Loading...
7.a)5) Staff Report-18629LanglyJohnsonVarianceCouncil 7 15 14 Memorandum To: Scandia City Council Kristina Handt, City Administrator Reference: Johnson Variance Application, 18629 Langly Avenue North, City of Scandia Copies To: Gregory D. Johnson, applicant Project No.: 15485.011 From: Sherri Buss, RLA AICP, Planner Routing: Date: July 8, 2014 SUBJECT: Johnson Variance Application MEETING DATE: July 15, 2014 LOCATION: 18629 Langly Avenue North Scandia, Minnesota APPLICANTS: Gregory D. Johnson ZONING: General Rural (GR) District and Shoreland Overlay District 60-DAY PERIOD: September 12, 2014 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application, Survey, and Deck Design received May 14, 2014 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The applicant is seeking to build a deck that would be attached to the home at 18629 Langly Avenue North. The proposed deck would be closer to the Ordinary High Water Level of Big Marine Lake than is permitted in the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant’s parcel is approximately .18 acres in size. The property is located in the General Rural (GR) District and Shoreland Overlay District of Big Marine Lake, which is classified as a Recreational Development Lake. 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 2 July 15, 2014 DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to add a 10’x20’ deck to his home, on the side facing Big Marine Lake. The edge of the deck would be 61 feet from the OHWL of Big Marine Lake. The existing home is 71 feet from the OHWL, and does not meet the required minimum 100’ structure setback. The proposed deck would encroach further into the required setback from the lake. The Shoreland Overlay District ordinance permits additions of decks without a variance in nonconforming situations, based on several criteria, listed in Section 17 of the ordinance. However the parcel does not meet the criteria 2(A) of that section because the home (former cabin) was raised and expanded with a variance after the structure setbacks were established in the ordinance. Therefore, the applicant needs to obtain a variance to add the deck. The criteria and rationale for granting a variance are discussed in sections that follow. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan describes the General Rural District as a residential area of mixed lot sizes. The Plan states that overall density in the District should meet the Metropolitan Council requirement of no more than 1 housing unit per 10 acres, but acknowledges that there are a significant number of existing smaller parcels in the District. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals to protect the water resources in the City through enforcement of the City’s ordinances, including the Shoreland Overlay District ordinance. The proposed deck does not meet the setback standards in the Shoreland Overlay District, but does meet the other dimensional standards and the impervious coverage standard. The proposed use of the property is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the General Rural District. The City has previously granted variances for the addition of structures such as garages in the Shoreland District with the rationale that garages are a typical and necessary accessory structure for a residential use. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the same rationale applies to a deck on a shoreland property, so that it meets the criteria to be a reasonable use that is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. Development Code Requirements: Lot Size and Setbacks The applicant’s lot is .18 acres in size and is therefore a nonconforming lot in the General Rural (GR) District and Shoreland Overlay District. The GR District permits lots of 2 acres and larger in size, and the Shoreland District requires that lots on Recreational Development lakes conform to the minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district. The lot was created before the adoption of the current Development Code, and is therefore a nonconforming lot. The required setbacks for structures in the Shoreland Overlay District are the following:  Structure setback from the OHWL: 100 feet  Side setbacks: 10 feet for lots that are less than 1.0 acres in size  Setback from the right-of-way line of a public street: 40 feet 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 3 July 15, 2014 The existing home meets the side setback requirement, but does not meet the required setback from the OHWL or from Langly Avenue. The existing house is 71’ from the OHWL, and 22’ from Langly Avenue. The proposed deck would encroach further into the setback from the lake, and therefore requires a variance. A deck location on the side of the home would encroach into the side setbacks, and a location on the rear of the home would encroach further into the nonconforming setback from the road- right-of-way. Shoreland Ordinance Standards for Deck Additions Section 17, Item 2 of the Shoreland Ordinance includes standards for deck additions to nonconforming structures. It states that such additions may be allowed without a variance if they meet the following criteria: (A) The structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established. (B) A thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure. (C) The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15 percent of the existing setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive. (D) No deck on a nonconforming structures shall exceed 10 feet in width. (E) The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. The proposed deck does not meet criteria (A), but does meet criteria (B) through (E): (A) The structure did not exist on the date that the structure setbacks were established. It was added to the lot after the date when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted, and the City granted a variance to construct the home 71 feet from the OHWL. (B) A deck location that met the 100’ setback requirement from the OHWL would be a detached structure located behind the home, and would require a variance from the setback from the road right-of-way. (C) The proposed encroachment toward the OHWL is 14% of the existing structure setback. (D) The proposed deck is 10 feet in width. (E) The applicant is proposing a wood deck that does not have a roof or screens. Accessory Structures The Development Code allows 1 accessory structure on lots that are less than 1 acre in size. The existing parcel has no detached accessory structures, and none is proposed. The application meets the ordnance requirement for accessory structures. Lot Coverage The Development Code permits up to 25% lot coverage in the Shoreland Overlay District. The parcel coverage would be 23% with the addition of the proposed deck. The parcel would meet the coverage requirement with the addition of the deck. 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 4 July 15, 2014 Building Height The maximum structure height permitted in the General Rural District is 35 feet. The existing house meets the requirement, and the deck addition will not increase the height of the house. The proposed structure meets the height requirement. Wastewater Treatment The addition of the deck does not require changes to the wastewater treatment on the parcel. Stormwater Management The Planner sent the application to the Carnelian-Marine Watershed District for review and comment. The District’s comments included the following: “The District is not in favor of granting such requests, but recognizes the difficulties of complying with all zoning requirements with an existing structure. The District will require a permit for this project that will necessitate at a minimum the establishment of a shoreline buffer zone on this property. The District would appreciate it if the City would add a CMSCWD Permit to any stipulations for the variance if it is granted.” The Planner has added a proposed condition that the applicant shall obtain the necessary Watershed District permits for this project. Landscape Plan The CMSCWD will require a landscape plan to establish a shoreline buffer zone for this project, as noted above. The District will review and approve the plan, as required by District rules. DNR Comments The Planner sent the application to the DNR for review and comment. The DNR recommended that a deck location on the side of the structure be considered so that the structure would not encroach further into the lake setback. The Planner discussed the CMSCWD recommendation that if the variance from the front setback is granted, that the District will require that a shoreline buffer zone be added, but that this would not occur with a variance from the side lot line. DNR staff concurred that the buffer is an advantage for the proposed location. DNR staff recommended that a condition be added that the deck may not be modified to be roofed or screened in the future, and staff added this proposed condition. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES AND FINDINGS Chapter 1, Section 6.0 of the Development Code includes the criteria and required process for considering variance requests. Variances may only be granted when the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the development code. The other variance criteria include: 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 5 July 15, 2014 1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Development Code. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. 5. 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. 6. The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. 7. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Applicant’s Rationale for the Variance Greg Johnson provided some history about the home and rationale for the variance. In 2004, Mr. Johnson raised the existing cabin above the ground level on the property and added the attached garage. The changes required a variance from the setback from the OHWL of Big Marine Lake, though the cabin was not moved closer to the lake. The City granted the variance. The former cabin had a deck that Mr. Johnson enclosed as a porch. Mr. Johnson was caring for his mother at that time, who had Alzheimer’s disease, and he believed that the open deck was not safe for her. The home has a large window/door that faces the lake that has existed as part of the structure since it was a cabin. Mr. Johnson believes it is the logical location to provide access to a deck from the home. He is requesting the variance to add the deck in that location rather than at the side to make use of the existing opening and due to the narrow side setback in the portion of the home with a view of the lake. Findings The applicant is requesting a variance to place a deck in a location that encroaches into the setback from Big Marine Lake. The existing home was granted a variance from the required structure setback, and the addition of the deck will encroach further into the setback from the OHWL. The following bullets present the Planner’s findings related to Mr. Johnson’s request for a variance, based on the statutory criteria for granting a variance. Each of the criteria is shown in italics:  Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control. The Comprehensive Plan and Development Code support single-family residential uses in the General Rural District and Shoreland Overlay District. The Plan and code support protection of water resources including Big Marine Lake. While the proposed deck location does not meet the requirements for setback from the lake, it does meet the other requirements in the Shoreland Ordinance that permit the addition of decks to nonconforming structures and protect the lake, such as lot coverage and minimum 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 6 July 15, 2014 distance to the lake for nonconforming structures. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control.  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official control(s). Single-family residences are reasonable uses in the General Agriculture Core (AG C) District. Decks are typical elements of homes in the Shoreland District. The request meets most of the Ordinance requirements for the addition of a deck to a nonconforming primary structure in the Shoreland District.  The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the property. The practical difficulties are created by the small size of the parcel, the location of the previous cabin and existing home, and location of the potential access to the deck from the home. A single-family residence could not have been located on the parcel that met the required setback from Big Marine Lake. The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the property.  The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. Other properties in the area include decks. Granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the area.  Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties are related to the size of the parcel, location of the existing home and previous cabin, and access for the deck. The practical difficulties are not only economic in nature.  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 the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, and will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.  The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The applicant is requesting a deck that meets the Shoreland Ordinance requirement for the size and distance from the OHWL for deck additions in nonconforming situations. The CMSCWD will require a shoreland buffer planting to mitigate for the encroachment into the required setback. The variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. 18629 Langly Variance Staff Report Scandia City Council Page 7 July 15, 2014  Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variance is not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Johnson application at its regular meeting on July 1, 2014. The Commission received no written or verbal comments on the variance request. The Commission discussed several issues related to the application:  The Commission reviewed the history of the previous variance granted in 2004 when the cabin was raised. Council Member Ness, a Commission member at the time of the application, confirmed that the structure was placed no closer to the lake than the cabin.  The Commissioners noted that the size and location of the deck is similar to those on adjacent parcels. The Commissioners concluded that the it would not recommend placement of the deck on the side of the home, where it would require a variance from the side setback, due to the location of the opening that would access the deck, the addition of the shoreland buffer that will be required by the CMSCWD,and that having a deck on the lake side is a normal and reasonable use for a lake home. The Commission recommended approval of the variance, with the revised condition recommended by the DNR staff. ACTION REQUESTED: The Council can recommend the following: 1. Approval 2. Approval with conditions 3. Denial with findings 4. Table the request PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed variance from the required setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake to permit construction of a 10’x20’ deck located 61’ from the OHWL. The Commission recommends the following conditions for the variance: 1. Development of the property shall be consistent with the plans provided to the City on May 13, 2014. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City. 3. The applicant shall obtain the required Watershed District permits for the deck addition. 4. The deck shall not be modified in the future to be roofed or screened. 5. The Applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this application.