Loading...
6.a1 StatementProposedUseApplications07022021Development Application: Location: 23375 Lofton Avenue N., Scandia, MN Lot Area: 17,317 square feet Project Name: Bone Lake Cabin Applicant: Alissa D.Luepke Pier, AIA (Project Architect, on behalf of the owner) Request: To replace a series of decking and patio spaces with one deck. Requested Land Use Applications: Variance – To locate a deck structure within the required (100’) yard setback from the lake. Variance – To have a deck that is wider than 10’ Impervious Surface Coverage: Existing – Existing Impervious Surface Coverage is 3,560sf (20.55%) Proposed – Proposed Impervious Surface Coverage is 3,680sf (21.25%) This represents an increase in Impervious Surface Coverage of .3% (less than 1%). The resultant Imperious Surface Coverage is still within the allowable limit of 25% and therefore is compliant with the maximum imperious surface amount allowed. This was determined by subtracting the impervious surfaces that would be removed and adding in the new impervious surfaces. (Areas that would remain impervious are not included in this calculation.) This can be seen in the diagrams entitled “Impervious Surface Changes – Existing” and “Impervious Surface Changes – Proposed.” The removed impervious surfaces include in this calculation include: 36sf of pavers to the north of the stairway, 80sf of patio, 41sf of a 76sf raised concrete planter, 138 sf of deck (we did not include the north stairs for the deck as it was already included in the patio sf and would have been redundant), 9sf of pavers to the south of the deck, a 3sf retaining wall, and 8sf of retaining wall to the east of the deck. The additional impervious surfaces added into the proposed total calculation include: 43sf to the north of the stairway, 17sf to the south of the stairway, 368 for the new deck, and 7sf for stairs to the south of the deck. The total change in total impervious surface coverage is 120sf. Of that, 74sf was added due to a change in the dimensions of the deck compared to the existing deck/patio combination, and 46sf was added for vertical circulation to link to existing features on the site. Lastly, to prevent any confusion, it is worth noting that there is an existing raised planter on the site comprised of retaining wall block that occupies 76sf of impervious surface coverage. It was determined during construction related to the remodel of the house that there are existing concrete stairs that exist under 35sf of this. We will be maintaining those original 35sf stairs, and removing the remaining 41sf of planter to accommodate the new deck and vertical circulation to tie into the existing stairway. Site Description and Present Use: The subject property is located on Bone Lake in Scandia (Washington County). It is currently occupied with a structure (single family house) which has been subject to numerous additions and projects over the years. Of uncertain original construction date, an addition was added to the original cabin to allow for the creation of a 3-bedroom single family home in 2005, with a number of site improvements both before and after that date related to septic systems, etc… The property was sold around 2017 to the current owners, who have invested in the current remodel of the structure to correct some previous remodeling errors, as well as clear invasive species from large portions of the property in an effort to restore native plantings. The primary structure of the house itself on the site sits 44.3’ from the Approximate Ordinary High Water line at its closest point. The existing Patio/Deck combination sits 32’-10” from the Ordinary High Water Line. The existing top retaining wall sits 27’-8” from the ordinary High Water Line. The proposed Deck would sit 29’-1/4” from the Ordinary High Water Line. The topographical elevations of the existing items in question are: Ordinary High Water Line is 909.1 Walk Out Basement Threshold: 925.9 Existing Deck: 926 Existing Patio: 923.4 Raised Landscape Block Planter: 925.2 The topographical elevations of the proposed items are: Ordinary High Water Line is 909.1 Walk Out Basement Threshold: 925.9 (brought a portion of the former basement slab into alignment with this for a uniform level) Proposed Deck: 925.5 Existing Patio: removed Raised Landscape Block Planter: removed There is a vertical change in elevation of 16’- 9” (16.8) from the Ordinary High Water Line (909.1) to the elevation of the ground level of the house (925.9). The parcel is 17,317 square feet, over 78% of which is in the required 100’ setback from the Ordinary High Water Line. Only a small portion of the existing house (less than 5’ of the easternmost corner of their garage) exists outside of this required setback from the Ordinary High Water Line. The entirety of the existing deck/patio configuration that abuts the back of the house (as well as almost all of the house itself) now exists within this required setback. Only 21.4% of the entire property/parcel is outside of the required 100’ setback from the Ordinary High Water Line. The remaining 78.6% exists within the required setback from the Ordinary High Water Line. Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of houses that are similar in proximity to the lake in terms of setback and topographical elevation. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing series of landscape block planters, and an outdoor entertaining area comprising a patio and adjoining deck that stretch across the back of the house. The proposal is to replace them with one deck that is 4” lower in topographical elevation, smaller in width, and made of materials that are less visible from the lake, while maintaining access to the dock, house, and south yard and increasing functionality and reasonable use. The applicant is requesting that the variances be granted due to circumstances unique to the property that are conditions not created by the applicant, which they feel will bring the existing conditions closer to compliance with the intent and purpose of policy as well as with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. We respectfully request that you grant the specified variances, in light of the established practical difficulties and legally required findings identified below. Analysis: Variance: To locate a deck structure within the required yard setback (100’) from the lake (28.8’ from the Ordinary High Water Line). The applicant would like to locate a replacement deck on the lakeside of their home. It is our understanding that the minimum required setback from the Ordinary High Water Line is 100’. The existing deck/patio configuration already exists in its entirety within the required setback (33.2’ from the Ordinary High Water Line). In fact, all but less than 5’-3” of the farthest corner of the house (the front corner of the street-facing garage) is within the 100’ required setback from the high water line. This is a grandfathered condition. There is no deck configuration possible that would result in compliance with the required waterline setback. In an effort to increase safety and overall usability of the existing patio/deck space at the lakeside of the house, the applicant proposes to consolidate the spaces into a more practical, less visually obtrusive, more functional, and less wide deck. Knowing that anything proposed would occur within the required 100’ setback, the design focused on a layout that would be less visible from the lake, which would also meet the needs of the family. This narrowed the width of the deck although created a deeper dimension in order to allow for adequate space for a table and seating for their family for functionality and safety. We feel this is a reasonable request, as the increase in impervious surface coverage due to the size of the deck is a mere 74sf, but the benefits to both the user as well as the intent of the ordinance are vast. There are currently a number of retaining walls that exist on the property. This is an existing condition. We are not proposing to alter these retaining walls (with exception of removing the raised planter adjacent to the house that is made from retaining wall blocks, and a small 3sf retaining wall to the south, adjacent to the house), as the slope toward the lake is fairly steep, and the retaining walls were erected to prevent/reduce the amount of storm water from getting into the lake. Disrupting this feature would lead to an increase in runoff and less opportunity to plant ground-stabilizing plants to obscure the presence of the deck. In addition, the owner has reclaimed a significant portion of the lakeside property for native plantings which will also capture and filter stormwater, preventing runoff and erosion. These retaining walls are significant to note, however. This is because, although we are increasing the depth of the deck toward the lake to allow for adequate room for seating around a table and safe circulation, we are limiting the distance to not exceed the location of the highest tier of retaining wall (closest to the house), which is an existing condition that is 27’-8” from the Ordinary High Water Line. The resulting structure (deck) is therefore farther from the lake than the existing man-made structure (retaining wall) that is farthest from the lake already (29’-1/4” from the Ordinary High Water Line). This will allow us to maximize natural vegetation to improve the viewshed from the lake. We feel this proximity to the lake is mitigated due to the 16’-9” difference in vertical elevation between the Ordinary High Water Line and the deck surface. The applicant recognizes that the goal of the required setback is to both curtail runoff and minimize the visual impact of anything within the setback when viewed from the lake. As such, they are proposing a landscaping plan which will add vegetation which meets both goals. The root systems will help absorb water and stabilize the slope, while the greenery of the plantings and shrubs will obscure the presence of the retaining walls and deck. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to use a rail system that is as minimally visible as possible while still meeting code, whereas the pervious railing was a heavy system consisting of numerous 2x2 vertical elements which were highly visible. The other goal of this particular policy is to prevent flooding due to proximity to bodies of water. While it is reasonable to assume that something built within close proximity to a lake is at risk, the applicant would like to call attention to the fact that both the house and proposed deck are located at a significantly higher elevation (925.9 and 925.5, respectively) than the elevation of the Ordinary High Water Line (909.1), which mitigates this concern. It is highly unlikely that any portion of this structure is at risk of washing into the lake, as it is at an elevation which precludes it from being infringed upon by rising lake waters, and the presence of the existing retaining walls, coupled with the proposed plantings to further stabilize the slope. It is due to the combination of factors unique tot his parcel that we feel it would be appropriate to grant the variances to allow for the proposed deck to be allowed. We are hopeful that you take these factors into consideration and grant this variance. The applicant has addressed the required findings below: Variances shall be permitted when they are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and general purposes and intent of the official control. The proposed deck is consistent with the Scandia Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it supports the Land Use Objective to: “Conduct development in a manner that is sensitive to the impact upon natural features and to environmental constraints, including but not limited to scenic views, surface water, wetlands, slopes, woodlands, vegetation, drainage ways, shorelands, and flood plain areas.” The project is designed and proposed in a way that is sensitive to the impact on both the adjacent shoreland areas as well as the scenic views from the water, and is sensitive to the slope and vegetation. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official controls. The applicant proposed to use the property for purposes that are already existing and grandfathered in (deck/patio space), but reconfigured slightly to make the deck more in compliance with the rules and intent of the ordinance and land use policy through location, reducing visual obstruction currently present, and being laid out in a manner that is safer and more efficient for the owner and their family to use. The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property. The presence of an existing outdoor patio/deck area is an existing condition, not created by the applicant. Their home (which exists almost entirely in the required setback, with the sole exception being a 5’-3” SW corner of the garage) has existed for decades prior to their purchase of the property and is not a condition created by the applicant. The applicant is not proposing a new use for the area in question, they are merely requesting to be allowed to modify a current/existing use to better suit the needs and safety of their family, as well as better comply with the goals of the ordinance. They are proposing to bring the current situation (not created by them) further into compliance. The variance will not alter the essential character of the area. The proposed project will actually enhance the essential character of the area by reducing visual obstructions visible from the lake and reduce the appearance of manmade features that already exist in the setback. (This is achieved through materiality, a change in railing style, color, and design, a slightly lower elevation, and increased vegetation.) The granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area, but will in fact bring it more into compliance with the goals for the character of property fronting a recreational lake, as Bone Lake is designated as. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. This is understood and not being cited as the primary practical difficulty. 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 granting of the proposed variance will not adversely impact access to light, air, or enjoyment of adjacent property. Nor will it increase congestion on public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger public safety, or diminish property values in the neighborhood. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The practical difficulty that is at the heart of this proposal lies in the fact that there are circumstances unique to this parcel that are creating the need for this variance request. Approximately 78% of the property is within the required setback, which is a grandfathered condition, but also which is creating the need for this variance request. Elimination of the practical difficulty is impossible, as locating this deck anywhere else on this parcel would require a variance, as well. The project proposed represents a reasonable request that addresses the root concerns behind the ordinance in question, and represents a minimum action to allow for reasonable enjoyment and use of the parcel in continuation of current usage, while actually bringing the physical presence of this built structure (the deck) closer into compliance with the goals and intents of the ordinance itself. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The proposed project will have no impact on access to sunlight for solar systems. Variance: To have a deck that is wider than 10’. The applicant would like to locate a replacement deck on the lakeside of their home. It is our understanding that the maximum allowed width is 10’. The existing deck/patio configuration already exists in a dimension that exceeds this measurement. (27’-6 1/2”) This is a grandfathered condition. The applicant is proposing a deck that lessens the nonconformity with a maximum proposed width of 25’ (the majority of the width of the deck is 22’-6”). While this exceeds the 10’ width called for in policy, it is more narrow than the existing measurement of 27’-3”, which means that the proposed design brings it closer to compliance. This is a reasonable request, given unique circumstances that are unique to the property and which were not created by the applicant. The deck is located in roughly the same location as the existing deck/patio configuration, where it serves to provide access to an existing (many decades old) set of concrete stairs that lead to the applicant’s dock, the access doors to the house, and access to the yard to the south for better maintenance and safety. This connection to existing features in the landscape/property are what is necessitating the 25’ width. (it is also worth nothing that 2’-6” of the 25’ will be stepped back and have additional screening via vegetation.) In addition, the proposed deck differs from the existing layout, as the design shifts the northernmost edge to the south, which allows for a 5’ gap between the deck and the existing main stairs. This is to accommodate increased vegetation to both provide increased soil stabilization to the site (it is not in the area currently served by an existing retaining wall), as well as improve the viewshed from the lake and help obscure the edges of the aforementioned existing retaining walls. During the recent remodel of the portion of the house adjacent to the deck in question, the owners discovered that a visually obtrusive planter made of stacked landscaping blocks (immediately adjacent to the house) was covering a portion of this existing main concrete stairway that leads to the dock). The proposed deck proposal eliminated this concrete planter altogether. This discovery enabled us to simplify the proposed deck design to tie into this existing stairway while preserving the area immediately to the south of the stair (shown between the stairway and the proposed deck) as a space for planting vegetation to both create better scenic views form the lake, but also increase stabilization of the soils in that area to reduce run off. The project as proposed maintains the existing retaining walls so as not to introduce runoff to this already steep slope, but proposes to mask their presence from the viewshed of the lake through increased landscaping. The proposed deck is then located within the uppermost retaining wall area, while allowing access for maintenance to the south portion of the property (an amenity already present in the existing patio/deck configuration, but in the proposed design it will be better screened from the lake viewshed.) In addition, the applicant proposes to use a railing design that minimizes the visual appearance from the lake, as opposed to the previous deck railing system, which was a painted (red), heavy 2x2 vertical slat system. The proposed rail system is horizontal in nature, made of earth-toned finishes, and made of material that is thinner than the previous 2x2 product to be less visually distracting from the lake viewshed. The height is also lower than the previous deck, as one of the changes made in the recent interior remodel resulted in a 4” drop to the threshold (and therefore deck level) from the prior elevation. This shift in elevation will not adversely impact the project as it is not significant enough to create a flood risk, but it will assist in minimizing the appearance of the deck from the lake viewshed. The goal of this ordinance is to minimize the impact of man-made features from the lake viewshed, and we believe the proposed project meets and exceeds the intent of this ordinance through its design while preserving the needed access that is already grandfathered in as a recognized existing condition of the site. We are hopeful that you take these factors into consideration and grant this variance. The applicant has addressed the required findings below: Variances shall be permitted when they are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and general purposes and intent of the official control. The proposed deck is consistent with the Scandia Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it supports the Land Use Objective to: “Conduct development in a manner that is sensitive to the impact upon natural features and to environmental constraints, including but not limited to scenic views, surface water, wetlands, slopes, woodlands, vegetation, drainage ways, shorelands, and flood plain areas.” The project is designed and proposed in a way that is sensitive to the impact on both the adjacent shoreland areas as well as the scenic views from the water, and is sensitive to the slope and vegetation. It takes an existing condition which currently has an impact on the scenic views and reduces the impact to bring it further into compliance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official controls. The applicant proposes to use the property for purposes that are already existing and grandfathered in (deck/patio space), but reconfigured to make the deck more in compliance with the rules and intent of the ordinance and land use policy through location and siting, reducing visual obstruction currently present, laying it out in a manner that is safer for the owner and their family to use, and by maintaining the access for site and grounds maintenance to the south. The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property. The presence of an existing outdoor patio/deck area is an existing condition, not created by the applicant. The existing patio/deck spaces are in excess of the required width by almost 3x. The proposed deck is narrower than what currently exists on site and therefore brings the deck further into compliance by lessening the nonconformity. The variance will not alter the essential character of the area. The proposed project will actually enhance the essential character of the area by reducing visual obstructions visible from the lake and reduce the appearance of manmade features that already exist in the setback. The granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the area, but will in fact bring it more into compliance with the goals for the character of property fronting a recreational lake, as Bone Lake is designated as. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. This is understood and not being cited as the primary practical difficulty. 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 granting of the proposed variance will not adversely impact access to light, air, or enjoyment of adjacent property. Nor will it increase congestion on public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger public safety, or diminish property values in the neighborhood. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The existing deck/patio situation (which is allowed as it is an established, grandfathered condition) is already in violation of the 10’ width requirement. While the new deck that is being proposed lessens that violation by being narrower, it is the minimum width possible due to the existing conditions on the site which have been present for decades and therefore exist as conditions not created by the applicant. This, thereby, is the practical difficulty (existing site conditions) that necessitates the minimum width required to meet the needs of these existing site conditions. That we can do this while simultaneously bringing the new deck further into compliance and more into alignment with the goals of the comprehensive plan and city policy is a testament to the need for the granting of this variance. To deny it would allow for the presence of an existing situation that is both wider and more visually intrusive and negatively impactful condition for the owners, the neighbors, and anyone on the lake observing the viewshed. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The proposed project will have no impact on access to sunlight for solar systems. Minimum Action Needed Lastly, the applicant has been asked to address the project as it relates to a criteria of being the “minimum” action needed. We believe we have demonstrated the reasonableness of the request and that the proposed design brings the project further into conformity with the ordinances. Through existing circumstances not created by the applicant, the design reflects the minimum action needed, as it accomplishes all the intents of the ordinances, while at the same time retaining access and circulation to features and amenities on the site that are existing. The applicant feels this is accomplished in a way that both solves for the owners needs, while also enhancing the view from the lake and opportunities to capture and filter stormwater to help minimize runoff.