Loading...
7.b)1) Staff Report-KramerVarianceCouncil 5 19 15 Memorandum To: Scandia City Council Kristina Handt, City Administrator Reference: Kramer Variance Application, City of Scandia Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk Greg and Mary Kramer, owners Project No.: 15744.006 Jane Rowland, Rossbach Construction, applicant From: Sherri Buss, RLA AICP, Planner Routing: Date: May 12, 2015 SUBJECT: Kramer Variance Application MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 LOCATION: 12810 182nd Street North Scandia, Minnesota APPLICANT: Jane Rowland, Rossbach Construction Inc. OWNERS: Greg and Mary Kramer 13744 Keystone Avenue North, Hugo, MN ZONING: General Rural (GR) District and Shoreland Overlay District 60-DAY PERIOD: June 8, 2015 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application, Survey, and Plans received March 31 and April 9, 2015 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The applicants are seeking to expand an existing single-family home on the parcel at 12810 182nd Street North. The plans include a proposed expansion on the east side of the home, replacement of an existing deck, and enclosure of the space under the deck to form a screened area. Replacement of the deck and enclosure of the area below the deck require a variance from the minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake and the required bluffline setback. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 2 May 19, 2015 The applicant’s parcel is approximately .78 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. BACKGROUND AND DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a variance to expand an existing single-family home, replace an existing deck, and enclose an area below the deck. The expansion proposed on the east side of the existing home does not require a variance, and could be approved through an administrative permit. The proposed deck replacement and enclosure of the area below the deck do require a variance. The City has previously reviewed variance requests for structures proposed on this parcel: 1981 Variance Request to Expand the Structure. In 1981, the City reviewed a variance request at the same property from a previous owner to expand the home by constructing a walkout basement on the north side of the structure (facing the lake). The existing structure was 85 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), and therefore did not meet the required 100-foot setback from the OHWL. The proposed walkout would have expanded the structure 8 more feet into the required setback. The variance request was denied based on the following: 1) intensification of a nonconforming use by further reducing the nonconforming setback from the lake; 2) the request did not meet the “hardship” standard for variances; and 3) approval would have been inconsistent with past decisions. No record of permit for existing deck. When the City denied the variance in 1981, there was no deck on the north side of the home. The deck is shown as a “new deck” on a survey completed in 1998 and revised in 2000. The City and the current applicant have no record that a variance or building permit was approved to permit construction of the deck within the required setback from the OHWL. The Shoreland Ordinance permits deck additions without a variance to structures that do not meet the required setback from the OHWL, but the deck must meet the following criteria in order to be constructed without a variance:  The encroachment toward the OHWL does not exceed 15 percent of the existing setback for the structure from the OHWL or encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive. (The survey indicates that the home is 81 feet from the OHWL. Therefore the deck could have encroached up to 12 feet toward the lake. The plans indicate that the existing deck encroaches 10 feet toward the lake.)  No deck on a nonconforming structure shall exceed 10 feet in width. (The plans indicate that the existing deck is between 16 and 24 feet wide on the north side of the structure, and therefore would have required a variance.)  The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. Based on this ordinance requirement, the City has included a condition on previous variances approved for decks within the required setback from the OHWL that the deck may not be roofed or screened. Garage variance. A variance to construct a garage on the parcel was approved for the previous owner in July, 1998. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 3 May 19, 2015 The sections that follow discuss ordinance standards and criteria for granting a variance related to this application. 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, that areas around the lakes in Scandia that do not meet the lot size and density standard, and that this will continue. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals to protect the water and natural resources in the City through enforcement of the City’s ordinances, including the Shoreland Overlay District ordinance. The proposed plan to replace the existing deck would reduce the amount of impervious surface within the required setback from the OHWL and bluffline from the existing situation. The proposed use of the property is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the General Rural District and Shoreland Overlay District. Development Code Requirements: Lot Size and Setbacks The applicant’s lot is .78 acres in size and is a legal 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 existing structure is a nonconforming structure because it does not meet the required setback from the OHWL. The Development Code permits expansion of an existing legal nonconforming structure through the issuance of an administrative permit, if the Zoning Administrator determines that the expansion will not increase the nonconformity, if the structure complies with all other performance standards, if it will not have negative impacts on adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, and if long-term waste disposal needs can be met (see comments from Washington County under Wastewater System, below). The City may approve the expansion of the home to the east through an administrative permit, but the proposed deck replacement and enclosure requires a variance because it would increase the nonconformity and includes a proposed deck enclosure. The required setbacks for structures (including septic systems) 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  Setback from the top of the bluff line: 30 feet The applicant’s proposed setbacks include the following:  The existing house setback from the OHWL: 81feet  Existing and proposed deck setback from the OHWL: 71 feet  Existing and proposed deck setback from the top of the bluffline: approximately 25 feet  The house setback from the road right-of-way: 225 feet Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 4 May 19, 2015  Proposed setback from east side property line: 16 feet  Existing setback from the west side property line: 30’ Based on available records, the existing deck is not a legal structure. The Planner suggests that the replacement deck may be considered as a new structure for this application. Section 17 of the Shoreland Ordinance addresses new deck additions within the Shoreland Overlay District. If the proposed deck is considered a new deck for this applicant, it requires a variance from the required setback from the bluffline, and the proposed deck width and screening require a variance from the ordinance requirements for decks within the required setback from the OHWL. Accessory Structures No new accessory structures are proposed in this application. Lot Coverage The Development Code permits up to 25% lot coverage on the area above the OHWL in the Shoreland Overlay District. The building location certificate indicates that the existing impervious coverage of the parcel is 17%. The proposed coverage is 19%. The parcel would meet the coverage requirement with the proposed expansion. Building Height The maximum structure height permitted in the General Rural District is 35 feet. The proposed height of the home with the addition is approximately 19.5 feet, based on the height definition in the Development Code. The proposed structure meets the height requirement. Driveway Access There is an existing driveway access to 182nd Street North. No change in access is proposed. Wastewater Treatment The Planner sent a copy of the application to Pete Ganzel, Washington County Health Department, for review and comment. Pete Ganzel provided comments in an email dated April 21, 2015. His comments included the following: “Looking at the plans, they are going from 3 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. This will require a substantial increase in drainfield area and probably tank capacity. I can’t find info on the existing system, but it looks like a permit was issued in the 80’s for it The applicant will need to provide a design showing how they can increase the capacity of the septic system within the area they have remaining on the lot. It does though look like the direction they are going (East) with the expansion, is towards the well and away from where any septic expansion would be. Also, if the reconstruction increases the valuation of the structure by more than 50% they need to show a secondary or backup area for a system sized for 5 bedrooms.” The Planner included a condition that the applicants obtain a septic system permit for the proposed expansion from Washington County. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 5 May 19, 2015 Stormwater Management The Planner sent the application to the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) for review and comment. Jim Shaver, District Administrator, submitted the following comment: “The District does not support granting of variance requests where additional hardcover is being added within the lakeside setback. However, the Managers are aware that certain compromises must be made by the land use authority, and in this case, since a Watershed District permit will be needed, the actions undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the permit will partially mitigate the negative effects of granting the variance.” Mr. Shaver indicated by phone that the permit requirements for the deck replacement will probably trigger the Districts buffer requirements, as other deck additions within the setback from the OHWL have in the past. The Planner has added a proposed condition that the applicants shall obtain the necessary Watershed District permit. Vegetation Management/Landscape Plan The Shoreland Ordinance requires no cutting or removal of trees over six (6) inches in diameter within the required building setback, unless the trees are dead, diseased, or pose a safety hazard, but exempts tree removal when required for construction of structures and sewage treatment systems when a building permit is issued. The applicant indicated that the expansion of the home on the east side and replacement of the deck will not require the removal of any existing trees. The Planner has included a condition for approval of the variance that no trees be removed within the required Shoreland and bluffline setback areas. DNR Comments The Planner sent the application to the DNR for review and comment, and discussed potential recommendations regarding the proposed deck and proposed enclosure with the DNR staff. The discussion included the following points:  If the previous owner had requested approval of a building permit for a deck, a deck up to 12 feet x 10 feet in size (120 square feet) could have been approved without a variance.  However, based on the shoreland ordinance requirements for decks within the setback from the OHWL, enclosure of the area under the deck would not have been approved.  The proposed deck will reduce the area of the deck within the required setback, though the proposed size does require a variance. DNR comments and recommendations were included in an email dated April 14, 2015, and include the following:  “The proposed deck will not extend further toward Big Marine Lake and the proposed design decreases the size of the deck on the lake side from that which presently exists. The proposed deck will be 160 square feet, 40 square feet larger than that which would be allowed under ordinance without a variance (an additional 4 feet of deck along the house). DNR is not opposed to this variance request. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 6 May 19, 2015  “The enclosed area below the requested deck is an expansion of the structure toward the lake. From the plans, it appears to have a roof (the deck above) and three enclosed sides. DNR recommends denial of this variance request.  “Please check on the proposed height of the structure, since the roof will be replaced and a third level (the loft) will be added. If this would require a variance, please contact me for additional comments.” (Planner note: the proposed height meets the ordinance requirement and will not require a variance.) The Planner has included the DNR’s recommendations related to the size of the deck and prohibition on enclosing or roofing the deck in the recommendation conditions for approval of the variance. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES AND FINDINGS Chapter 1, Section 6.0 of the Development Code and Minnesota Statutes 462.357 include the criteria and required process for granting 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: 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 The applicants noted the following in their rationale for the variance request:  The applicants are proposing to replace the deck and create a screened-in area below the deck to provide protection from mosquitos.  Enclosure of the screened area above the deck would require more excavation within the setback area and a roof structure.  Expansion on the west side to create a porch would encroach into the setback. (Planner note: the survey indicates that expansion to add a porch on this side could occur without additional encroachment into the setback.)  Expansion on the east side to create a screened area would require grading into a hill and tree removal. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 7 May 19, 2015 Findings The Kramers are requesting a variance to reconstruct an existing deck on the parcel, and to add screening to enclose the area below the deck. The proposed construction requires a variance from the required setbacks from the OHWL and bluffline. The following bullets present the Planner’s findings related to the Kramers’ 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 also support protection of water and natural resources, including Big Marine Lake and blufflines. The applicants are proposing to place the deck in the same location as an existing deck, and to reduce the overall size of the deck within the required setbacks from the OHWL and bluff line. The Shoreland Ordinance permits the addition of decks that meet the size standards of the Ordinance within the required setbacks, but prohibits adding a roof or screening to the deck. The proposed deck is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official controls, but the proposed screened area is not.  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official control(s). Single-family residences are permitted, and therefore reasonable, uses in the General Rural District and Shoreland Overlay District. The Shoreland Ordinance and City’s past approvals have permitted decks as typical structures and reasonable uses for homes in the Shoreland District. However, the variance approvals for decks have included conditions that the decks may not be roofed or screened.  The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the property. The practical difficulties are created by the location of the existing home and location of the existing deck within the required setbacks from the OHWL and bluffline. The conditions were created by a previous owner. The practical difficulties related to the proposed deck replacement are not caused by the landowner, and are unique to the property. The request for screening in order to provide protection from mosquitos is not unique to the property. The same difficulties could apply to any applicant proposing a deck within the shoreland district.  The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 8 May 19, 2015 Other properties in the area include single-family homes with similar or smaller setbacks from the lake. The deck is screened from view from adjacent properties by existing trees. The applicant indicated that the existing trees will not be removed to construct the new deck. 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 location of the existing home and deck within the required setbacks from the OHWL and bluff line. 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 replacement of the deck 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 proposed location of the replacement deck maintains the existing structure setback from the OHWL and bluffline, and reduces the size of the deck within the setbacks. The proposed location and overall size are generally consistent with the size of decks permitted within the required setbacks without a variance. The required variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The screened area would expand the residential use on the parcel, and is therefore not part of the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty to replace the existing deck and maintain this reasonable use.  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. The findings support granting a variance to replace the deck, but do not support granting a variance to add a screened area under the deck. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the variance request at their regular meeting on May 5. One neighbor spoke at the hearing, and indicated that he supported the variance request. He indicated that the deck would not be visible from his home. The Commission discussed several issues related to the variance request, and recessed the meeting for a time to review past variance requests for screened porches/decks on Big Marine Lake. The review and discussions with staff found that the City has not approved screened or enclosed decks within the required setback from the OHWL since the adoption of the current Kramer Variance Staff Report Scandia City Councl Page 9 May 19, 2015 Shoreland Ordinance. The Commission also considered the DNR’s comments and recommendations regarding the deck and proposed screened area. The Commission recommended approval of the variance for the proposed deck and recommended denial of the request for the screened area below the deck. The Commission noted that the Development Code, including the Shoreland Ordinance, will be reviewed after the adoption of the next Comprehensive Plan, and the deck requirements could be reconsidered at that time. The Commission encouraged the Kramer’s to participate in the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance update process. ACTION REQUESTED: The City 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 a Variance to permit reconstruction of a deck up to160 square feet in size (10 feet deep by 16 feet wide) located a minimum of 71 feet from the OHWL of Big Marine Lake and 25 feet from the bluffline in the Shoreland area on the property at 12810 182nd Street North. The Planner recommends the following conditions for the variance: 1. Development of the property shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the City on March 31, 2015. 2. The applicants shall obtain a building permit from the City. 3. The applicants shall obtain an administrative permit from the City for the proposed expansion of the existing home to the east. The expansion shall maintain the same setbacks from the OHWL as the existing home, not including the deck. The applicants shall obtain the required septic system permit for the proposed expansion from Washington County. 4. The deck shall not be modified in the future to be roofed or screened. 5. No trees shall be removed within the required Shoreland and bluffline setbacks. 6. The applicants shall obtain the required Watershed District permit. 7. The Applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this application.