HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Variance Shoreland Lot Size/ Width
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: March 22, 2021
Item: Mason Home Co - Variance #2021-12 – Shoreland lot size and width - 914 1st St E
Planning Commission Action Requested
Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following action requested:
1) A variance to the minimum lot size and width of a lot within the Shoreland Management
District. Chapter 153.05, Subd. (A)(2)(b) – New, Non-Riparian lots within 1,000-feet from
Lake Isabel must be 15,000 SF and 150-feet wide.
Lots existing prior to 6-16-1994 (like the subject lot) are grandfathered as buildable lots. However,
grandfathered lots that are owned by the same individual as an adjacent lot, lose their grandfather
status by a provision in that ordinance (155.05 Subd. (A)(5)).
Background Information
Shoreland Management Ordinance
The Shoreland Management Ordinance is meant to preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands while allowing for
wise use and development of properties and resources. This is accomplished by requiring new
development around lakes and rivers to be less dense to lessen the impact of stormwater runoff
and reduce the visual impact of development from those features.
One missing component to our Shoreland Ordinance that we adopted is a delineation between
waters within undeveloped rural lands and developed lands in cities. Undeveloped lakes and rivers
provide an expectation of remaining primitive and can benefit from low-density development.
Existing dense development in cities near lakes and rivers include infrastructure that protects the
waterbodies from potential impacts of continued development in those immediate areas. Existing
streets, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers protect those resources from the impact of existing and
future development in these developed areas.
Planning Commission Memorandum
The entire Shoreland Ordinance was created by the Minn. DNR and did include water categories
that were accepting of standard sized lots in developed areas. Those category descriptions indicate
they are for waterbodies “located within or adjacent to major cities throughout the state”.
Unfortunately, when we adopted our model Shoreland Ordinance, these classifications were not
included in ours. Staff has not done a comprehensive search, but noticed that the City of Monticello
(population 13,583) has a Shoreland Ordinance that includes these urban classifications for
waterbodies adjacent to developed areas.
Later this year, the city will be reviewing a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA)
Ordinance. This ordinance will regulate development and vegetation management along the
Mississippi River Corridor. The draft Template includes districts that properly reflect the differences
between developed and undeveloped areas. During the review of the proposed plan, staff will
propose amendments to the current Shoreland Ordinance to reflect the MRCCA ordinance and
better reflect the current development in Hastings. These changes are intended to protect natural
areas while allowing for typical infill and redevelopment.
Case Law
There is case law that affects the applicability of shoreland lot size and width requirements to
grandfathered lots in common ownership. Existing lots that are owned by the same individual
cannot be required to meet more than 66% of the required lot size and width. For the subject
property, this would be 99’ wide (required within 300-feet of a transition river) and 9,900 Sf
(required within 1,000’ of a recreational Lake). The lots of record are 66’ wide and 9,240 Sf, which
still would require variances. The width required for a lot within 1,000’ of a recreational lake is 75’,
but a variance is not needed, as case law does not allow requiring more than 66% of that
requirement (49.5’). The variances if granted, should still reflect the size requirements of the
ordinance rather than case law, but effectively, the proposed variance is very close to what is
allowed by case law.
Subject Proposal
The applicants propose to construct a home on the vacant lot, which was platted in 1855 as a
standard 66’ by 140’ lot. This 9,240 Sf lot is typical of the area and much larger than the minimum
lot size of the zoning district (7,000 Sf). Municipal water and sewer lines are stubbed to the
property, although there doesn’t appear to have been a house there since the sometime between
1936 – 1950’s.
The Shoreland Ordinance requires greater lot sizes and widths for lots within 1,000’ of a lake and
300’ of a river, whether or not the property is in a developed area or a remote rural location. Lots
that were created prior to an ordinance change that makes them substandard are grandfathered
as legally nonconforming and may be developed. The Shoreland Ordinance acknowledges this, but
places conditions on this legally nonconforming status including that: The lot has been in separate
ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard (1994).
The applicant owns both lots and must receive a variance to the original lot dimensions if they wish
to construct a new home. The proposed home meets all other development standards. If the
variances are granted, they would submit for a building permit with appropriate grading/ drainage
plans that are reviewed for compliance with drainage and development standards. The house is
proposed to be placed on the south side of the lot with the garage facing the alley and the front of
the home facing 1st Street E.
Zoning
The property is zoned R-2 medium density residence. The district allows new lots at least 7,000 Sf
with a minimum width of 50’ wide. The setback requirements are 20’ front and rear and 7’ from
the side property lines for principal structures.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
The following land uses abut the property:
Direction Use Comp Plan District Zoning District
North Single Family Home Low Density Residential R-2 - Single Family
East Single Family Home Low Density Residential R-2 - Single Family
South Single Family Home Low Density Residential R-2 - Single Family
West Single Family Home Low Density Residential R-2 - Single Family
Public Notification
Notification of the meeting was sent to the DNR and all property owners within 350 feet of the
proposed property. We have received the following comments:
From: Raymond Menard, 906 1st St E:
The lot has not been developed in the past because there is a low spot where water can collect.
Floodplain
Most of the property is covered by the Flood Fringe designation. Structures within that
designation are allowed on fill of 693’ above sea-level in this location. The highest portion of the
property (south) is at 694’ and the lowest is 689 to the north. The home is proposed to be located
on the south side of the lot to take advantage of the topography. The development standards of
the Floodplain Ordinance require certified surveys and elevation certificates before and after
development. They are reviewed administratively by the Planning and Engineering Departments
to assure compliance. No development is allowed in the floodway district, which is far from this
location.
VARIANCE REVIEW
Variance Definition
Variances are deviations from strict compliance of City Code provisions. The Board of Adjustment
and Appeals may issue a variance upon determination of findings of fact and conclusions
supporting the variance as established in Chapter 30.02, Subd. F of the City Code.
Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals
Hastings City Code Chapter 30.02 establishes the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals and
appoints the City Council and Planning Commission to facilitate the Board’s roles and duties.
Applications for Variances require Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals review.
Requested Variance – Lot size and width
City Code Chapter 153.05, Subd. (A)(2)(b) requires new, Non-Riparian lots within 1,000-feet of a
recreational lake must be 15,000 SF and 150’ wide within 300’ of a Transition River.
Variance Review
City Code Chapter 30.02(F) establishes the requirement for granting variances. The Planning
Commission (acting in part as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals) may consider variances to the
Zoning Code that are not contrary to the public interest where owing to special conditions, and
where a literal enforcement of the provision of the City Code would result in practical difficulties.
Variances may be granted providing the following has been satisfied (staff review appears in bold
italics):
(1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of the land
involved, a practical difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; The physical
surroundings include an existing developed community in conjunction with two waterbodies,
which are improperly categorized in the local Shoreland Ordinance. If the strict letter of the
regulations were carried out, the owner would have a practical difficulty splitting the lots for a
new home construction as the full Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 6120, Shoreland and
Floodplain Management regulations would allow.
(2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the tract of land
for which the variance is sought and not applicable, generally, to other property with the same
zoning classification; The conditions above are fairly unique to the subject tract of land. While
there may be several other grandfathered lots in common ownership, few are within both the
Transition River and Recreational Lake impact zones. Furthermore, as staff intends to propose
updating the Shoreland Ordnance later this year to address the existing discrepancies along
with the pending draft MRCCA Ordinance, the conditions present would not be applicable to
other properties.
(3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land; The owner doesn’t seek to obtain the variance exclusively
to increase the value or income potential of the lot, as the variance is necessary to construct a
home on the lot.
(4) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the vicinity in which the tract of land is located; Granting of the variance
would allow for the construction of home as was intended for the lot since platted in 1855 and
the proposal meets all zoning requirements. It appears there was a home on the lot in 1936 and
water and sewer lines have been maintained to the property in anticipation for a home. The
proposed home would meet all setbacks and development requirements, aside from the
Shoreland lot measurements. Grading, drainage, and construction requirements will be
reviewed and enforced.
(5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property, or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the vicinity;
It does not appear that the variance will impair light, air, congestion, fire danger, public safety,
or property values within the vicinity, as the site will be developed similar to comparable
properties.
(6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; Yes, the purpose and
intent of the ordinance is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, while allowing for development,
while allowing for wise use and development of properties and resources. The actual ordinance
misses the full intent of the ordinance by restricting development in developed areas. This is not
the intent of the full Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 6120, Shoreland and Floodplain
Management regulations.
(7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The property is guided for low
density residential development, which allows properties in the proposed size and dimensions.
Furthermore, the Housing chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive plan calls for increased infill
development by creating new housing on vacant parcels in existing neighborhoods. This leads to
lower housing prices and reduces infrastructure maintenance obligations for the city.
(8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; Construction of a typical
home on a typical lot that was intended and planned for a home is certainly reasonable.
(9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties”, as
used in connection with the granting of the variance means that:
(a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control; The construction of a home on a platted lot meets the intent of the
Shoreland Ordinance and is a reasonable use of the land.
(b) The practical difficulty is caused by the provisions of this chapter and has not been
created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land; The
practical difficulty was created by mis-categorization of the waterbodies in the Shoreland
Ordinance. The waterbodies should have been categorized in a way that would have
allowed current area development to continue, infill, and redevelop.
1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished
under the current Ordinance requirements, The applicant cannot accomplish the proposal
under the current ordinance requirements.
(c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The parcel
will develop consistent with area properties
(d) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant has
not stated any financial reasoning for the variance.
(e) Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Variance is recommended subject to the above findings of fact in the Variance
Review. Granting a variance with the identification of unique conditions and practical difficulties
would not confer similar justification to other properties.
Conditions
1. Conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report and plans dated March 22, 2021.
2. Approval is subject to a one-year Sunset Clause; if progress on the proposal is not made
within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void.
3. All provisions of the Zoning, Shoreland Management and Floodplain ordinances must be
addressed including but not limited to setbacks, design, drainage, and elevation
requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
• Location Map and Site Photo
• Plans
• Proposal Letter
Proposed footprint
Key Points for 914 1st Street
Lot Split Application
Hastings, MN
March 10th, 2021
To whom it may concern at the City of Hastings,
Please see below a few key highlights for the home we hope to build upon the successful lot split at 914 1st
Street.
• We have built a smaller version of this home last year, 6 of them as part of a town home
community, it was very well received, and we sold them all very fast.
• The model photos of the other home are attached. That home was around 2,000 finished SF, this
home when fully finished would be around 3300 SF
• We interviewed lots of buyers and agents to get the best input on house design
o Easy Truck Deep Garage (23’ deep)
o 9’ door on third stall makes it a usable garage
o 12’ ceiling on main level – impressive feeling home and living space
o Loads of Natural Light
▪ 9’ Family room window with Transom
▪ 8’ Patio Door
▪ Flanking windows around fireplace with transoms
▪ 3 picture/piano windows in dining area
▪ Large windows in all bedrooms
▪ Walk out lower level with large windows and patio door
• 3 BR 3 BA, with potential to be 4 BR 4 BA in lower level
• Full landscaping and Sod around home will be included along with at least 2 new trees
• We will do everything possible to save the large Oak Tree as well
• Raising low floor to meet requirements for R-2 zoning area.
• We strongly feel this home will be a great asset to the neighborhood and the City of Hastings
From the Artspace Lofts, to a few new retail shops and restaurants on 2nd, and some other improvements and
new houses in the neighborhood, we really hope to continue the path of investment in the area and build a
fantastic new home on this lot.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at any time via phone or email. Also, I am happy to
meet with the city to discuss our plans further should it help in any way.
Thank you,
Edgar Fauconnier
Mason Home Co
651-205-3515
Edgarf@masoncompany.com