Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A 5504 Candy Cove Trail Variance 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 6, 2015 AGENDA #: 4A PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER JEFF MATZKE PUBLIC HEARING: YES AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BLUFF SETBACK AND GRADING IN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT DISCUSSION: Introduction Margaret and David Ostrowski, the owners of the subject property, are requesting variances in order to allow for re-grading and construction of retaining walls within a bluff impact zone as well as an addition to an existing home on a property lo- cated at 5504 Candy Cove Trail NE. The property is located along the southern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, east of Manor Road. The property currently contains a single family home. The following variances are requested with the proposed survey: • An 25 foot variance from the required minimum 25 foot structure set- back from the top of a bluff slope (Section 1104.304) • A variance to allow re-grading and construction of retaining walls within a bluff impact zone (Section 1104.303) History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property currently contains a single family home which was constructed in 1972, detached garage (constructed in 1973 and was granted a side yard variance), and a smaller structure identified on the submitted survey as the “Bath House” which was con- structed in the early 1900s. The property contains a very steep slope of greater than 40 percent in some areas. Years ago, a previous owner installed small re- taining walls throughout the slope and a rear patio. These features are failing and need to be removed/replaced (see attached engineering inspection letter from August 2014). Current Circumstances The property is 11,464 square feet with steep sloped lakeshore; according to the existing survey, it contains three structures, two patio areas, and a bitumi- nous driveway area. The existing impervious surface area is identified as 40.2% of the total lot area (the City Ordinance currently allows a maximum im- pervious surface amount of 30% of the total lot area). 2 Ordinance Requirements: Subsection 1104.303-305 details the requirements for bluff slope areas. Bluff areas are defined by City Ordinance as areas which are over 25 feet in height with an average grade of 30% or greater. The top of the bluff is the point at which the slope is less than 18% grade over a distance of 25 feet. This point is located near the front of the house, therefore the entire house and all elevations below it to the shores of Prior Lake are within the bluff slope area. Subsection 1104.305 of the City Ordinance requires that an engineering report be provided with any application for which construction is proposed. This report shall discuss the bluff stability and impact of excavation, fill, or placement of structures within the bluff area. The applicant has provided such a report (see attached engineer’s report from June 2015). Proposed Construction: The applicant is proposing to construct a 118 square foot entryway addition and a 192 square foot upper level dormer addition to the front of the existing house. Also, the applicant is proposing to re-grade and re- move existing retaining walls and construct new retaining walls within the steep bluff slope area to ensure stability of the slope. A few of the walls are proposed to be over 4 feet in height which would constitute a structure by City Ordinance and be required to meet structure setbacks. Additional grading is proposed near and below the 904 elevation (the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Prior Lake). This grading appears to lessen the slope of the area below the “Bath House” by installing a taller retaining wall of 4 feet near the rear of the building. Lastly, the applicant proposes to install a stone stairway system on the grade of the bluff to replace the noncompliant existing stairs. The City Ordinance dic- tates stairways, lifts, and landing systems are the method to achieve access up and down steep slopes. City Staff has recommended these systems be con- structed above the grade on posts and pilings rather than into the grade to lessen the impact to the bluff slope and prevent soil erosion. Conclusion As the submitted photos and engineering reports identify, grading and retaining wall construction within the bluff slope is necessary to improve overall stability, erosion control, and accessibility within the steep slope. The property owner has recently purchased the site and would like to correct these issues very soon so as to not further undermine the stability of existing structures on the property. In addition to the proposed slope improvements, the applicant does propose to re- duce the existing impervious surface (40% of total lot area) to 29.9% (below the maximum City Ordinance requirement of 30% of the total lot area). The local DNR hydrologist commented on the requested variance application, and while agreeing that the slope needs to be repaired, she stated that construc- tion work at or below the current 904’ elevation should be standard rip rap with a slope of 3:1 into the water. City Staff has met with the applicant regarding the variance requests. While in support of the overall plan to improve stability on the slope, develop better access up and down the bluff, and construct a reasonable addition to the house, City staff has the following recommended changes to the proposed project plan including: • Eliminate any work below the 904’ elevation with exception to rip rap rock materials which are permitted in accordance with DNR shoreline regula- tions 3 • Install retaining walls lower in elevation than the “Bath House” which main- tains a slope of 20% or greater to more closing match the current slope (27%) and retaining wall heights (the current proposal identifies approxi- mately a 10% proposed slope from the 904’ to the retaining wall indicated at a 907’ elevation) • Install a stairway system that is constructed above the grade of the bluff rather than into the grade to lessen the impact to the bluff slope and pre- vent soil erosion ISSUES: This project includes requests for variances. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provi- sions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: (1) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Or- dinance. Without the approval of variances, the work to repair and im- prove stability on the slope, develop better access up and down the bluff, and construct a reasonable addition would not be allowed. (2) The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly develop- ment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public ar- eas”. Furthermore the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) policy’s in- tent is “in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The reasonable residential house additions and requests improvements to the overall slope are in harmony with these purposes and policies with the exception of the greater impacts as identified in the conditions of the vari- ance approval. (3) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The presence of a bluff slope on the property and location of failing re- taining walls and the existing house within the bluff impact zone area cre- ates a practical difficulty for the property owner to improve the conditions of the slope and create a reasonable addition to the dwelling without the requested variances. 4 (4) The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the Candy Cove Trail neighborhood. There are other riparian properties in this corridor with similar slopes that have greater stability and improvements in place within bluff areas. (5) The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow construction of an addition to a residential dwelling and retaining walls which are an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving the variances re- quested by the applicant with the listed conditions, or approve any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose as directed by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion and a second to deny the variance requests because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zon- ing code criteria RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Alternative #1. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution 15-XXPC 2. Location Map/Photos 3. Existing survey dated April 29, 2015 4. Proposed survey dated May 29, 2015 5. Structural engineer inspection letter dated August 12, 2014 6. Geotechnical engineering report dated June 5, 2015 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 15-XXPC VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM BLUFF SETBACK AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS AND A HOUSE ADDITION ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2015, to consider a request from Margaret and David Ostrowski to approve variances from the minimum buff setback and bluff impact zone to allow construction of retaining walls and a house addition on a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District at the following property: 5504 Candy Cove Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Lot 22, Candy Cove Park except Triangle on West line and Parcel 3.34 feet in width near center on West line of Lot 23, Scott County, Minnesota (PID 25-027-016-0) WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request, and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance request; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case #DEV- 2015-001011 and held a hearing thereon on July 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings: a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. Without the approval of variances, the work to repair and improve stability on the slope, develop better access up and down the bluff, and construct a reasonable addition would not be allowed. 2 b. The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) policy’s intent is “in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The reasonable residential house additions and requests improvements to the overall slope are in harmony with these purposes and policies with the exception of the greater impacts as identified in the conditions of the variance approval. c. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant. The presence of a bluff slope on the property and location of failing retaining walls and the existing house within the bluff impact zone area creates a practical difficulty for the property owner to improve the conditions of the slope and create a reasonable addition to the dwelling without the requested variances. d. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the Candy Cove Trail neighborhood. There are other riparian properties in this corridor with similar slopes that have greater stability and improvements in place within bluff areas. e. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located. The requested variances would allow construction of an addition to a residential dwelling and retaining walls which are an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby approves the following variances to allow a construction of retaining walls and a house addition in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District: a. An 25 foot variance from the required minimum 25 foot structure setback from the top of a bluff slope (Section 1104.304) b. A variance to allow re-grading and construction of retaining walls within a bluff impact zone (Section 1104.303) 4. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community & Economic Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF JULY, 2015. _______________________________ Perri Hite, Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Dan Rogness, Community & Economic Development Director VOTE Hite Blahnik Fleming Larson Peterson Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐   SITE PHOTOS    SITE PHOTOS E X I S I T N G S U R V E Y P R O P O S E D S U R V E Y