Loading...
6.b Bahrami Concept Review - PC Packet Date of Meeting: July 11, 2023 To: Chair Loeffler and Planning Commission Members From: TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Bahrami Concept Plan Applicant: Parviz A. Bahrami & Elizabeth J. Bahrami Zoning: RR-N, SM-O Owner: Parviz A. Bahrami & Elizabeth J. Bahrami Future Land Use: General Rural Location: PID 29.032.20.14.0020 Review Deadline August 22, 2023 The applicant is requesting feedback on a concept that would require a Variance to construct a new principal structure on a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming setback from the ordinary high-water level setback. BACKGROUND The existing lot is legally nonconforming due to lot size, buildable area, lot width, and lot frontage. An existing legal nonconforming structure exists on the property. The existing principal structure is setback 52.9 ft. from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) where 100 ft. is required and is setback 6.4 ft. from the side yard where 10 ft. is required. The existing principal structure meets front setbacks. The septic system on the site is nonconforming based on Washington County’s standards. A nonconforming detached accessory structure also exists on the lot. The property has an approved variance from the OWHL setback and side yard setback that makes the existing structure a legal nonconformity. When this variance was granted, multiple other variances were denied. The existing structure was made up of a 16 ft. by 40 ft. portion of the house (the existing cabin), a 22 ft. by 20 ft. portion of the house, a 10 ft. by 10 ft. enclosed storage area, and an 8 ft. by 10 ft. porch. The owner at the time demolished the 22 ft. by 20 ft. portion, the storage area, and the porch. A stop work order was issued as the owner at the time planned to expand the 16 ft. by 40 ft. portion with a 20 ft. by 28 ft. addition. The variance for the expansion was denied based on being an intensification and expansion of an existing nonconforming use and an intensification of use of the existing septic system. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Existing Conditions The existing lot is a legally nonconforming lot in the Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) base zoning district and the Shoreland Management Overlay District (SM-O). Lot standards are detailed below for the RR-N and SM-O districts. RR-N SM-O Minimum Lot Size (ac.) (Existing Lot of Record) 0.92 2.5 Buildable Area (ac.) 1.00 N/A Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 150 160 Lot Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A Setbacks (ft.) Front 40 N/A Side 10 N/A OHWL 100 100 Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% Accessory Structure Location Outside all setbacks, if in front of principal structure see Character Standards N/A Accessory Structure Height (ft.) 35, but not taller than Principal Structure 35 Total Accessory Structure Area (sq. ft) 1,000 N/A Staff believes that the proposed changes to the lot would maintain the nonconforming setbacks from the OHWL and may reduce the nonconformity on the side setback. Governing Ordinance Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 Nonconforming Building and Structures (A) Replacement establishes the standards of when a nonconforming building can be replaced. The standards state that a nonconforming building shall not be replaced except in conformity with the UDC. If a replacement structure cannot be placed on the lot meeting all current standards, the variance procedure must be followed. The applicant is proposing the replacement of a nonconforming principal structure with a new principal structure that would not be in conformance with the UDC and Shoreland Management Regulations. Chapter 5 Shoreland Management Regulations 3.72 states that all additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Sections 5.0 to 8.0 of the ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance. The proposed principal structure does not conform to these sections. Variance Section 153.500.060 Subd. 1 (B) establishes the standards for when the City shall approve a variance. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and when the strict enforcement of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties with carrying out the strict letter of the Code. Practical difficulties are established within the UDC and are listed below in italics. Staff’s analysis of these is below each practical difficulty: a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent 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 neighborhood. g. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant has provided a narrative which is attached. The applicant has identified the following issues with the existing structure: The second bedroom is 8 ft. by 7.5 ft, there are issues with the foundation, the flat roof is not suited to the climate, and the structure is out of character with the neighborhood. Staff has reviewed these issues. Building Code requires 70 sq. ft. for a habitable room. However, a bedroom is not presumed to have a closet within the code. The foundation has not been inspected by the City, and staff cannot comment on the status of the foundation. A flat roof is allowed by code, however, it is unlikely that the existing roof would meet building code. The exterior of the structure is in poor condition. However, staff believes if it is out of character for the neighborhood, it is because of the age of the exterior materials. Staff believes that the concept plan would not meet the standards to have a variance approved. The circumstances are directly created by the applicant by demolishing an existing principal structure and proposing a replacement that maintains an existing nonconformity. Staff believes that the proposal is not the minimum action required to eliminate any practical difficulty that exists. The concept plan proposes to replace an existing legally nonconforming principal structure. Replacement or repair is allowed when the cost would not exceed 50% of the assessed value. Staff have not been provided with valuations but assume the demolition and replacement with a larger principal structure would exceed this allowance and require a variance. Variances should not be granted when the need for a variance is created by the landowner. The concept provided by the applicant does not show setbacks on the lot. The concept plan should be revised to show setbacks. Staff has estimated that there are approximately 1,120 sq. ft. of buildable area on the site. Based on the standards established in Section 153.400.030 Subd. 2 (D) Single Family Dwellings I. Minimum Width and Foundation within the UDC, staff believes that the area within the setbacks could be used to construct a dwelling. However, a variance would still be required as the lot is nonconforming and does not meet the standards to be developed without a variance. The proposal uses approximately 70 sq. ft. of the 1,120 sq. ft. of buildable area on the site. The proposed location of the new principal structure makes no attempt to minimize the encroachment into the ordinary high-water level setback. Staff believes this is not the minimal action required. If the existing principal structure were to be demolished, staff believes the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty would be to grant a variance to allow for construction within the conforming area. If the applicant believes this is not possible, an exhibit should be submitted showing the practical difficulty. The existing nonconforming principal structure could be expanded into the area that would be conforming through an administrative permit as allowed by Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 (E) Expansion of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures and Chapter 5 Shoreland Management Regulations 3.72. The replacement of the principal structure is not the minimal action required. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff, the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District, and Washington County Department of Public Health & Environment for review. No written comments were received. Staff is aware that the applicant has been in contact with the Watershed District. The concept plan does not reflect the requirements of the Watershed District, which will likely include a rain garden for stormwater control and a permanent dedicated buffer along the OHWL. COMMISSION ACTION No formal action is taken when considering concept plans. Comments made by the Planning Commission and staff are considered informal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the concept plan and provide feedback to the applicant. The UDC states that the Concept Plan may be reviewed by the City Council if recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Commission consult the applicant on whether they wish the application to be recommended to the City Council. Attachments 1. Zoning Map 2. Future Land Use Map 3. Variance from 1989 (Document 622719 from the Office of the County Recorder Washington County, MN) 4. Application 5. Narrative 6. Concept Plan 7. Photo of Existing Structure 8. Example of Proposed Structure 9. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Comments, dated June 27, 2023 10. Building Official Comments, dated June 29, 2023 18 8.1 Legend 0 132 Feet This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Scandia is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 7/6/2023 4:32 PM City Limits Parcels (4/1/2023) Lot Lines PWI Basin Public Water Basin Public Water Wetland PWI - Watercourse Parks Shoreland Overlay PUD Overlay Lakes Mining Overlay Saint Croix River District Zoning Agricultural Core Agricultural Preserves Rural Residential General Village Neighborhood Rural Commercial Rural Residential Neighborhood Village Historic Core Village Center Industrial Park Scandia_2022.sid Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 Zoning Map Bahrami Concept m i n n e s o t a RL Ate' m 1IqmIp E: y n _ 95 4 kz/1 Mfg i i / Z"] / iii - 1 _ 6227 a I hereby certify that the Attached Order is a true and correct copy of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the Washington County Board of Adjustment and Appeals on January 25 , 1990, in response to the variance application of Stanley Strauss . Dated: February 6 , 1990 By: NNIS C. O DO NELL LAND USE SPECIALIST 1 m 6':j.id Q aR - , a 1, r I ', , a °„ t a . o0L . .1 i . a ,: . q '. . i . b n 1 .. o u'°a ile i. ,? J, (",,, y„! ,` ; j • I, t s<',, . C C'J c` n .- r STATE OF MINNESOTA WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD COUNTY OF WASHINGTON OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS In the Matter of the Variance Request of: Stanley Strauss, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING VARIANCE Applicant. This matter came on for hearing on November 30, 1989 before the Washington County Board of Adjustment and Appeals on application for variance of Stanley Strauss. The applicant appeared personally. Also present were Dennis 0'Donnell, County Planner; Howard R. Turrentine, Assistant Washington County Attorney; and Dorothy Rossi, Secretary to the Board. All board members were present. Having reviewed the evidence, heard the arguments of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant is the owner of property with frontage on Big Marine Lake, legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Beckstrom's Addition, New Scandia Township. 2. Big Marine Lake is classified under the Washington County Shoreland Management Ordinance as an LS-3 lake. Applicant seeks to raise an existing 16 x 40 structure and construct a new 20 x 28 addition. 3. Applicant seeks the following variances: a. Lot size - 1 acres or 60 percent (39,900 sq. feet) required - 9328 square feet existing. b. Lake frontage - 150 feet or 60 percent (90 feet) required - 55.94 feet existing. c. Road frontage - 150 feet or 60 percent (90 feet) required - 55.94 feet existing. d. Sideyard setback - 10 feet required - 7 foot 6 inches proposed. e. Lake setback - 100 feet required - the existing structure is 61 feet from the normal ordinary high water mark. 4. Applicant's structure is a seasonal dwelling and is serviced by an illegal and nonconforming septic system. The "201 system" is not available and 1 - r . the only alternative is a holding tank. 5. Applicant's structure consisted of a 16 x 40 portion, a 22 x 20 portion, a 10 x 10 storage area and an 8 x 10 porch. The 22 x 20 portion, the 10 x 10 storage area and the 8 x 10 porch have been removed without a building permit. Applicant seeks to replace the portions removed with a 20 x 28 addition and raise the foundation of the 16 x 40 foot structure. 6. Applicant cannot meet any of the lot size, lake frontage, road frontage, sideyard setback or lake setback requirements. The proposed addition will be larger than the area removed and will be an intensification and expansion of an existing nonconforming use and a further intensification of the use of the existing septic system. 7. The remaining 16 x 40 structure is suitable for use as a seasonal residential dwelling. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A hardship does not exist within the meaning of the Washington County Development Code in that applicant can continue to have the reasonable use of the dwelling and further, the addition will be an expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming use. ORDER 1. Based upon the foregoing, the variance request of Stanley Strauss to raze the 16 x 40 existing portion of the dwell ing is granted on the condition that Washington County approves an alternative septic system. 2. The remainder of applicant's variance requests are denied. Dated this ay of December, 1989. WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS 7 F B 2 4 - .', ohn Baird, Chair This instrument drafted by: Howard R. Turrentine Assistant Washington County Attorney Washington County Government Center Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 779-5463 2 - File No._____________ APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REQUEST City of Scandia, Minnesota 14727 209th Street North, Scandia, MN 55073 Phone 651/433-2274 Fax 651/433-5112 Web https://www.cityofscandia.com/ Please read before completing: The City will not begin processing an application that is incomplete. Detailed submission requirements may be found in the Scandia Development Code, available at the City office and website www.ccityofscandia.com) and in the checklist forms for the particular type of application. Application fees are due at the time of application and are not refundable. 1. Property Location: (street address, if applicable) 2. Washington County Parcel ID: 3. Complete Legal Description: (attach if necessary) 4. Owner(s):Phone: (h) (b) Street Address: E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 5. Applicant/Contact Person:Phone: (h) (b) Street Address (Mailing): E-Mail: City/ State: Zip: 6.Requested Action(s): (check all that apply) ____ Variance ____ Variance Extension ____ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ____ CUP Extension ____ CUP/ Open Space Subdivision. ____ CUP/ Planned Unit Development ____ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ____ Annual Operators Permit ____ Administrative Permit (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Review (type)____________________ ____ Site Plan Modification ____ Site Plan Extension ____ Sign (Permanent) ____ Amendment (Development Code ) ____ Amendment (Comp. Plan ) ____ Subdivision, Minor ____ Subdivision, Preliminary Plat/Major ____ Subdivision, Final Plat ____ Environmental Review ____ Wetland Review 12120 196th St. N. Scandia, MN 55047 29.032.20.14.0020 PARVIZ A. BAHRAMI ELIZABRTH J. BAHRAMI 12120 196th St. N. Scandia, MN 55047 SAME Concept Plan Review X 7. Brief Description of Request: (attach separate sheet if necessary; include Variance Rationale if necessary) _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Project Name: I hereby apply for consideration of the above described request and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate. I understand that no application shall be considered complete unless accompanied by fees as required by city ordinance. Applications for projects requiring more than one type of review shall include the cumulative total of all application fees specified for each type of review. I understand that applicants are required to reimburse the city for all out-of-pocket costs incurred for processing, reviewing and hearing the application. These costs shall include, but are not limited to: parcel searches; publication and mailing of notices; review by the city’s engineering, planning and other consultants; legal costs, and recording fees. An escrow deposit to cover these costs will be collected by the city at the time of application. The minimum escrow deposit shall be cumulative total of all minimum escrow deposits for each type of review required for the project, unless reduced as provided for by ordinance. The city may increase the amount of the required escrow deposit at any time if the city’s costs are reasonably expected to exceed the minimum amount. Any balance remaining after review is complete will be refunded to the applicant. No interest is paid on escrow deposits. PLEASE NOTE: If the fee owner is not the applicant, the applicant must provide written authorization by the fee owner in order for this application to be considered complete. Property Fee Owner Signature(s) Date: Applicant Signature(s) Date: For City Use Only Application Fees: _______________________ Escrow Deposit: _______________________ City of Scandia, Minnesota BL8E LA.E H28SE SEE SEPARATE SHEET 7.Brief Description of Request:(attach separate sheet if necessary; include Variance Rationale if necessary) This is a draft of our Variance request for Concept Plan Review,which we would like to receive feedback on.Attached is a copy of our survey,that shows the lake front part of the proposed replacement area (notated as “Addition”).Only a portion of the addition is in the nonconforming lake setback (12’wide lakefront x~20’long).Other relevant dimensional information is included for your consideration and assessing the likelihood of obtaining a variance. We want to apply for a variance to replace the existing structure with a new residence plus an attached 2 car garage.The need to replace the existing structure is outlined below.For those reasons,we are proposing a residence of 46'long x 28'wide plus an attached 2 car garage of 22'x22'.The new structure would only be 12'wider than the existing structure,starting on the same lakeside setback as the existing structure and continue toward the street.The new build would encompass the existing structure's footprint while remaining compliant with the 10'side setback requirements.The addition of the 12'wide non-conforming area is approximately 240 square feet.The location of the septic tank on the property presents a physical limitation of where the proposed residence and garage could be placed on the property to meet the required setbacks from the septic tanks.Therefore moving the building further back from the lake is not an option. The existing structure needs to be replaced due to several physical limitations: •The existing structure measures 16'x 40'.This structure does not allow for adequately sized 2 bedrooms that the Washington County tax roll shows.The existing bedrooms measure 7.5 x 8’,which barely accommodates a bed.One of the rooms does not have a closet which is expected in a room that is considered to be used for sleeping. •The foundation on the existing structure is not suitable to be incorporated with and attached to a modern perimeter foundation,which would necessitate replacement rather than repair. •The existing structure has a flat roof and is essentially a rectangular box that is not well suited to the Minnesota climate. •The structure is out of character for the neighborhood and does not enhance the value of surrounding residences,while a more conforming residence would be welcomed by all. TJ Hofer From:Tom Langer <tom.langer@cmscwd.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:15 AM To:TJ Hofer Subject:RE: Bahrami Concept Plan Review - Reconstruct Nonconforming Building (PID 2903220140020) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi TJ, The site plan is currently incomplete for watershed review for stormwater management requirements. The site plans should address all proposed impervious surfaces and also show how stormwater management requirements will be met. Having been on site, I do foresee significant challenges or costs to meet requirements based on the proposed project. Specific concerns are outlined below. Thanks, Impervious surfaces: My current estimates for impervious surface being proposed (assuming 1,000SF for driveway) will be 2,912 SF (25% of the lot is 2,505 SF). Proposed home, garage, porch, and driveway were used in calculation. Stormwater Management Sizing: 2912 SF of impervious surface on this lot would require ~600 CF of stormwater treatment or ~291 SF of raingarden with 18 inches of ponding depth. Given the site elevations in comparison to the OHWL I don’t think 18 inches of ponding depth is feasible and constructing a shallower ponding depth (~ 12 inches) would require a larger footprint. There is space in the area between the home and lake, however, I don’t think the scale of this is clearly understood by the applicants. Stormwater Management Routing: Assuming the sizing and ponding depth can be met, the other stormwater requirement is to route at least 80% of the sites impervious surfaces to the stormwater practice. It appears to be extremely challenging to met this requirement given the lot size and drainage easements. Similar I don’t think this is clearly understood by the applicants. If both stormwater practice sizing and routing can be met this can be permitted from the watershed perspective. Thanks! Tom Langer Riparian Permit Specialist | Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District 11660 Myeron Rd North | Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone:  (651) 275-7452 | Cell: 507-276-8056  www.cmscwd.org 1 TJ Hofer From:Joel Hoistad <JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us> Sent:Thursday, June 29, 2023 8:30 AM To:TJ Hofer Subject:RE: Bahrami Concept Plan Review - Reconstruct Nonconforming Building (PID 2903220140020) We would have to be asked to go out and take a look at it. It will definitely not meet today’s codes, but we could take a look at it and give our opinion. Joel S. Hoistad Building Official City of Hugo O: 651-762-6313 C: 651-300-8003 JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us From: TJ Hofer [mailto:tj.hofer@bolton-menk.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 8:28 AM To: Joel Hoistad <JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us> Subject: RE: Bahrami Concept Plan Review - Reconstruct Nonconforming Building (PID 2903220140020) Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Very helpful, thanks, Joel! One clarification. For the roof, when would the inspection be triggered? This is an existing structure constructed in 1959. Thanks, T.J. Hofer Planner II Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mobile: 612-271-6984 Bolton-Menk.com From: Joel Hoistad <JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 8:16 AM To: TJ Hofer <tj.hofer@bolton-menk.com> Subject: RE: Bahrami Concept Plan Review - Reconstruct Nonconforming Building (PID 2903220140020) Hello T.J., Per code, Chapter 3, Section 304.1 the minimum habitable room area should be no smaller than 70 square feet. A bedroom does not necessarily have to have a closet. As far as the foundation, I don’t know what is existing, so couldn’t 2 comment on that. The roof, per code, can be a flat roof, but we would have to do a site visit to inspect it. Hope this helps, if you have any other questions let me know. Joel S. Hoistad Building Official City of Hugo O: 651-762-6313 C: 651-300-8003 JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us From: TJ Hofer [mailto:tj.hofer@bolton-menk.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 9:26 PM To: Joel Hoistad <JHoistad@ci.hugo.mn.us> Subject: FW: Bahrami Concept Plan Review - Reconstruct Nonconforming Building (PID 2903220140020) Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Joel, I have an application that have submitted for a concept plan review for something that would require a variance. Their narrative is identifying some issues that are more related to building code rather than zoning. Page 5 of the attached document details their concerns and rationale. Can you conform for me if their issues are considered conforming based on building code or not? Copy/pasted below for ease. : The existing structure needs to be replaced due to several physical limitations: • The existing structure measures 16' x 40'. This structure does not allow for adequately sized 2 bedrooms that the Washington County tax roll shows. The existing bedrooms measure 7.5 x 8’, which barely accommodates a bed. One of the rooms does not have a closet which is expected in a room that is considered to be used for sleeping. • The foundation on the existing structure is not suitable to be incorporated with and attached to a modern perimeter foundation, which would necessitate replacement rather than repair. • The existing structure has a flat roof and is essentially a rectangular box that is not well suited to the Minnesota climate. • The structure is out of character for the neighborhood and does not enhance the value of surrounding residences, while a more conforming residence would be welcomed by all. Thank you! T.J. Hofer Planner II Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mobile: 612-271-6984 Bolton-Menk.com