Loading...
05.a Kinsella Variance - PC Packet Date of Meeting: October 1, 2024 To: Chair Loeffler and Planning Commission Members From: TJ Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure Including Exceeding Impervious Surface Maximum and Side Setback Encroachment for 18546 Langly Ave N. Applicant Ryan Kinsella Zoning: RR-N, SM-O Owner: Ryan Kinsella Future Land Use: Rural Mixed Use Location: 18546 Langly Ave N PID 31.032.20.14.0018 Review Deadline October 28, 2024 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the impervious surface limitation to alter an existing nonconforming lot and expand a nonconforming structure. The expansion of the structure also requires a variance as it expands an existing nonconformity (impervious surface). BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval for a variance to alter an existing nonconforming lot and expand a nonconforming structure that would result in an increase of impervious surface at 18546 Langly Ave N (subject property). The existing site includes a single-family dwelling and two accessory structures. These accessory structures are labeled “Shed” and “Building” on the submitted survey. The subject property is currently zoned Rural Residential Neighborhood (RR-N) and is within the Shoreland Management Overlay District (SM-O) and guided as General Rural. 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). The relevant standards are detailed below, where the parcel or structures are nonconforming is shown in bold text: RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Lot Standards (min.) Area (ac.) 0.92 2.5 0.25 Width (ft.) N/A 160 49.97 Frontage (ft.) 100 N/A 49.97 Setbacks (ft.) (min.) Front 40 N/A 105.30 Side 10 N/A N:5.3 S: 5.38 Rear 50 100 74.43 Driveway (from side lot line) 5 N/A 4.88 Driveway width 12 N/A 11.12 OHWL 100 100 N/A Accessory Structure “Shed” Setback (min.) Side 10 N/A 1.85 Accessory Structure “Building” Setback (min.) Side 10 N/A 4.91 Rear 50 N/A 7.30 Impervious Surface Coverage (max.) 25% 25% 29.4% The existing principal structure, the single-family dwelling, encroaches into the side yard setbacks by 4.7 ft on the north side and 4.62 ft. on the south side. The survey shows the side setback encroachment on the south side measured from an existing concrete pad, however, only the structure matters in terms of establishing the existing nonconformity. The accessory structures both also encroach into the side setbacks, the “shed” encroaching 8.15 ft. and the “building” encroaching 5.09 ft. The “building” accessory structure also encroaches into the rear setback 42.7 ft. There is no attached or detached garage located on the property. The lot is nonconforming based on the size of the lot, the lot width, the required frontage, and the impervious surface coverage. Notably, the impervious surface on the lot makes up 29.4% of the lot where 25% is permitted. No variances exist on record with the City for the property. The property has steep slopes on the rear of the lot, however, these slopes do not meet the definition of a bluff as there is not a rise of at least 25 ft. These slopes are still considered steep slopes for the purposes of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Proposed Conditions The applicant is proposing to expand the existing principal structure. The addition would create additional living space and a garage. Additionally, the accessory building labeled “shed” would be removed and the gravel drive would be altered slightly. Expansion of a nonconforming structure is allowed through an administrative permit through 153.500.110 Subd. 3 (E), provided the nonconformity is not expanded and “expansion complies with all other performance standards of” the UDC and other standards adopted by reference (Shoreland Ordinance). The proposed expansion will result in an increase of impervious surface from 29.4% to 30.2%. Impervious surface coverage is limited to 25% in both the RR-N zoning district and within the SM-O. Due to the expansion not being consistent with those standards, a variance is required for the expansion of the structure and the increase of the existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage. The proposed expansion also increases the encroachment into the side setback on the south side which requires an additional variance. The relevant dimensional standards are detailed below. Where the parcel or structures are nonconforming is shown in bold text. Where the nonconformities are proposed to increase is shown in underlined text: RR-N SM-O Existing Conditions Setbacks (ft.) (min.) Front 40 N/A 77.23 Side 10 N/A N:5.3 S: 5.2 Rear 50 100 72.42 Accessory Structure “Building” Setback Side 10 N/A 4.91 Rear 50 N/A 7.30 Impervious Surface Coverage (max.) 25% 25% 30.2% 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. The existing use of a single-family dwelling is a reasonable use for the site; however, the expansion of the existing nonconforming side setback and impervious surface is not reasonable. The subject property could be utilized without exceeding the impervious surface requirements and encroaching into the side setback. As is established in the Unified Development Code 153.500.110 Subd. 1, “it is the intent of this section that all nonconformities shall be eventually brought into conformity.” To expand upon the existing nonconformities is not reasonable. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The circumstances are unique to the property, however, the request to exceed the existing nonconformities is created by the landowner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing nonconforming structure and lot where no practical difficulty exists. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance were granted, it would alter the essential character of the locality as it would allow an existing nonconforming structure and impervious surface to expand and increase the existing nonconformity. d. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. e. May include, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related 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. The proposed variance will not impair 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. No practical difficulty exists that is not created by the landowner, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the impervious surface. The structure could be expanded without further encroaching into the side setback and increasing impervious surface on the lot. Staff acknowledges that the subject property has constraints that affect the development of the property, however, the proposed variance is not a reasonable use of the property and there are alternative minimum actions that could eliminate a practical difficulty. The nonconforming principal structure could be expanded through an administrative permit, provided that the existing nonconformities are not increased. ANALYSIS Review Comments The submittal was sent to city staff and other regulatory agencies for review and comment. Comments from other entities have been incorporated into the conditions for approval. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District The Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) does not support the variance request at PID 31.032.20.14.0018 Variances from impervious surface limits setbacks impact the long-term health of Big Marine Lake in which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has listed as nearly impaired for biologic health due to the overdevelopment and significant loss of native vegetation of the shoreland. If the City were to approve the application, CMSCWD has provided recommended conditions. The comment letter from CMSCWD is attached. Department of Natural Resources The DNR Area Hydrologist provided no comment. Engineering Department The City Engineer stated upon review with information available applicant will have to demonstrate project will not have negative drainage effects to adjacent properties. This will require a detailed grading plan and additional site work shall anticipated to accomplish not pushing drainage onto adjacent properties. Additional survey work to obtain additional information will also be required so the plan can be developed and submitted to the City for review. Project site shall be in compliance with the Watershed District and additional permit requirements shall be anticipated. Fire Department The Fire Chief has stated that the driveway must be expanded to 10 ft. to allow for access to emergency vehicles. This increase in impervious surface must be accounted for and if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval, staff would recommend tabling the item until revised plans can be prepared. Public Works Department The Public Works Director provided no comment. Staff Analysis Staff finds that the proposed variance is inconsistent with the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. The application does not meet the standards for a practical difficulty and there are alternative minimal actions that could be taken to expand the existing principal structure that do not increase the existing nonconformities. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots. Increasing the impervious surface on the lot does not align with the goal of environmental stewardship. COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission can do one of the following: 1. Recommend approval, with or without conditions, of the attached ordinance and resolutions. 2. Recommend denial, with findings, of the attached ordinance and resolutions. 3. Table the request for further review/study. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: 1. The existing use of a single-family dwelling is a reasonable use for the site; however, the expansion of the existing nonconforming side setback and impervious surface is not reasonable. The subject property could be utilized without exceeding the impervious surface requirements and encroaching into the side setback. As is established in the Unified Development Code 153.500.110 Subd. 1, “it is the intent of this section that all nonconformities shall be eventually brought into conformity.” To expand upon the existing nonconformities is not reasonable. 2. The circumstances are unique to the property, however, the request to exceed the existing nonconformities is created by the landowner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing nonconforming structure and lot where no practical difficulty exists. 3. If the variance were granted, it would alter the essential character of the locality as it would allow an existing nonconforming structure and impervious surface to expand and increase the existing nonconformity. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. No practical difficulty exists that is not created by the landowner, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the impervious surface. The structure could be expanded without further encroaching into the side setback and increasing impervious surface on the lot. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the request, findings need to be established that support the variance review criteria. Staff have prepared conditions of approval in the event the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval: 1. The approved nonconforming structure and impervious surface shall not be allowed to expand through the process established in the UDC in Section 153.500.110 Subd. 3 (D) by an administrative permit. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan which complies with standards established in 153.400 of the Unified Development Code and the adopted Engineering Standards and Detail Specifications. 3. In areas less than 10 feet in width, the driveway shall be expanded to at least 10 feet to meet the minimum requirements of the Fire Code. 4. The driveway shall be reduced to the minimum standards established in the Engineering Standards, where possible, to minimize the total impervious surface on the lot. 5. The applicant shall secure all applicable permits required from local, state, and federal entities. 6. The applicant shall receive a permit from and be in compliance with the standards of the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District. 7. The applicant must commence the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date on which the variance is issued. After one year, the approvals issued under the provisions of the Section shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Motion to recommend approval of the attached resolution to deny variances to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, an increase of existing nonconforming impervious surface, and an increase of an existing nonconforming side setback encroachment. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution 10-15-24-XX Denying a Variance 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Application 5. Survey with Comments from T.J. Hofer 6. Comments from CMSCWD, dated September 18, 2024 CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 10-15-24-XX DENYING VARIANCES FOR AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING DWELLING, AN INCREASE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND AN INCREASE OF AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE SETBACK FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCUTRE FOR 18546 LANGLY AVENUE NORTH LOCATED AT PARCEL ID 31.032.20.14.0018 WHEREAS, Ryan Kinsella (the “applicant”), has made an application for variance to expand an existing nonconforming structure, in the Shoreland Management Overlay, that would result in an increase of an existing nonconforming impervious surface coverage by 0.6 percent where 29.4 percent exists and increase an encroachment into the side setback for a nonconforming structure by 0.18 feet where a 4.62 foot encroachment exists for on property identified as 18546 Langly Avenue North, Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota 55047, legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 3, Bliss Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at a duly noticed Public Hearing on October 1, 2024, and recommended that the City Council deny the request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the requested variances, based on the following findings: 1. The existing use of a single-family dwelling is a reasonable use for the site; however, the expansion of the existing nonconforming side setback and impervious surface is not reasonable. The subject property could be utilized without exceeding the impervious surface requirements and encroaching into the side setback. As is established in the Unified Development Code 153.500.110 Subd. 1, “it is the intent of this section that all nonconformities shall be eventually brought into conformity.” To expand upon the existing nonconformities is not reasonable. 2. The circumstances are unique to the property, however, the request to exceed the existing nonconformities is created by the landowner. The applicant is requesting approval to increase a nonconformity on an existing nonconforming structure and lot where no practical difficulty exists. 3. If the variance were granted, it would alter the essential character of the locality as it would allow an existing nonconforming structure and impervious surface to expand and increase the existing nonconformity. 4. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in the variance. 5. The variance is not related to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6. The proposed variance will not impair 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. 7. No practical difficulty exists that is not created by the landowner, and therefore no action is required to eliminate a practical difficulty for the expansion to the impervious surface. The structure could be expanded without further encroaching into the side setback and increasing impervious surface on the lot. Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 15th day of October 2024. Christine Maefsky, Mayor ATTEST: Kyle Morell, City Administrator 1, 50 4.7© Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend 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: 9/23/2024 3:43 PM 1,053 Feet Roads US Trunk Highway Minnesota Trunk Highway County Highway Local Roads Ramp City Limits Parks Location Map 37 6.2 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend 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: 9/17/2024 10:41 AM 263 Feet City Limits Parcels 07/31/2024 Lot Lines 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 Open Space - Planned Unit Development Industrial Park Zoning Map ProPesED A0ITIs EMIEL RY4N KINEL;A D NsGAL DAWN DELINEATIdN FRONT PLANS C-24 cHIMNEY ExENSOUu REAR PoRCH PRO DISED TRUSS Clast FaR BEy to Mch Apu trov NEW RobF FRAMING TRUSSES PoRc MoRTH RcaM ENUGURE NEW VAulIED B1GHT BEDE3 a759 3747 GARAEgE 24x22 24 L.L. 4DDITION FlooR Plan PATIO B) 75 owNEKS BATH ONERS SutE RooF TOp DEGK 7230 MoRW]VG LAuwORY PANTRY BATIH GrEAT ROOM owNeRS RETREAT Flook PIA 72.42 f t 4.88 ft 11.12 ft 9.25 ft Markups by City Staff 1,568.86 sf 34.64 ft 48.46 ft 20.00 ft 105.30 ft 74.43 f t 4. 9 1 f t 8. 4 6 f t 7. 3 0 f t 1 . 7 5 f t 1 . 8 5 f t 84.50 ft Markups by City Staff North Slope: 12 ft. rise 34.64 ft. run = 34.6% slope South Slope: 12 ft. rise 48.46 ft. run = 24.7% slope 5. 3 8 f t Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District 11660 Myeron Rd North • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Tel 651-275-7451 Wade Johnson, President ● Kristin Tuenge, Treasurer ● Paul Richert, Secretary Managers: Tori Dupre, Mike White, Andy Weaver, & Ann Warner 1 To : Washington County Planning Commission , Dan Elder – Zoning Administrator From: Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District Date : 9 /1 8 /202 4 Subject: PID 31.0 32.2 0 .14.0 0 1 8 Varianc e Request CMSCWD Variance Recommendation The Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) does not support the variance request at PID 31.0 3 2 .20.14.0018. Variances from imperviou s su rface limits setbacks impact the long-term health of Big Marin e Lake in which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has listed as nearly impaired for biologic health due to the overdevelopment and significant loss of native vegetation of the shoreland. Recommended Conditions to Mitigate Lakeshore Impacts (If approving the Variance Request ): Stormwater management an d mitigatio n are essential when impervious surface limits are ex ceed ed. As it ap p lies to th is project, CMSCWD ru les only require sto rmwa ter mitigation o n ly f o r the p o rtion o f imp ervio us su rfaces that are n ew or b eing recon structed. Thus, a large amou nt o f the p arcel’s impervious su rf aces will remain u ntreated before f lowing of f site. Th e opportunity th rough this v arian ce req u est to ex ce e d lo t limits, wou ld b e f o r the City to co n sider stip u la tin g that sto rmwater management must b e p ro v ided f ro m all imp e rvio u s su rf aces. If the City does approve a variance, please consider the following conditions to mitigate lakeshore impacts: Mitigating for Impacts: 1. Require stormwater management fo r a ll impervious su rfaces on the p arcel sized in co mpliance with th e CMSCWD Residential Sto rmwa ter Wo rk sheet. Respectfully, Tom Langer – CMSCWD Riparian Permit Specialist