Loading...
08.b 2 2021.12.21 - Bruggeman Variance CC Staff Report 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: Bruggeman Variance Application Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator Paul and Denise Bruggeman, Applicant Project No.: 18108.000 Bruggeman Variance From: Evan Monson, Planner Routing: Date: December 17, 2021 SUBJECT: Variances from lot size and road frontage requirements for construction of a single-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot, and variances for an Accessory Dwelling Unit located within required setbacks from lot lines, wetlands, and Big Marine Lake MEETING DATE: December 21, 2021 LOCATION: 19489 Manning Trail North, PID 29.032.20.32.0010 & 29.032.20.32.0011 APPLICANT: Paul and Denise Bruggeman OWNERS: Pat and Brenda Melchior ZONING: General Rural (GR), Shoreland Overlay REVIEW PERIOD: 60-day January 13, 2022 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plans received July 13, delineation and report received October 14, 2021 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The property owners are looking to sell the subject property to the applicants, who would like to build a new single-family house on the site. The applicant is proposing to remove most of the existing structures on the site, but are proposing to keep an existing cabin on the site for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The house would be located near the center of the lot. The proposed house would be 100 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Big Marine Lake at its nearest point. There are wetlands along the shore of the lake, as well as to the west of the house and subject property. The existing cabin, which is proposed to be used as an ADU, would be within 75 feet of the wetlands to the west, 77.7 feet from the OHWL of the lake, as well as 14.8 feet from the side property line. Due to the ADU not meeting required setbacks, setback variances would be needed for the existing cabin to be used and permitted as an ADU. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 2 The parcel is 1.92 acres in size; the minimum size of a parcel within the shoreland overlay is 2.5 acres. The property also does not have frontage onto a public street; it gets access to Manning Trail approximately 0.75 miles to the west via a private driveway. Given the parcel is nonconforming to the minimum lot size and not fronting a public street, variances for the size and frontage requirements of the property would also be required. To summarize, this request includes three setback variances for the ADU (a 29.4 foot variance from the 75 foot wetland setback, a 22.3 foot variance from the 100 foot setback from the lake, and a 5.2 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback), and two variances for the lot itself (minimum lot size and minimum frontage onto a public street). The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on December 7th. The recommendation from staff was to deny the request. The findings presented by staff noted that the request was not found to be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes/intent of the Development Code, the proposed use of a nonconforming lot without fronting a public street was unreasonable, the variances could alter the essential character of the area, the high price to upgrade the private drive to the standards of a public street is economic in nature and shouldn’t constitute a practical difficulty , the lack of frontage to an public street could result in issues with safety and accessibility to the site, and the request was not the minimum action necessary. The Planning Commission found that the request did meet the variance criteria, and the recommendation from the Commission was to approve the request with a number of conditions. Their findings and recommendation is found later in this report. PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel description: 19489 Manning Trail North consists of two parcels located along Big Marine Lake totaling 1.92 acres of land above the OHWL of Big Marine Lake. The property is irregular in shape. The parcels do not front a public road; there is a narrow access easement from Manning Trail to the subject property that is used for a driveway; Manning Trail is nearly a mile to the west. There are wetlands to the west on a neighboring property, as well as along the lakeshore. The boundaries of the wetlands were recently delineated this fall. The two subject parcels have some slopes and vegetation throughout; the slopes on the southern portion of the lot form a bluff. A handful of structures are currently present on the property, including a seasonal cabin. Zoning: GR, Shoreland Overlay Land use: Single-Family Residential (seasonal cabin) EVALUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST Development Code & Comprehensive Plan Requirements A lot within the city is required to meet certain requirements in order to be utilized for development. New lots that are created are required to meet these requirements so as to alleviate the need for variances in the future. Older lots in the city that were developed prior to the city’s Development Code do not always meet the requirements of today, leading to issues when trying to develop or redevelop such sites. The subject property is currently unable to meet the minimum lot size, and minimum frontage onto a public street required in the Development Code. In the GR zone, the minimum lot size required is 2 acres, while the Shoreland Overlay has a 2.5 acre minimum size requirement. A minimum frontage onto public roads of 160 feet is required for properties zoned GR; the subject property is not meeting this requirement. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan has specific goals relating to land use. Goal Two in the Land Use section is to “manage land use to prevent the premature demand for extension of urban services and in ways that allow existing service levels to meet service needs”. The objectives noted in the Plan for the city to meet this goal are to “require that land proposed for development is served or will be able to be served with adequate infrastructure, including sewage treatment systems, streets, and storm water management systems” and to “require all new development be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan”. By lacking frontage to a public street, the proposed development is lacking the adequate infrastructure that is required to meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code does not allow for lots to be created that are not fronting an improved public street (Chapter 3, Section 13.2(4)), and private streets are not allowed for new subdivisions (Chapter 3, Section 13.5(2)). Chapter 3, Section 13.8 notes the minimum design requirements for city streets. A local ‘rural design’ street is to be 24 feet in width, with four foot wide shoulders on each side. In comparison to a ‘rural design’ street, the private easement currently serving acces s to the site is 20 feet in width, with the private driveway within the easement being ten feet in width. The lack of a public street also raises the issue of premature subdivisions. Chapter 3, Section 5 of the Development Code discusses subdivisions that are ‘premature’, in that they are found meeting the following criteria, which are: • Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the goals, policies, or implementation strategies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • Inconsistent with the Capital Improvements Program. o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if it is inconsistent with the capital improvements program because public improvements, facilities, or services necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision would not be completed within two years of the date of application. • Lack of Adequate Sewage Treatment Systems. • Lack of Adequate Streets to Serve the Subdivision. o A proposed subdivision may be deemed premature if streets which serve the proposed subdivision are of such a width, grade, stability, alignment, site distance, or surface condition that the traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create a hazard to public safety and general welfare, or would seriously aggravate an existing hazardous condition; or the traffic volume generated by the proposed subdivision would create congestion or unsafe conditions on existing or proposed streets. • Lack of Adequate Drainage, and • Inconsistent with Environmental Requirements. The private access currently serving the lot could be requested to serve additional new year -round residences in the future by future variances for neighboring lots, which would result in the development of an area that is not complying with the standards required of today’s subdivisions. Approval of such variances to frontage for this lot could then be considered to run counter to the purpose and intent of the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. “Preventing problems associated with inappr opriately subdivided lands, including premature subdivision, excess subdivision, partial or incomplete subdivision, or scattered subdivision” is found in Chapter 3, Section 1.2(9) of the Development Code. The proposed house would be a year-round residence, which would be a change from the current use of the property (seasonal residence). Allowing a year-round residence to be built on the property could lead to a premature demand for municipal infrastructure to serve this area of the city, if other adjacent lots are also utilized for year-round residences in the future. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 4 Given the property is not meeting the minimum size and frontage requirements, it is currently nonconforming. The nonconformity section of the Development Code (Chapter 1, Section 13) notes in Section 13.5 that vacant nonconforming lots can be utilized for single-family homes without variances if a number of criteria are met, including: • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan • Fronting a public street or approved private road • Having at least 66% of the minimum size required for a lot with the underlying zoning district • Meeting setback requirements, and • Meeting requirements for impervious surface coverage. The property does meet the 66% threshold for minimum lot size. The proposed house would meet setback requirements and not exceed the impervious surface coverage requirements. The proposed ADU would be within required setbacks, though, hence the variance requests related to that. The lot does not front a public road, but does have access via a private driveway. Section 13.5(1)(D) notes “to be considered an approved private road, the City Council must, by resolution, find that the road is capable of supporting emergency vehicles and that provisions exist for on-going maintenance of the road”. The City Council has not found via resolution the private access to be considered an approved private road, hence the need for a variance from the requirement to front a public street. While the proposed use is residential, it could lead to additional demand for infrastructure and development in this area in the future, which could be considered inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. The GR zoning district requires a minimum side setback of 20 feet for structures used as Accessory Dwelling Units. The Shoreland Overlay notes a minimum setback of 75 feet from manage I wetlands, and a 100 foot setback required from the OHWL of recreational lakes such as Big Marine Lake. The proposed ADU is an existing structure that was previously used as a cabin on the site, and was built prior to the current code requirements. In order for this existing structure to be allowed to be used as an ADU, the structure is required to meet all applicable setback requirements. The cabin would require a 29.4 foot variance from the 75 foot wetland setback, a 22.3 foot variance from the 100 foot setback from the lake, and a 5.2 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback in order to be permitted by the city as an ADU. Above: Aerial view the area, with subject property highlighted Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 5 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: • If variance is approved, a grading permit would be required from the City • Work shall be within compliance of any requirements of the Watershed District & DNR • Any requirements from the Fire Chief for access will need to be followed • Easements for access will need to be turned in to City (included in submitted plans) Fire Department The Fire Chief provided comments on the access to the project site: • The entire length of the driveway would need to be cleared of brush and trees to a width of 12 feet. • Any curves will need to accommodate a 40 foot fire truck • Driving surfaces will need to be 9 feet wide at minimum • A turnaround will need to be located within close proximity to the new home • Portions of the driveway will need to be raised with rock and gravel to improve year-round use Watershed The Carnelian Marine St Croix Watershed District noted that the following rules would apply to this project: • Rule 2 Stormwater Management – The proposed project would result in 12,353-SF of impervious surface within 1,000 feet of a public water. Stormwater management BMPs sized in compliance with the District’s Small Residential Stormwater Worksheet will be required. Proposed BMPs will need to provide a minimum of 1,853-CF of storage. Onsite soils are mapped as HSG A, so infiltration should be feasible. With the extent of grading proposed to create a walkout one suggestion would be a shallow (0.5-ft deep) depression south of the proposed home. A declaration for maintenance of stormwater management facilities will also be required for the BMP(s). • Rule 3 Erosion Control – An erosion/sediment control plan will be required to prevent erosion and sedimentation into Big Marine Lake. Silt fence is proposed on the certificate of survey, down gradient of all disturbed areas. Redundant silt fence or the addition of silt logs is likely warranted where flow would concentrate (i.e. south of the existing building to be removed). Disturbed area vegetation establishment plans will also be required and may cons ist of seed and mulch, sod, landscaping. • Rule 4 Buffers – CMSCWD Rule 4 is not applicable given compliance with 100-ft setback and percent impervious surface requirements. • Rule 7 Floodplain and Drainage Alterations – The proposed low floor of 968.5 satisfies District requirements and there is no grading proposed below the 100-year elevation. • Rule 8 Wetland Management – CMSCWD Rule 8 would be applicable if any permanent or temporary wetland impact is proposed. Temporarily disturbed wetland areas would need t o be restored with native vegetation. DNR The East Metro Area Hydrologist did not provide comments at the time of this staff report. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 6 Washington County The County has regulations on septic systems within the county, a s well as issues permits and inspects such systems for compliance. The Department of Public Health & Environment noted that the development would require soil testing showing that there is enough area for a primary and a secondary if changing the water usage on the property. These tests would be required in order to receive a septic permit from the county. Planning Commission Review The proposed request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their December 7th meeting. The recommendation from staff was to deny the request, as the staff findings concluded that not all the variance criteria were met. The meeting materials for the December 7th meeting, which include the staff report and resolution presented to the Commission, are found on the city website. The Commission deliberated the request, and found that the requests met the criteria for a variance, and recommended approval of the request, with a number of conditions of approval. Their findings noted that the proposed use being single-family residential would be consistent with the General Rural (GR) zoning of the area, and that the private driveway could be sufficient as an access if the recommended conditions of approval are met. 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 Planning Commission’s findings regarding the requested variances. • 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 has goals relating to land use and housing within the city. The plan supports allowing for ‘a variety of housing types and densities for residential uses’. The proposed house would be a year-round residence, which would be a change from the current use of the property. The property is within a zoning district that permits single-family residential use. By changing the use from a seasonal residence to a year-round residence for this site, the request would be in 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 seasonal residence, which would be changed to a year - round single-family residence along with an Accessory Dwelling Unit if the proposed variances are approved. The property is within the General Rural (GR) zoning distr ict, which permits single- family residences. Proposing to use the property for residential use is a reasonable use. The property does not front a public street, but does have access through a private driveway. Use of the private drive for access is reasonable provided conditions are added to ensure compliance with the official controls. • The practical difficulties are not caused by the landowner and are unique to the property. The practical difficulties are due to the parcel not meeting the minimum size, not fronting a public street, and the existing structures on-site being built prior to the current ordinances. While lots not conforming to lot size aren’t uncommon near Big Marine Lake, the subject property is unique in having been developed without frontage onto a public road. The Development Code currently Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 7 prohibits private streets; under the current requirements for a subdivision a lot would not be able to be platted without frontage onto a public street. The practical difficulties were not caused by the current landowner and are unique to the property. • The variances would not alter the essential character of the area. The use and function of the property would be changing from its current use. The site has historically been used for seasonal use only. While the use would be changing, it would remain residential in nature, which is permitted within this zoning district. 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 parcel not meeting the minimum lot size, not fronting a public street, and the existing structures on-site being built prior to the current ordinances. The applicant could alleviate the frontage issue by upgrading the access drive to the same standards and design of a public street, though the potential environmental impacts of such work would be high. 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 would be changing to a year-round residence, which given the access is through a private driveway in lieu of an improved public street, could result in congestion and safety issues accessing the site. The applicant would need to adhere to conditions from the city to ensure the driveway is sufficiently a. The property values of neighboring values should not be negatively impacted, if the request is granted. The requested variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Conditions should be added to alleviate issues with safety and access ibility to the site. • The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The existing cabin to be used as an ADU is within setbacks of the lake, wetlands, and the side property line, hence the need for a variance. The structure could be moved further away from the lot line, wetland, and lake and not need as great of variances, thought the slopes on the lot and proposed location of the single-family house greatly limit areas that would not require any setback variance for the ADU. The lot, while nonconforming to lot size, does exceed 66% of the dimensional standard for lot size, and provides suitable locations for septic on the site. Apart from frontage onto a public road, the lot would meet the requirements of Section 13.5 of Chapter One of the Development Code. The applicant would need to adhere to conditions of approval to ensure the private driveway sufficiently provides ingress and egress to the site. The requested variance to the setbacks for the ADU and the minimum lot size appear to be the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties of the site. The lack of fronting a public road would be the minimum action if conditions of approval are met. • Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The variances are not related to a need for direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The findings from the Planning Commission are that the requested variances meet the criteria. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 8 ACTION REQUESTED The City Council can do one of the following: 1. Approve, with or without conditions 2. Deny, with findings 3. Table the request PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended to approve the requested variances from lot size and road frontage requirements for construction of a single-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot, and a 29.4 foot variance from the 75 foot wetland setback, a 22.3 foot variance from the 100 foot setback from Big M arine Lake, and a 5.2 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback in order to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit on property identified as 19489 Manning Trail North. The following ten conditions were recommended: . 1. The proposed project shall adhere to the setbacks and locations as shown on the site plan submitted to the city and reviewed with this request. 2. The applicant shall apply for and acquire a permit from the city for the Accessory Dwelling Unit upon approval of the variance request. 3. The applicant shall secure any applicable permits from the Watershed District, and comply with their requirements. 4. The applicant shall secure any applicable permits from the County for the proposed septic system on-site, and shall comply with their requirements. 5. The two parcels (PIDs 29.032.20.32.0011 and 29.032.20.32.0010) shall be combined into one parcel via a Lot Line Adjustment. 6. The access to the site shall follow recommendations from the Fire Department and City Engineer to ensure sufficient ingress and egress to the site. Requirements specified by the Fire Chief are: a. The entire length of the driveway would need to be cleared of brush and trees to a width of 12 feet. b. Any curves will need to accommodate a 40 foot fire truck. c. Driving surfaces will need to be 9 feet wide at minimum. d. A turnaround will need to be located within close proximity to the new home. e. Portions of the driveway will need to be raised with rock and gravel to improve year-round use. 7. A grading plan and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of a building permit, showing any areas of soil disruption and locations of any trees to be removed or added, in order to ensure that drainage is not directed to adjacent properties and proper erosion control measures are taken. Plans should include grading limits/elevations that don’t negatively impact the adjacent properties from direct drainage off of the site. Bruggeman Variance Staff Report December 21, 2021 Scandia City Council Page 9 8. The new residence shall follow proper posting and signing of the site address, as required by city ordinances. 9. The applicant shall secure any other applicable Federal, State, County, and local permits required for the project. 10. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this application.