Loading...
5b. Johnson Variance PC Staff Report Memorandum To: Scandia Planning Commission Reference: Johnson Variance Application Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator Cynthia and Harold Johnson, Applicants Project No.: 17722.000 Johnson Variance From: Evan Monson, Planner Routing: Date: September 28, 2020 SUBJECT: Variance request to construct an accessory structure on a lot with no primary residence MEETING DATE: October 6, 2020 LOCATION: PID 31.032.20.11.0001, 31.032.20.11.0002 APPLICANT/OWNER: Cynthia and Harold Johnson ZONING: General Rural (GR), Shoreland Overlay 60-DAY PERIOD: October 6, 2020 (120-day December 5, 2020) ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and Plans received August 10, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The applicants are looking to construct a garage on vacant property across the street from their residence at 18941 Layton Avenue North. The proposed accessory structure would be used to store personal vehicles and items, as their residence has no garage to use for storage. The 18941 property is close to the impervious surface limit, so it is not feasible to build a garage on that site. The 18941 property previously had an attached garage on-site, though it was recently converted by the property owners into additional living space for the house. The subject parcels the applicants would like to build on do not have a house or residential structure on them. Chapter 2, Section 3.2(2)(A) notes that “no accessory structure shall be constructed on a lot prior Johnson Variance Staff Report October 6, 2020 Scandia Planning Commission Page 2 to construction of the principal structure on the lot”. Without a principal structure on the lot, such as a house, a variance is needed in order to have only a garage built on the parcels. The two subject parcels are both currently substandard, as they do not meet the minimum frontage/width, size, or buildable area requirements for the General Rural (GR) zoning district. If combined into one parcel, it would still be below the minimum frontage, size, and buildable area requirements. If the two subject parcels are combined, the proposed garage would be able to meet minimum setbacks, and would result in an impervious surface coverage of less than 9% of the parcel. PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel description: The subject parcels for this variance request are located on the west side of Layton Avenue North, near the intersection of Layton Avenue and 189th Street. The parcels are across the street from the Johnson’s primary residence, addressed as 18941 Layton Avenue North. The two parcels are fairly flat, with portions of the lots being at a similar elevation as Layton Avenue. If combined into one parcel, the lot area totals 13,223 square feet, as per the submitted survey. These two parcels are located within the area served by the Bliss Sewage Treatment Facility. Zoning: General Rural, Shoreland Overlay Land use: None, the parcels are currently vacant EVALUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant’s Explanation of the Plan and Variance Request “We request approval to build a detached 28 x 42 garage on lots 5 & 6, Bliss Plat 2nd Division. We are able to meet all setback and lot coverage requirements on these lots. The lots are across Layton Ave. from our primary residence, 18941 Layton Ave N. There is no garage at 18941 Layton Ave (PID 31.03220.11.0094, Lots 21 & 22 Block 1 Holiday Beach). We are close to 25% surface area lot coverage on Lots 21 & 22, so unable to construct additional structures on this parcel. We feel this is the best use of lots 5 & 6, as capacity limitations of the 201 sewer system would not be conducive to building another primary residence in the area. We are currently unable to meet outside storage requirements in Scandia’s code and hope to construct a garage to house two personal vehicles, recreational equipment and a tractor w/ accessories The elevation of the garage will be slightly higher than the road to prevent flooding issues.” Johnson Variance Staff Report October 6, 2020 Scandia Planning Commission Page 3 Staff Comments on the Variance Request The City Engineer provided the following comments: • Grading Plan would be required for submittal and review. Existing properties in this area have a history of flooding within the right-of-way and regional drainage flows adjacent to the south side of Lot 6. With the regional drainage flow, if the variance is approved its requested a conditional of approval a 10’ wide drainage & utility easement dedicated to the City of Scandia along the entire southern south lot line of Lot 6. o There is a sewer line that runs through Lot 6; a new structure cannot be built over the top of it. Public Works will need to confirm its exact location. • Potential wetland delineation may be required between the roadway and proposed garage with the existing aquatic vegetation that is present in the existing ditch/low area for the proposed location of the driveway. • If proposed building requests future sewer service with connection to the Bliss system it will be required that the septic system is compliance with the current City Ordinance and comply with Washington County permit requirements and applicant should be aware of the required work that will be necessary. • Driveway permit will be required. • Water table information will be important in obtaining for building review. • Project shall be in compliance with the Watershed District which will include additional requirements. The Watershed District: The Watershed District noted this project will require a permit from the Carnelian Marine St. Croix Watershed District, and the following rules will likely be applicable: • Rule #2 Stormwater Management –Triggered by the amount impervious surface creation (1,176 SF building plus an unspecified amount for the driveway) which exceeds five percent of the site. Stormwater management BMPs sized in compliance with the District’s Small Residential Project Stormwater Worksheet will be required. In addition, I’ve attached a stormwater declaration will be required to be recorded with Washington County for CMSCWD access to and landowner maintenance of incorporated stormwater BMPs. We could provide additional guidance for recommended stormwater management when we have more details on the site plans. • Rule #3 Erosion Control – An erosion/sediment control plan is required including silt fence or silt logs downslope of disturbed areas, a rock construction entrance and details for disturbed area vegetation establishment (sod, seed and mulch, erosion control blanket, etc.). The Department of Natural Resources: • The East Metro Area Hydrologist had not commented at the time of this staff report. Johnson Variance Staff Report October 6, 2020 Scandia Planning Commission Page 4 Criteria for Variance and Findings Chapter 1, Section 6.0 of the Development Code includes the criteria and required process for considering variance requests. Each item to be considered for a variance is identified below in italics, followed by the Planner’s findings regarding the requested variances for lake, front, and side setbacks at 18570 Norell Avenue North. • Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and general purposes and intent of the official control. The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes environmental stewardship on lakeside lots. Building a new accessory structure on the same parcel as their residence would have brought the 18941 property above the permitted impervious surface amount, so this request does improve upon impacts to the lake that alternative plans could’ve potentially created. Reducing outdoor storage on a property is ideal, though using vacant parcels simply for a garage in order to accomplish this would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan or official controls. While the proposed garage would house personal items of a single family residence, the intent of the zoning regulations for accessory structures is to have accessory buildings on the same parcel as the principal structure so as to maximize the use of buildable land. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also identified that there is a need for new housing in the future; taking vacant land that could be used for housing to be instead used for just an accessory structure would not meet any goal identified by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plans are not in general harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and 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). These parcels are in the General Rural zoning district, which is guided for single-family residential use. The proposal would see the parcels be used for only an accessory structure, which is not permitted in the Development Code. If approved, a residence could be added to the property in the future, though that is not guaranteed. Proposing to use these parcels as just for an accessory structure is not a reasonable use in the General Rural District. • The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property. The practical difficulties identified by the applicant are: 1) The lot with their residence on it cannot accommodate the construction of a garage, and 2) The two vacant parcels across the street from their residence are unable to be developed into a single-family house due to capacity limitations of the neighborhood sewer system. 18941 Layton does not meet the minimum lot size (2 acres), buildable area (1 acre), or minimum frontage (160 feet) of the GR zoning district. The property did previously have a garage on the Johnson Variance Staff Report October 6, 2020 Scandia Planning Commission Page 5 site, though this was converted by the property owners into living space. By converting the garage into living space, the owners created the first difficulty. The two vacant parcels, whether kept separate or combined into one, also are not meeting minimum requirements of the GR zoning district. They are within the area served by the Bliss Sewage system. The owners note in their narrative that the system may not be conducive to permitting new residences, which would require development of these sites to have on-site sewage treatment systems. Lots being substandard in size can limit where such systems may be located. During review of the variance request, the City Engineer noted that a structure could connect to the system, provided city ordinances are followed and county permitting requirements are met. Some of the practical difficulties identified by the landowner are caused by the current landowner. • The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. Having a garage as the only structure occupying a lot is not a common occurrence for lots around the area, due to the fact that an accessory structure is not permitted without a principal structure also being on the lot. Granting the requested variance could alter the essential character of the area. • Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties identified by the applicants are that these two vacant parcels are unable to be developed due to issues with the sewer system, and that their property with their residence is not able to accommodate the construction of a garage. 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. Granting the requested variance would not result in limiting light or air to neighboring properties. The land use will be for a garage used for personal storage, so increases to congestion, or increased chance of fire danger are not expected. It is hard to calculate what, if any impact, this variance could have on neighboring property values. Flooding has taken place in this area before, so conditions for approval would be necessary to avoid increasing the chances of flooding and endangering the public safety. Granting the requested variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, or increase congestion. It is unclear if granting this variance would impact property values within the neighborhood. Conditions for approval will be needed to avoid potentially endangering the public safety. • The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Johnson Variance Staff Report October 6, 2020 Scandia Planning Commission Page 6 The practical difficulties identified by the applicant are: 1) The lot with their residence on it cannot accommodate the construction of a garage, and 2) The two vacant parcels across the street from their residence are unable to be developed into a single-family house due to capacity limitations of the neighborhood sewer system. The minimum action required to eliminate the first difficulty could likely be better addressed through a variance permitting a garage on the same lot as the residence. Since the first difficulty was created by the landowner, it is unclear whether such a variance could be granted, though. The second difficulty is that limitations with the neighborhood sewer system prevent these two vacant lots from being used for its highest and best use (a house), and so therefore only a garage is ideal. If the city system is unable to allow for a new residence to connect, it would have to have an on-site system. It may be that if the two vacant parcels are combined that a setback variance could be necessary in order to site both a house and an on-site sewer system the proper distance from each other. Without evidence showing the lots are unable to accommodate an on-site system, the requested variance is likely not the minimum action required to eliminate this difficulty. The requested variance is not the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties. • 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 above do not support the granting of the requested variance. ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission can recommend to the Scandia City Council that it do one of the following: 1. Approve 2. Approve with conditions 3. Deny with findings 4. Table the request PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planner recommends that the Planning Commission to deny the requested variance, based off the findings above.