Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

traverses the Subject Property. A condition of that approval was that the Applicant was to prepare and dedicate new Drainage and Utility Easement to encumber the re-routed drainage ditch. At this time, Staff finds no record of a Drainage and Utility Easement being recorded against the Subject Property to address this re-routed section of ditch. When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors: 1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner? 2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner? 3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? If the variance were approved, the Applicant would proceed with an application for Minor Plat to create one (1) new buildable lot to accommodate a single family home. A single family home is a permitted use within this zoning district and thus would be a reasonable use of the Subject Property. Additionally, the use would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and is mostly consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the only deviation would be for one (1) of the lots to be slightly less than the required 2.5 acre lot size. The Subject Property is unique in that it is almost three (3) times larger than the other parcels created within this plat and the majority of the neighborhood. A variance to lot size standards would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as both lots would still be larger than the surrounding residential parcels. It is due to the fact that this proposed lot split would be generally consistent with the surrounding development pattern that Staff is comfortable in recommending approval. If this request had been submitted in a development of 2.5 acre lots or larger, Staff would likely not recommend approval. The Environmental Policy Board (EPB) did review this request at the June meeting. The EPB was generally supportive of the request for a variance, contingent upon completion and approval of a wetland delineation confirming sufficient upland area for a new home. As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation. Alternatives Option #1: Adopt Resolutions # 15-07-162 and # 15-07-0163 approving a variance to lot size requirements contingent upon completion and approval of a wetland delineation confirming sufficient area to accommodate a new single family home and encumbering the re-routed ditch section with a Drainage and Utility Easement. As drafted, the variance would be tied to recording of a Minor Plat (meaning that the variance would As long as the Applicant can demonstrate through a wetland delineation that there is sufficient buildable area on the Subject Property, Staff would support this option. Option #2: Do not approve the request for a variance. It does appear that there is sufficient upland area to accommodate a new single family home on the Subject Property (although a wetland delineation is needed to confirm this). The Subject Property is almost three (3) times as large as the other residential parcels in the neighborhood and thus, approving a variance to slightly deviate from the minimum lot size standard would not result in a lot that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, it would be more comparable based on the lot sizes of the other parcels. Staff would not support this option. Funding Source: All costs associated with processing this request are the Applicant's responsibility. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance contingent upon: • Completion of a wetland delineation that is approved by the LRRWMO; and • Applicant providing evidence of a recorded Drainage and Utility Easement for the re-routed ditch section or dedicating a Drainage and Utility Easement that encumbers the re-routed ditch section. Action: