Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B 15402 Forsythe Road Variance - PC Report Agenda4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 2019 AGENDA #: 4B PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW CON- STRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT DISCUSSION: Introduction Dan Dauffenbach owns the property at 15402 Forsythe Road NE and is request- ing a variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level deck in the bluff impact zone to remain. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, south of Fish Point Road. The following variances are requested: A variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level deck in the bluff impact zone to remain (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 is in the Shoreland Overlay District of Upper Prior Lake. The current dwelling was constructed in 1978. Current Circumstances The property is 16,155 square feet above the 904’ elevation with a single-family residence. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a previously con- structed 3-season porch and upper level deck to remain within the bluff impact zone. The top of the bluff is identified by the 944-contour elevation on the at- tached survey. A sequencing of events which have occurred on the property since 2001 has been submitted by the applicant as part of the variance request. City Staff has verified most of the event sequencing using site and aerial photos. As explained in the sequencing of events, the applicant began remodeling the existing stair- way, retaining walls, and deck features in 2002 (following purchase of the prop- erty in 2001). A site photo from 1999 identifies some, but not all, of the current improvements. Several of the improvements in the bluff area would not be permitted if newly constructed today. However, because they were constructed prior to 1999 the improvements may be considered legal nonconforming and allowed to remain. 2 In addition, the City does allow reductions in legal nonconformities. However, any expansion of a nonconformity would not be allowed absent a variance. Various features within the bluff area have been remodeled or added since the 1999 photo was taken. The following is an itemization of the changes within the bluff area: 1) stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings; 2) retaining walls 3) storage shed and pavers; 4) lower level deck on house; and 5) upper level deck on house. The following contains a description of each item, its status as allowed, nonconforming or requiring a variance, and staff’s recommendation relating to the item. 1) Stairway and Landings As indicated by the 1999 lake photo, a stairway and two lower level landings were in place prior to the applicant’s renovations in the early 2000s. According to the applicant’s sequence of events, they reduced the size of the lower level deck/landing in 2001-02. They also added the 3 other smaller landings within a new stairway system. The stairway and landing system were resurfaced in 2016- 17 with composite decking and railing. Per City Code, stairways cannot exceed 4 feet in width and landings shall not exceed 32 square feet. The current stairway system is 5.4 - 5.7 feet wide and the landings are 144 square feet and 70 feet respectively. In the attached sequence of events the applicant has stated that the current stairway and landings will be brought into compliance by July 31, 2019. Conclusion: Property owner must bring stairway and landings into compliance with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no more than 32 square feet each. 2) Retaining Walls Only a few retaining walls existed on the property in 1999 and those that did were of a timber wall (railroad tie) wood construction. According to the applicant’s se- quence of events the upper timber wall closest to the home was replaced in 2001- 02 along with the addition of other walls using Keystone retaining wall block. In 2006 additional small retaining walls were constructed near the lakeside landing with Keystone block. In 2016 and 2018 these walls were reconstructed again using a landscape block. Previous to 2016, the City Code did not allow for the addition of walls within the bluff zone; only replacement of existing walls. Following a 2016 Code revision, the installed retaining walls would likely have been allowed with a permit under the following requirement (Sec 1104.303), however, no permit was submitted for the construction: 1104.303 (2) Retaining walls shall not be permitted in the bluff impact zone or bluff setback except for the following: a) Construction on an existing retaining wall that consists of the repair or exact replacement of the existing wall, provided the grade of the land within the bluff impact zone or bluff setback and the location and size of the retaining wall do not change and the new retaining wall will create no more impact in the bluff impact zone or bluff setback than was caused by the existing retaining wall. 3 b) Construction of a new retaining wall that does not exceed four feet in height, construction that consists of an addition to an existing retaining wall that does not increase the height of the wall above four feet, or construction that decreases the height of an existing retaining wall; provided the proposed drainage patterns and/or erosion control methods are an improvement over the existing conditions on the site as determined by the City. Construction of retaining walls under provisions (a) and (b) above shall require a grading and filling permit as well as engineering reports as required by subsection 1104.305. Conclusion: Because the retaining walls would currently be allowed if a permit was obtained, staff recommends the walls be allowed to remain as long as the property owner applies for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and engineered plans) and complies with all conditions the City imposes on the permit. 3) Shed and Pavers As stated in the applicant’s sequence of events the paver areas and the 56 square foot shed were installed in the years 2003 -2006. The City Code does allow a maximum 120 square foot water oriented accessory structure to be placed on a steep lakeshore property with a minimum 10-foot lake setback in an inconspicuous location on the property (Sec 1104.308 (4)). The City Code doesn’t specifically address pavers within a bluff impact zone, however, it states Grading, filling and excavation, including the import or export of materials, is not permitted within the bluff impact zone. However, the movement or grading of existing materials within the bluff impact zone may be permitted subject to approval of a grading and filling permit. (Sec 1104.402)” Conclusion: Because a water orientated accessory structure is allowed on a steep lakeshore property, staff recommends the shed be allowed to remain. Staff is requesting direction from the Board of Adjustment related to the pavers that have been installed within the bluff impact zone. In staff’s opinion, the intent of the stairway, landing and retaining wall language in the ordinance is to allow for access to/from the top and bottom of the bluff. Improvements, such as patio pavers, within the bluff impact zone made possible by retaining walls were not contemplated when the ordinance was drafted; however, it is understandable property owners may wish to add patio space to newly created flat portions of their property. When the applicant purchased this property, two pervious patio areas existed within the bluff impact zone. 4) Lower level deck The lake photo from 1999 and the property owner sequencing identifies a multi- tiered deck system of approximately 494 square feet total off the lower level of the house. The applicant’s sequence of events explains that the deck areas were removed in 2001 and replaced in 2002 one smaller deck area. An upper level deck was also added and is discussed later in this report. The lower level deck area was resurfaced in 2016 with composite decking. The applicant’s sequence of events states that in 2017 the walls around the lower level deck were enclosed 4 to create a 3-season porch. A smaller lower level deck would be allowed at the current time pursuant to a building permit as the reduction of the larger nonconforming deck. The closing in of the lower level deck to create a 3-season porch would not be allowed absent a variance. Decking is often considered pervious surface because it allows rainwater to reach the ground. However, by closing off a deck to create a 3-season porch the deck becomes an impervious surface. The change to a 3-season porch would be considered an increase in the existing nonconformity and would not be allowed absent a variance. Conclusion: City Staff recommends that a smaller lower level deck be allowed to remain as the reduction of a nonconformity as long as the property owner applies for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and engineered plans) and complies with all conditions the City imposes on the permit. City Staff recom- mends denial of the variance request for a 3-season porch and recommends the lower level deck be returned to an open-air deck as was previously installed. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjust- ment, regarding whether such a deck should be allowed in this instance and if so the allowable size of the deck. 5) Upper level deck The lake photo from 1999 identifies an upper level deck off the garage and an upper level patio door without a deck. The applicant’s sequence of events explains that the upper level deck off of the garage was removed in 2001 and replaced in 2002 with a smaller deck area. Also, as part of the 2002 replacement the applicant installed an upper level deck (18’ x 10’) outside of the patio door. These deck areas were resurfaced in 2016 with composite decking and the upper level deck installed in 2002 was increased in size to 18’ x 15’ to match the footprint of the lower level deck below. The upper level deck was installed as an impervious surface deck in conjunction with closing off the lower deck to become a 3-season porch. A smaller deck area off the garage would have been allowed at the time it was constructed, pursuant to a building permit, as the reduction of the larger nonconforming deck. The addition of a new deck off the patio door would not be allowed absent a variance. Conclusion: City Staff recommends that the smaller deck off of the garage be allowed to remain as the reduction of a nonconformity as long as the property owner applies for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and engineered plans) and complies with all conditions the City imposes on the permit. City Staff does not have a recommendation in regard to the requested variance for the new upper level deck off of the patio door. The Board of Adjustment has previously allowed smaller decks to be installed off of pre-existing patio doors because it has been considered reasonable for a property owner to assume when purchas- ing a property with a patio door that a deck can be installed. However, in this instance, a very large, impervious surface deck was installed. In the past, the Board of Adjustment has allowed smaller (such as 10 x 10) pervious decks to be installed off a pre-existing patio door. Staff requests direction from the Board of Adjustment regarding whether such a deck should be allowed in this instance and if so, the allowable size of the deck. 5 Conclusion Utilizing site and aerial photos, City Staff has verified most events sequencing as stated in the applicant’s sequence of events narrative. The applicant did not sub- mit any grading or building permits for any of the work in question dating back to 2001; however, under the current City Code some of these features would be allowed with permits while others would require a variance. Staff recommends the following: 1) The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings be brought into com- pliance with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no more than 32 square feet each after the property owner obtains a permit. 2) The retaining walls be allowed to remain as long as the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. 3A) The water orientated accessory structure be allowed to remain as is. 3B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding whether the patio pac- ers within the bluff impact zone should be allowed to remain. 4A) A smaller lower level deck be allowed to remain, in an appropriate size as determined by the Planning Commission, as a reduction of a previous noncon- forming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. 4B) The variance request for the 3-season porch be denied. 5A) The smaller deck off the garage be allowed to remain as the reduction of a previous nonconforming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a per- mit. 5B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding the approval or denial of a variance for the upper level deck off of the patio door. For each permit required (stairs and landing, retaining walls, pavers, lower level deck, small deck off of the garage, and deck off of the upper level patio door if allowed) the property owner shall obtain permits, complt with all conditions the City imposes on the permit, provide engineered plans and specifications, pay all City fees including double permit fees as is standard for after the fact permits, and follow City permit procedures. The City Staff is prepared to draft a resolution for approval/denial of the Staff’s recommendations and the requested variances based on the findings of the Plan- ning Commission. Staff requests that the Board of Adjustment make verbal find- ings on each item. The Staff will incorporate the findings into a Resolution to bring back to the Board of Adjustment for review and revision and/or ratification. If any approval of any variance is given the City Staff recommends the following condi- tions be met: The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. The stairway and landings shall be reduced to meet the City Code. Prior to any work, the property owner obtains permits for all work including the stairs and landing, retaining walls, pavers, small lower level deck, small 6 deck off the garage, and deck off of the patio door if allowed. That the property owner shall provide engineered plans and specifications, pay all City fees in- cluding double permit fees for after the fact permits, and follow City permit procedures. That the property owner complies with the permits and with any conditions the City imposes on the permits. ISSUES: This project includes a request for variances to allow a previously constructed 3- season porch and upper level deck off the patio doors to remain in a bluff impact zone. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that the variance meets the following criteria. Staff has provided proposed findings for denial of the variance for the 3-season porch. Staff is seeking direction and find- ings from the Board of Adjustment for the variance for the upper level deck 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. Practical difficulties do not exist for increasing the nonconformity of the lower level deck area to a 3-season porch. The existing deck areas from 1999 were legal nonconforming structures therefore only exact replace- ment or reduction of these features would be allowed by the City Code. The property owner has shown no practical difficulties in not being allowed to improve the nonconformity to a 3-season porch. 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 variance is to allow a 3-season porch is not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is 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 wel- fare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters”. 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 practical difficulty is due to the actions of the property owner installing the 3-season porch and completing other work within the bluff impact zone without submitting applicable permits. The porch does not conform to the City Code requirements for features in a bluff area. The bluff area is not unique to this property. 7 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 intent of the City’s bluff setback ordinance is to limit improvements and impervious surface in the bluff area to protect the bluff and the abutting lake. The addition of a 3-season porch and additional impervious surface is detrimental to the health of the bluff and therefore the lake and abutting properties. 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 uses which are allowed accessory uses within the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential in Shoreland) Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the variances requested for 15402 Forsythe Trail NE with conditions deemed appropriate. 2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose as directed by the Board of Adjustment. 3. Motion and a second to approve Staff’s recommendations and deny the vari- ances requested because the Board of Adjustment finds a lack of demon- strated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria. 4. Motion and a second to approve in part and deny in part Staff’s recommen- dations and the variances requested. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Alternative No. 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Lake photo from 1999 3. Aerial photos from 2003, 2007, 2016, 2018 4. Photos of property from 2016 - 2018 5. Survey Dated 9-25-2018 6. Sequencing of Events from Applicant HIGHW AY 13FISHPOINTRDSEFORSYTHERD SELower Prior Lake Scott County GIS Ü 15402Forsythe Road SE Variance Location Map UPPER PRIOR LAKE GD(904)LOWER PRIO R LAKE GD( 904)ARTIC LAKENE 906.7) Lower Prior Lake Upper Prior Lake Scott County 1 Jeff Matzke From: Jeff Townsend  Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:08 AM  To: Jeff Matzke  Subject: 15402 Forsythe Rd Se variance    I am writing in regard to the proposed variance to 15402 Forsythe Rd Se. My name is Jeff Townsend, I live at  15414 Forsythe Rd Se. The closest neighbor to the proposed three season porch and I would like to say that  both my wife and I  are very happy with the improvement the homeowner has made to his property, it has  added value to all adjoining residences.