7.4. & 7.5. SR 10-16-1995r ~~
ity of ~~
lk
River
Request
ITEM 7.4.
ITEM 7.5.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Gary Schmitz, Planning Assistant ~°""^~
DATE: October 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Administrative Subdivision Request
and Variance Request by Gina Havron,
Public Hearing Case No. AS 95-11 and
V 95-11
Consider an Administrative Subdivision request by Gina Havron, dividing a
24.59 acre parcel into a 14.59 acre parcel (Parcel A) and a 10 acre parcel
(Parcel B). The request will also involve a 24 foot variance to the required
road frontage of 160 feet in the Rla zoning district.
• Location
13160 Ranch Road
Zoning/Land Use
R1a (Single Family Residential) / LR (Low Density Residential)
Attachments
• Updated survey
• Variance report to the Planning Commission dated September 26, 1995
Background
Gina Havron is proposing an administrative subdivision to divide a 24.59
acre parcel into a 14.59 acre parcel (Parcel A), and a 10 acre parcel (Parcel
B). The 24.59 acre parcel is aflag-shaped lot which has 272.80 feet of road
frontage along County Road 33. Each proposed lot has 136.4 feet of road
frontage. The minimum frontage requirements in the Rla zoning district is
• 160 feet; therefore, each lot falls short by 24 feet of road frontage. The
minimum lot size in the Rla zoning district is 2 1/2 acres; therefore, each
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Administrative Subdivision & Variance Request Page 2
Gina Havron
October 16, 1995
parcel greatly exceeds the minimum requirements in terms of lot size in this
particular zoning district. The attached report to the Planning Commission
explains the variance request in detail. The proposed administrative
subdivision meets all the zoning ordinance requirements except for the
minimum lot frontage.
Natural Features
The subject property is unique flag shaped parcel which has a mix of
wetlands and wooded upland areas. There are two wetlands basins located
near the front of the parcel on both sides of the existing driveway. No impact
should occur to these wetlands for the construction of another home on the
property. The site is heavily wooded and the construction of another home
would impact several existing trees. If this request is approved, staff would
recommend a tree protection plan be submitted with a building permit
application to protect as many of the existing trees as possible.
Driveway
The existing home located on this parcel is serviced by a long driveway which
accesses County Road 33. If this request is approved, staff would recommend
that only one driveway be used to access County Road 33, and that a cross
• access agreement be prepared and implemented so that both properties can
use the same driveway. I have discussed this requirement with the applicant
and she does not have a problem with this request. Sharing a driveway will
limit the number of accesses onto County Road 33 and also aid in not
disturbing any wetlands on site.
Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended a cash payment in the
amount of $500 be paid prior to recording the administrative subdivision.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At the September 26, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
concurred with staff's findings and recommended approval of a 24 foot lot
frontage variance for both proposed parcels.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the requested variance to
the required lot frontage in the R1a zoning district by Gina Havron, based on
• the following findings:
s:councff:v95-11
Administrative Subdivision & Variance Request Page 3
Gina Havron
October 16, 1995
1. The unique shape of the lot and surrounding wetlands pose a physical
• hardship in subdividing the parcel. The flag shape with the bulk of the
property to the rear, limits the applicant's development potential in a
zoning district that allows smaller rural lots. The flag shape also
precludes a public street from being constructed to meet the frontage
requirement as it would result in a long dead end street (also requiring a
variance). The ability to extend the public street to tie in with an existing
street is limited by neighboring lowlands and would involve the
cooperation from other property owners.
2. The proposed administrative subdivision is a reasonable use of the
property. The property is quite large (24.59 acres) and the minimum
lot size is only 2-1/2 acres. Therefore, a 14.59 acre parcel and a 10 acre
parcel would not be out of character for the area.
3. The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of the area and is keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
One of the purposes of the minimum lot width in this zoning district is
to disperse the driveway access points onto public streets. The
applicant has indicated that no new driveways would be constructed
on the new parcel and an easement would be granted to use the
existing driveway.
4. Granting the variance would not convey any special privileges to this
property owner that other property owners in this area would not have
with a similar sized parcel in terms of number and size of proposed lots.
• It is recommended the City Council approve the administrative
subdivision request by Gina Havron to divide a 24.59 acre parcel into a 14.59
acre parcel (Parcel A) and a 10 acre parcel (Parcel B) with the following
conditions:
1. Park dedication in the amount of $500 be paid prior to recording the
administrative subdivision.
2. A surface water management impact fee in the amount of $61.80 be paid
prior to recording the administrative subdivision.
3. That both properties are serviced by the same driveway and that proper
cross access agreements are prepared and executed prior to recording
prior to recording the administrative subdivision.
4. A tree protection plan be submitted at the time of building permit
application for the proposed parcel.
5. Any wetland area be encumbered with a drainage and utility easement.
•
s:council:v95-11
UPDATED SITE PLAN
~ ~ . ,:; - PAK(:EL. E3 - .,~,r .:. ~
f
O zoo o
:' rf
'' 'S-~ - AREA ~ 10.E ACRES .,~
t~ ~~
.
:
~' W
' ~„!
W
' • OEH07ES YONUuENTS
~,., 1
_ ~ . TAYLOR UNO SURVEY~7t~+
f
t a ,
. ,
_. ~
89V3'4Y
s 50
O
O '
-
. ~ ,
. tiartbeost
-North 11M of tbe
. _ - _. ,,,, ,
SSJ°{T30"W urorter o! sec s7
~,~ ~~ , y:
-:~.
.,
y .. .. _
•Y NOtes: x ;
'~ ~ "~; , t Thia survey does .nOt show existMg buHd'mg oreencroocfiments (if orry).~• .
• {
y ~ r3 .. . - ~ '~
~`~ ~ 2 Descriptions based upon site pion by Taylor L~nd,~~ veyfsra dgted August 28
~;;y~~`r.:i~n - 1995. - ~> .~+ „ t
x ~ -'=
'xisR. a ,1`a fi c ~ . M ~ S ~ r' ~ t,,
,_ .~ ,. ~ r
T
~ r ~~
.'ity of ~~
lk •
River
TO:
.FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
ITEM 5.8.
Gary Schmitz, Planning Assistant C~7~
September 26, 1995
SUBJECT: Variance Request by Gina Havron,
Public Hearing Case No. V 95-11
Request
Gina Havron is requesting a 24 foot variance to the required road frontage of
160 feet in the Rla zoning district.
Location
-~ 13160 Ranch Road
•~9 Zonin /Land .Use
Rla (Single Family Residential) / LR (Low Density Residential)
Attachments
• Location Map
• Zoning Map
• Site Plan
• .Letter from Applicant
Background
Gina Havron is proposing an administrative subdivision to divide a 24.59
acre parcel into a 14.59 (Parcel A) and a 10 acre parcel (Parcel B). The 24
acre parcel is aflag-shaped lot which has 272.80 feet o£road frontage along
County Road 33. Each proposed lot has 136.4 feet of road frontage. The
minimum frontage requirements in the R1a zoning district is 160 feet;
therefore, each lot falls short by 24 feet of road frontage. Only the. City
Council will review the administrative subdivision. However, the Planning
Commission is required to act on the proposed 24 foot road frontage variance
• for each parcel.
1.3065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
• Dimensional Regulations
The property is zoned Rla which requires a minimum lot size of 2-1/2 acres
and 160 feet of road frontage. As shown on the attached plan, the acreage of
the overall site includes 24.59 acres. The subject site lacks the necessary
road frontage to subdivide the property without the need for a variance.
Analysis
The applicant has explained her situation in the attached letter. Due to an
.unforeseen circumstance, the applicant would like to split off a ten acre
parcel in order to be able to afford to stay on the property. The applicant had
considered platting the property into 2-1/2 acre lots; however, ran into a
problem with a long dead-end road situation due to the lack of viable outlets
to the rear of the property.. The property is further hindered by a large
wetland near County Road 33 and a powerline easement which limits access.
The one other option other than a variance that could also be considered is
that the applicant could pursue purchasing an additional 47 feet of property
.near County Road 33; however, Ms. Havron would like to apply for a
variance rather than purchasing more property. The 47 feet of property
would likely contain a great majority of wetland area; therefore, would do
little to improve the overall situation other than satisfy the frontage
requirement. If the administrative subdivision and variance are approved,
the applicant would .use the existing driveway to service both lots with the
driveway divided once the property opens up past the flagged area.
Staff feels that there are adequate findings to grant the variance and. offers
the following comments:
The unique shape of the lot and surrounding wetlands pose a physical
hardship in subdividing the parcel. The flag shape with the bulk of the
property to the rear, limits the applicant's developmentpotential in a
zoning district that allows smaller rural lots. The flag .shape also
precludes a public street from being constructed to meet the frontage
requirement as it would result in a long dead end street (also requiring a
variance). The ability to extend the public street to tie in with an existing
street is limited by neighboring lowlands. and would involve the
cooperation from other property owners.
• The proposed administrative subdivision is a reasonable use of the
property. The property is quite large. (24.59 acres) and the minimum Iot
size is only 2-1/2 acres. Therefore, a 14.59. acre parcel and a 10 acre
parcel would not be out of character for the area.
s:p lanuiug:p c:v95-11
• The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
• the area and is keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.. One
of the purposes of the minimum lot width in this zoning district is to
disperse the driveway access points onto public streets. The applicant has
indicated that no new driveways would be constructed an the new parcel
and an easement would be granted to use the existing driveway.
• Granting the variance would not convey any special privileges to this
property owner that other property owners in this area would not have
with a similar sized parcel in terms of number and size of proposed lots.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the 24' lot frontage variance request by Gina
Havron based on the following findings:
1. The unique shape ofthe lot and surrounding wetlands pose a physical
hardship in subdividing the parcel. The flag shape with the bulk of the
property to the rear,.limits the applicant's development potential in a
zoning. district that allows smaller rural lots. The flag shape also
precludes a public street from being constructed to meet the frontage
requirement as it would result in a long dead end street (also requiring a
variance). The ability to extend the public street to tie in with an existing
street is limited by neighboring lowlands and would involve the
cooperation from other property owners.
2. The proposed administrative subdivision is a reasonable use of the
property. The property is quite large (24.59 acres) and the minimum
lot size is only 2=1/2 acres. Therefore, a 14.b9 acre parcel and a 10 acre
parcel would .not be out of character for the area.
The variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of the area and is keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
One of the purposes of the minimum lot width in this zoning district is
to disperse the driveway access points onto public streets. The
applicant has indicated that no new driveways would be constructed
on the new parcel and an easement would be granted to use the
existing driveway.
4. Granting the variance would nat convey any special privileges to this
property owner that other property owners in this area would not have
with a similar sized parcel in terms of number and size of proposed lots.
s:plannin g:pav95.11
~{~~ATi~}~i MAC
1
~ri of
~1~~ -
Ra~er o
. .~,
~AS~ `/ 9571 '
Box 490 + 1306 Orono Parkway + Elk Rive: , MN 5330 • (61?) 4~ 1-7420
Z~N1NG MAP
® Sxgl. Fam11r R+siawwW
® Sitgi~ FartWy R•aldMgtl
SkgM F~sMy pMW~ntW
(/ ~ ®Sreq~ FaeeYir prkl~fitl
• ( ®SigN FrNy IiN1dwNL1
City of
~J~ ~ •
Rly~~'
,~.~ Ftmillr I~..rd.,,uN ~~ ua+e ~+awa+r
R3 Tow~r,o~wiMWnp• rsmrh f+..a«uw f2 Min gWusUW
R4 F~Fl111r R~ddafHtl ~ SOW WaW F~dYty
® R~rrd VNt Dw~bpm~nt ®MMau Twat
Canbal 6anrrniNal
® Mlmal EaR.fv~tlon
C2 Oltk~ Obtrfd ~
CASE V 95-11 ~ '
P.O. Box 490 • 1306 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 5~3~0 • (612) ~1-7420
~(t ..
'
'~',
11
h
~ • i' 1 h ~ ~ 1 '~ ~ e~"
k~S
V 4
~
~
•. ~
7
~
V
„
' y
.
~
2
~
p i
,
~. ~
'' 'r !
'
~
•~~ .
f tom
,,
~
.
~
`. ..
4
Y~ ~~
'
..
~.
Q '"~ ~ ~.
y, ,..
,,
.
.
•
f
iyer+
V
';.~l~`,
-, r
0
~4 h
4y .~
~~
a
on 4
~~ ,`
V°
~.
ti~
~~
~~ ~
,.
.~.t,
~-~.~ .~,
i
~o~>>'
~,~ --~-
_~
.+„`,y
• ~.
„'-
Yc :ci T-ir°~ !-!Y?r ~ _i=t::'~ .. ~'T;-LE't. '. Pt' -:f ~~ ~ - - rr c.
- - XC,~an cltl l?'i ~2 :_t L's_(~ -~Y;,, ~ -i 1_::
.l .~'~ 1 n cl, f'i r=t V *- f} n . (J w n ±. ;`l ~'} 'r' a x . ~' ~ti . ~ =~ C Y• F 5 a ri t h F K ('; [..t i; !- ; c. , ri c:
of Co;_fnt,•y Road ~3. I wi=.h to be able to b~_fild a home an the
<~~..~.t_~~",~r. [:,i?r^.r:+or; rt•j my r.:}rf7c,er,t4•. isher-•e i_., c~_~.r^r^eni;7.v a home on
4~;e c•r;~ r:,~-•; #:y c~.;-;fl+_ct i. (f,)f">' fr^om the ca~_~nty rand.
e~eca~.fse the pr^operty is an odd shaped parcel, due main7.y
to the fact that is bar^der^ed ar; two sides by law lyinc7 ar^ea.<;,
I am I••,avini~ di.ffi.f-i_t7ty in r.,t~t.a:inin;~~ any nther^ .~.r..r,ess to t;r,,e
so,_tther^1 y section c,f the r~r-•oner^t y.
7 wa,_;.1d 7. i.k:e tr, s~.lt off 7.fi art^es of the nr^aper~t: •~ nr^
the new hams with the b~_ilk of this area being an the sa~_fth
end of the section and {~~_fttinG an easement, on the exi=tine
driveway to maintain ~s little wetland dist~_~rbance as
pf.,=si.lole. It it i=~-•a.=ib7.e that I can glace a r^oad to this new
ai
~~ i.te witha~_ft r..ii <..;ir;_tr^E:,i.nc; any of the law lying areas an tF'~e
•
new or the a7.d r,ar^ce1.
I am running in to diffic~_fltie= !Ni.th the refa~_~ir^eri raac!
frontane. ?"he pr^f:,perty has approx. ~,~?.?~ of r~aacl frantane an. c-1
wa~_~1d anly make ,.~.:6g available to each parcel. What I am
proposi.nc~ to do when this i=. approver:;, wi.7.l not in any way
channe the existino road by ~_~reatirtg new ~±r-•iveways anti thi=...
wi7,l not conflict wills any of the s+_~r^ra;_fndina properties.
I have no other so 7.~_tf.ion~ available in this sit~_tation
i.~f;.~-~i: wo,+.ld ma~:e it r~f~~si.b7.e far^ me anti my r,hi].cir^en to main-
'~" a 3. n ~ r' e 5 i CI +? r~ C, r r ~ -; ;; i'; ~. ~; C l r-~ +_~ r-. r 'r ~ t: `~ c+. n ~~ -? = h ? Y^ ? 5 i_l 7 ~': w D ~.:1 7 C I b e f C7 r
,!s to move of thi.~. r:,~.rr_'el. 7aeca+_fse i:,hi.s s~_ich a favorable
1. n t- a. t i a n with r-. 1 F• n i_ ~,; r-: i= r~ r-• n n o •r~~ +: ;, f rt ,.^ w l:. f . r? iT! e _. .. e x 7 r~ •h: ,.
+ , •
,,
C ~-..,. F-~ ~-~ a t^ o n
~ C.t.~t/ / ~/~.--