Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09 May 2, 2016 Item No. ______ GLENN KLOTZ VARIANCE Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to deny the Klotz variance application and adopt the findings of fact for denial. Overview Glenn Klotz has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a single family home on a vacant 1.29 acre RA, Rural/Agricultural District zoned parcel located to the south of the Lakeville/Burnsville city limits on the west side of Judicial Road (PID number 22-13600-00-043). The parcel was subdivided in 1980 and recorded with Dakota County without required City approval. A variance is required since the property is not a legal non-conforming parcel of record and it does not meet the RA lot area and width requirements of 10 acres in size and 300 feet in width. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 21, 2016 to consider the variance application. The Planning Commission’s motion to approve the variance failed by unanimous vote, therefore the recommendation is to deny the variance. There was public comment at the public hearing from four neighboring residents who opposed the variance. Primary Issues to Consider Does the request meet the variance seven criteria as required by the Zoning Ordinance? Based on the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission and as outlined in the findings of fact, the Planning Commission determined that the variance application did not meet the seven criteria listed in Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Supporting Information • Findings of fact • April 21, 2016 draft Planning Commission meeting minutes • Email from resident dated April 18, 2016 • April 15, 2016 planning report Financial Impact: $ None Budgeted: Budgeted: Y☐ N☐ Source: _______________________________________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Zoning Ordinance_________________________________________________________ Envision Lakeville Community Values: A Home for All Ages and Stages of Life________________________________ Report Prepared by: Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner__________________________________________________ 1 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA KLOTZ VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION On April 21, 2016 the Lakeville Planning Commission met at it’s regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Glenn Klotz for a variance to allow the construction of a single family home on a non-conforming parcel. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The applicant was present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The City Council hereby adopts the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is zoned RA, Rural/Agricultural District. 2. The property is located in Planning District No. 9 of the Comprehensive Plan which guides the property for rural residential land uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: The South 100 feet of the north 115 feet of Lot 4, Fourth Addition to Benham Investment Company’s Minnesota Orchard Gardens. 4. Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that certain criteria be met in consideration of a variance request. The criteria and our findings regarding them are: a) That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. FINDING: While the use of the property for a single family home is consistent with other properties in the area, the 1.29 acre lot size is smaller than the surrounding rural residential parcels. b) That the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow undeveloped legal lots of record in the RA District to develop provide they can accommodate on-site well and septic systems. While the subject parcel can accommodate on-site well and septic systems, it is not a legal lot of record as required by Section 11-17-19.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. c) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. FINDING: The non-conformity was created by the property owner when the property was subdivided without City approval in 1980 and without meeting the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. 2 d) That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively for economic considerations. FINDING: The purpose of the variance includes the economic gain from being able to sell a buildable parcel and to recoup taxes paid on the property since 1980. The property could be sold to an adjacent property owner and combined to form one parcel or held until City sewer is available and the property is rezoned to a single family district. e) That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. FINDING: While there are no other developed RA lots in the surrounding area as small (1.29 acres) as the subject parcel, the variance would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. f) That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. FINDING: The request is the minimum request available to the applicant since there is not an option to purchase additional property from abutting land owners that would not create new non-conforming conditions. g) Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this section for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. FINDING: The proposed single family residential use is a permitted use in the RA District. 5. The planning report dated April 15, 2016 and prepared by Associate Planner, Frank Dempsey is incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council hereby denies the variance. DATED: May 2, 2016 LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL BY: _____________________________________ Matt Little, Mayor BY: _______________________________________ Charlene Friedges, City Clerk City of Lakeville Planning Department Me morandum To: Planning Commission From: Frank Dempsey, AICP, Associate Planner Date: April 15, 2016 Subject: Packet Material for the April 21, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item: Klotz Variance Application Action Deadline: May 14, 2016 BACKGROUND SUMMARY Glenn Klotz has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a single family home on a vacant 1.29 acre parcel located to the south of the Lakeville/Burnsville city limits on the west side of Judicial Road. A variance is required since the property is not a legal conforming parcel of record that does not meet the RA, Rural/Agricultural District lot area and width requirements of 10 acres in size and 300 feet in width and because it is not served with City sanitary sewer. The property PID number is 22-13600-00-043. EXHIBITS A. Zoning/Location Map B. Aerial Photo C. Survey D. 1912 Benham Plat E. Applicant Narrative F. Letter from Neighbor 2 PLANNING ANALYSIS The subject property was platted in 1912 as part of Benham Investment Company’s Minnesota Orchard Gardens. The properties in the plat total 159 lots: Minnesota Orchard Gardens: 33 lots First Addition: 46 lots Second Addition: 15 lots Third Addition: 15 lots Fourth Addition: 50 lots MN Orchard Gardens and the First Addition are located in what is now Burnsville and the rest of the plat is located in Lakeville. Most of the lots in the neighborhood range in size between 1.8 and 5 acres. None of the Benham lots in Lakeville appear to meet the minimum 10 acre lot area and 300 foot lot width requirement of the RA District. Any lots created prior to November 7, 1977 not meeting the minimum lot width and lot area requirements are considered legal non-conforming lots. The subject property (part of Lot 4) has been under the same ownership since before it was subdivided in 1980. The subject parcel was part of Lot 4 which once totaled 4.25 acres. Lot 4 was subdivided into three separate parcels to create the subject 1.29 acre parcel, a 2.77 acre parcel located to the south of the subject property at 16031 Judicial Road and a 0.19 acre, 15 foot wide lot north of the subject property which was purchased by the property owner to the west at 16003 Judicial Road. The 0.19 acre parcel was not combined with the parcel at 16003 when it was subdivided and remains a non-conforming parcel. The proposed house would be located approximately 93 feet from the house on the abutting lot to the south, 98 feet from the house to the north, and 272 feet from the house east of and across Judicial Road. There is also a house on an abutting lot located 720 feet to the west. Up until the early 1980s a property owner was allowed to submit a survey and legal description to Dakota County in almost any lot configuration and the county would record the subdivision without requiring City approval. On November 7, 1977, the City Council adopted an Ordinance requiring that all lots without city sewer must be 10 acres in area and 300 feet in width. When the subject property was subdivided in 1980, the legal non-conforming “grandfather” rights were forfeited which means a variance is now required to allow the city to issue a building permit for Mr. Klotz’s lot. Mr. Klotz has provided a written narrative with the application that outlines his proposed variance request. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan guides the subject property and the immediate area just beyond 167th Street to be Rural Residential. There are no 3 plans to extend sanitary sewer into this area before 2020. Zoning. The property is zoned RA, Rural/Agricultural District which requires a minimum lot area of 10 acres and lot width of 300 feet. Utilities. The subject property and other properties in the vicinity are not served with City sewer or water. Construction of a single family home will require installation of a private sanitary sewer system and well. The City Plumbing Inspector has reviewed the private sanitary sewer design and has determined that it complies with code requirements. VARIANCE Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a variance address and meet seven specific criteria. The applicant’s application narrative states the following: 1. The property will comply with the Comprehensive Plan as a rural residential use. 2. The single family home would be in character with the surrounding properties. 3. The property was acquired with no fault of the property owner for the state of the non-conforming condition. 4. Being able to sell the property as a residential lot will allow economic gain and recoupment of property taxes paid since the property was purchased. 5. All other properties in the area are of similar size (1.29 acres). Staff’s review of the Klotz variance concludes that the application does not meet all seven criteria listed in Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance as described below and in the attached findings of fact. Criteria C and D pose the greatest challenge in the demonstration of practical difficulty. A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. While the use of the property for a single family home is consistent with other properties in the area, the 1.29 acre lot size is smaller than the surrounding rural residential parcels. B. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow undeveloped legal lots of record in the RA District to develop provide they can accommodate on-site well and septic systems. While the subject parcels can accommodate on-site well and septic systems, it is not a legal lot of record. 4 C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The non-conformity was created by the property owner when the property was subdivided without City approval in 1980 and without meeting the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. The purpose of the variance includes the economic gain from being able to sell a buildable parcel and to recoup taxes paid on the property since 1980. The property could be sold to an adjacent property owner and combined to form one parcel. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. While there are no other developed RA lots in the surrounding area as small (1.29 acres) as the subject parcel, the variance would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The request is the minimum request available to the applicant since there is not an option to purchase additional property from abutting land owners that would not create new non-conforming conditions. G. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this title for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The proposed single family residential use is a permitted use in the RA District. Public Comments. A letter has been submitted by the property owner south of the subject parcel (Exhibit F). RECOMMENDATION Planning Department staff recommends denial of the Klotz variance and adoption of the attached findings of fact. LAKEVILLE BURNSVILLE Subject Property RA ROW W 16 2 N D S T W K R A F T O N A V E JU D I C I A L R D 12021 16071 16031 16196 12295 16003 12215 12145 16120 16225 11970 12 2 6 5 12 2 7 5 16040 16075 11955 11980 16250 16227 15650 2709 15708 15720 15701 15715 15725 2609 15720 15690 15732 2801 ZONING MAP Ü EXHIBIT A Dakota County, MN April 4, 2016 0 450 900225 ft 0 130 26065 m 1:4,800 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. EXHIBIT B GAR. PROPOSED HOUSE (WALKOUT) BASE. FF=1094.6 PO R C H PROP. DRIVE 4.0% EXIST. HOUSE RETAINING WALL 1102 1101 11 0 0 33 33 33 AREA = 1.29 ACRES 33 JU D I C I A L R O A D PRIMARY SEPTIC B2 B1 B3 ALTERNATE SEPTIC INSTALL ORANGE SNOW FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE DRAIN FIELD PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. INSTALL SILT FENCE 11 0 1 11 0 2 NORTH LINE OF LOT 4 SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 115 FEET OF LOT 4 EXHIBIT C April 13, 2016 To: City of Lakeville Planning commission From: Dave Delmonico 16031 Judicial Road Lakeville, MN (first property to the south of variance requested property) Subject: Glenn Klotz request for variance I would request this variance be denied based on the following. I will go directly to the Lakeville Planning Departments variance application checklist and address Review Criteria points A-F. A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This area is listed in the comprehensive plan as RA. We have lived on our property since 1987 and currently all existing houses in the neighborhood sit on multi acres of land. No additional homes have been built in the neighborhood in this time and certainly not of a small 1 acre lot. I would assume this request in not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. B. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this title. No one lives in the entire area that has a lot this small and it would be jammed in between 3 existing houses. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner. (on April 12th 2016, I talked with Bill Stanton and obtained the following information which he said I could share) In 1980 the landowner of the property I now own was Lillian Klotz. Mrs. Klotz’s son Glenn Klotz sold the residence and property to William and Jean Stanton. This sale was subject to a VA loan and the appraisal came in from the VA at $72,000.00. Lillian and Glenn Klotz were asking considerable more than $72,000.00 but agreed to sell to the Stanton’s only after Glenn Klotz told the Stanton’s he was going to take a 1 acre 100 foot wide parcel of the north end of the property. Also, according to Mr. Stanton he recalls it was at that time Mr. Klotz said he might build a house on it someday. Stanton’s agreed to this and the sale was final. I believe it was then that Glenn Klotz went to Dakota County and split off the parcel and whether or not the City of Lakeville ever knew about it is unknown to me. In 1987 we purchased the Stanton property and have lived there ever since. Based on the factual information above I would contend that the PLIGHT of the property owner Glenn Klotz (for Lillian Klotz) created this circumstance and planned this since 1980. I will also add that in the last 28 years my neighbor Roger Schiffler and I have attempted to purchase this acre back from Mr. Klotz at a fair price but Mr. Klotz always wanted more for it then we were willing to offer. EXHIBIT F D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. Mr. Klotz’s business is land development for profit and he is good at it. Mr. Klotz’s son-in-law Mike Rongotisch is also a builder/developer and has taken a lead in this project. Mike Rongotisch and Glenn Klotz are very good people, nice neighbors and respected businessmen in the community. Unless they were planning on selling their nice homes they currently live in and move into the proposed new one they want to build next to me (which I doubt) I can only conclude this requested variance is a PROFIT making venture. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Since we moved in back in 1987 there have been no changes in the number of residences in this non-service area. Everyone that lived in their houses then live there now. Even the Callahan’s, two houses down the road in Burnsville have second generation Callahan’s living there now. We enjoy our space and to Squeeeeeezzz another house into this area will substantially change the character of the neighborhood. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. If granted this variance will be the most extreme action……….the minimal would be to sell it at a fair price to the original or adjoining land owner. Thank you for your time: Dave Delmonico