr. Beck stated they can't enforce anything on this applicant unless they wanted to do a moratorium. 120 i:1 ~I ~LJi c) Ul Z W Cl ::r:: Location Map qr N Case Number: V 07-03 KEVIN/PA TRICIA ANDERSON J;- f(eif ~ h. {) r"L oer5 0/1 4J 0 \-( , () . fo 4- fVlLfi- D Yh f L/ I\.r : fJ 11. C-.e +-- IOI1G /0 + ~ < 5' Ac reS Ar\D Dn A cfr-~/ . l t' Ie l:::. A. ~u c:. lot-;ZJ1 r~ MA 2 2 2007 d- \\\(/[5 <1027 (5'-( j;l )1St. +utA I L\_ &> 1 ~ {\(f<{ /. ') ,5 cA. ~cfC 7 L~~~J houX f(J tt~'-- J hee; ~~~; IlAY 08 Z007 Pi cck ;r ~ cYL'-"^ ~ ""* ~~ ~ Ie) Srl~~ ~ S'~~ ~ ~ ~ ft \) Q7-o3 (~~ -+ p~~~>) fL- ~ ~ J ~ ~~> 7l~ V/-{ (~ y^>~<yIL, ffJ< Z1 ~~ cI~ ~ tr-1-h ~.~ c }c.66d UJdJ~ ~:r;v., &,"^ -/0 d~- ~ ~ifL~_' ,J2u. ~ ifJL)~ ~~ /~ ~ p~~ L~c~ (l~d 1lce ~j{X/,- h""'. ~ dL'c~~ Q,~ flu- S' 1- ~ ~~ CAY\ cLu~" >5;' ~ J z; if . T1-r [Jv'-f. J~. ) g/. ~cL fJW ~ . 0 ::1 ~YyV"a -. .d''i. r:--~ J . . 1 bJ ~ M rJ ~7-330 ~\. Clvx >' ,itA 1t-- r I~' -:f if; '3 32 3 } 3t- ~