Loading...
6.b PC Staff Report_Gunst Variance TKDA ® | 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com An employee -owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity. Memorandum To: Scandia Planning Commission Reference: Gunst Variance Application Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator Brian Gunst, Applicant Project No.: 18108.000 Gunst Variance From: Evan Monson, Planner Routing: Date: August 30, 2021 SUBJECT: Variance to build an addition at a setback of 6.8 feet from the rear lot line MEETING DATE: September 7, 2021 LOCATION: 19211 Meadowridge Lane North, PID 28.032.20.34.0013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian Gunst ZONING: General Rural (GR), Shoreland Overlay REVIEW PERIOD: October 10, 2021, (30 day DNR review period ended August 11) ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plans received July 12, 2021 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is looking to build an addition onto their existing home, located on Meadowridge Lane. The proposed addition would include 2,425 square feet (SF) of space, and would be located on the north and west side of the house. The normally required rear setback is 50 feet for lots zoned GR. As part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, lots in the Tii Gavo subdivision were approved to have a 30 foot minimum rear setback. The proposed addition would have a setback of 6.8 feet from the north property line; which would place it within the required setback of 30 feet from the rear property line. Gunst Variance Staff Report September 7, 2021 Scandia Planning Commission Page 2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel description: 19211 Meadowridge Lane North is located north of Big Marine Lake, and approximately a mile west of Olinda Trail. The parcel is approximately 1.08 acres in size, with the west half of the lot occupied by trees and vegetation. The minimum size and setbacks of the lot were approved as part of the approval of the subdivision. A house with an attached garage currently occupy the east half of the lot; the house was built in 2017. An outlot, comprising of trees and undeveloped space, is adjacent to the subject property and borders its north, west, and east sides. Zoning: General Rural (GR), Shoreland Overlay Land use: Single-Family Residential EVALUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant’s Explanation of the Plan and Variance Request See attached narrative from applicant. Staff Comments on the Variance Request Engineer The City Engineer provided the following comments regarding the request.  Grading permit would be required.  Project shall be in compliance with requirements from the Watershed District; applicant would need to obtain any required permits. Watershed The Carnelian Marine St Croix W atershed District noted the following:  Stormwater Management Rule 2.0 - Per District Permit 06-019, all lots within Tii Gavo are to be individually permitted and must address stormwater on a lot-by-lot basis in addition to the regional features already constructed. District Permit 14-016 (Tii Gavo Pro Forma) provides clarifying language stating that all Tii Gavo lots must incorporate stormwater BMPs in accordance with the District’s Small Residential Project Stormwater Worksheet. Based on the total amount of impervious surface proposed, 1,368-CF of stormwater management storage is required.  Erosion & Sediment Control Rule 3.0 – An erosion and sediment control plan is required including a temporary rock/mulch construction entrance, silt fence or silt logs downgrade of disturbed areas, revegetation specifications, identification of staging areas outside of yet-to-be-identified stormwater feature(s), and a constructio n implementation schedule.  Buffers Rule 4.0 is not triggered as the variance request to Scandia is for a rear yard setback.  Floodplain – The 100-yr flood elevation of Big Marine Lake is 942.5 (FEMA). Existing grades surrounding the existing and proposed house addition are 960 so freeboard requirements are satisfied for the lake flood elevation. There is no proposed grading within the floodplain. Freeboard requirement from proposed BMPs will be reviewed up receipt of a stormwater management plan.  Wetlands – Based on National Wetlands Inventory Mapping Data, there are no known wetlands on site; District Rule 8.0 does not apply. DNR The East Metro Area Hydrologist did not provide comments at the time of this staff report. Gunst Variance Staff Report September 7, 2021 Scandia Planning Commission Page 3 Development Code The house on the site is currently located in the north half of the property, with an existing setback of approximately 48 feet from the rear lot line. As part of the approval of the subdivision, the property has a minimum rear setback of 30 feet. The house was built in 2017 by the current landowners. The applicant notes a location further near the middle of the lot was origin ally planned for, though that location would have been too low for an elevation on the site, hence the existing location of the house. The proposed addition of an indoor sport court would be 34.5 feet by 55 feet, along with an additional 23.5 foot by 22.5 foot garage stall onto the existing garage. The proposed addition would have a setback of 6.8 feet, which is an encroachment of 23.2 feet into the required rear yard setback. The applicant has noted if the variance is not approved, the proposed addition would need to be on the west side of the garage. Placing the proposed addition west of the garage instead of to the rear of the house would meet the required setbacks, though would result in having to remove some existing trees west of the house. Figure 1: Proposed site plan, with addition shown Variance Criteria and Findings Chapter One, 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. Gunst Variance Staff Report September 7, 2021 Scandia Planning Commission Page 4  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 does have an objective in the Land Use section 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 proposed addition, by extending to the north instead of west on the parcel, would avoid existing wooded areas on the lot. The request appears to be in general harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner under the conditions allowed by official control(s). The current use of the property is for a single-family residence, which would not change if this variance request is approved. Proposing to continue to use the property for residential use is a reasonable use.  The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property. The practical difficulties as noted by the applicant are primarily due to the existing location of the house, which while not being the first choice of the landowner was the eventual location that the house was built at. The difficulties arising from the existing location not allowing for a 34.5 foot deep addition are caused by the landowner. The buildable area on the lot available to the landowner to build on would still permit additions that do not require variances, which is not a unique difficulty. The practical difficulties of the existing house location were caused by the current landowner and are not unique to the property.  The variances would not alter the essential character of the area. The use and function of the property would remain residential, as is the use of other nearby lots in the area. The addition would be much closer to the rear lot line than nearby homes, though existing trees and vegetation would cut down on the visibility of the addition from the right-of-way or other lots. Granting the variances would not alter the essential character of the area.  Economic conditions alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. The practical difficulties are related to the existing location of the house. 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 variances would not result in limiting light or air to neighboring properties . The land use will not change, so increases to congestion, fire danger, or public safety are not expected. The property values of neighboring values should not be negatively impacted, either, if the request is granted. The requested variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, increase congestion, endanger the public, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.  The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Gunst Variance Staff Report September 7, 2021 Scandia Planning Commission Page 5 The current location of the house is meeting the required setbacks. The proposed addition could meet setbacks as well if located elsewhere on the lot, or reduced in size. The requested variance is not the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty.  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 do not support granting a variance to the 30 foot rear setback requirement. 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 recommend denial of a variance to build an addition at a setback of 6.8 feet from the rear lot line, 19211 Meadowridge Lane North.