Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A 2883 Spring Lake Rd SW Variances PC Report 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: December 9, 2024 AGENDA #: 4A PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: PAUL MORETTO, PLANNER PAUL MORETTO AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE SHORELAND SETBACK ON A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2883 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW DISCUSSION: Introduction Michael Schipper, the property owner and Conrad Anderson, applicant, are re- questing a variance from the zoning code for the construction of a single-family home addition. The subject property, Lot 6, Block 49 of Spring Lake Townsite and vacated street between block 48 & 49, is located at 2883 Spring Lake Road SW along the northeast shore of Spring Lake, PID: 251330860. The requested variances are listed below: • A 3-foot variance from the required minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). (Subsection 1130.407(2)). Regulation Requirement Proposed Current Variance Shoreland Setback 52 ft. 49 ft. 49 ft.* 3 ft. *New home with deck approved in 1998 at 59+ feet. Actual construction at 49 feet History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is in the Shoreland Overlay District of Prior Lake. Current Circumstances 2883 Spring Lake Road SW Current Condition Side Yard Front Yard Rear Yard Shoreland Impervious Adjacent Dwelling Lot Width 18.7 ft. 41.5 ft. 49 ft. 30.37% >15 ft. 100 ft. 2883 Spring Lake Road Southwest Proposed Variance Side Yard Front Yard OHWL Shoreland Impervious Adjacent Dwelling 10 ft. 25 ft. 49 ft. 29.8% 15.0 ft. The property owner proposes to construct an addition to an existing home. The lot is conforming in size at 100 feet wide and approximately 15,372 square feet 2 in area. The existing dwelling is 2,587 square feet with additional impervious surface that brings the lot to 4,669 or 30.37%, including a large patio. Their plan is to reduce the impervious surface to comply with current shoreland regulations. They are excluding from the plan all pervious paver surfaces which would also require the removal of the large patio to keep the lot within regulations at 29.8% impervious. The addition, combined with the existing impervious will total 4,578 square feet of impervious surface. No additional impervious survey is proposed. The home was constructed in 1998 with an approved 59.3-foot OHWL setback and side yard setbacks of 19.1 feet on the west side and 18.7 feet on the east . The home was constructed with a deck at 50feet There is a cabin on 2863 Spring Lake Road SW which is 35.6 feet from the OHWL. The home at 2895 Spring Lake Road SW is 68.4 feet from the OWHL. Setback averaging would allow for a minimum setback of 52 feet. Given the current condition of the principal struc- ture with deck at 50 feet from the OHWL and the historical locations of neigh- boring structures, the variance would be taken from the legal setback of 52 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to 49 feet and would therefore require a 3-foot variance. This is a standard lot in Prior Lake and meets the minimum lot with and area requirements of the zoning code. The home is situated in the center of the lot and has nearly proportional setbacks on all sides. The lot and the structure are conforming, and the lot has very little elevation change from 912 ft. in the rear to 922 ft. at the front of the home. There is approximately 142 ft. from the shoreline to the front of the lot with a 7% average grade. For context, a driveway can be 10%, a steep slope is 18% and a bluff is 30%. The applicant seeks to convert the existing deck into a livable space. The current condition places the deck in the location of the requested variance. No additional expansion into the setback is proposed. Shoreland Setback: Subsection 1130.407(2) states the following: ➢ On shoreland parcels that have 2 adjacent parcels with existing principal structures on both such adjacent parcels, any new residential structure or any additions to an existing structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the Ordinary High Water Level or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. The existing deck is 49 feet from the OHWL on the rear of the lot. The lot to the west has two historical structures used for habitation. They setback for the closer structure is approximately 35 feet. The home to the east is approximately 68 feet from the OHWL; this would average to approximately 52 feet. The applicant wishes to build at 49 feet from the OHWL, which would require a 3-foot variance. This is the location of the existing deck. ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance. Section 1152 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: 3 1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the variance is harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly develop- ment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore, the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1130) pol- icy’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 Comprehensive Plan enables municipalities to develop legal standards and provides an avenue for relief from practical diffi- culties. The location of the deck was constructed 26 years ago and was approved. The current condition has existed for two decades with no complaints or violations. The location of the improvement is within the minimum setback averaging for OHWL setbacks at 49 feet. 2) Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. Variances from the code must identify a unique situation that requires remedy from a practical difficulty. In this case, there is an identifiable practical difficulty. 3) Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “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 Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The historical approval and long-term presence of the deck at 49 feet constitutes a unique circumstance not created by the current landowner. The request does not involve additional encroachment but merely seeks to formalize the existing structure's condition, ensuring a reasonable use that aligns with the property’s established use and neighborhood character. 4) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. Conclusion 4 City Staff believes the requested variance does prove a practical difficulty and there is sufficient evidence for a unique circumstance. Therefore, City Staff rec- ommends approval of the requested variance with the following findings of fact: ➢ The location of the deck at 49 feet is historical and would not disrupt the character of the community. ➢ The placement of the deck was part of an approved permit in 1998. ➢ No further encroachment is proposed beyond the current condition. ➢ This project does not increase impervious surface beyond current condition and is within code. ➢ Approximately 34.1 square feet of the proposed improvement is in the re- quested variance area. ➢ An as-built survey will be required demonstrating 29.8% impervious surface. ALTERNATIVES: 1. If the Planning Commission finds the requested variance is warranted in this case, a motion and a second to approve a resolution granting the requested variances. 2. If the Planning Commission finds the requested variances are not warranted in this case, a motion and a second to instruct staff to prepare a resolution denying the variance requested for 2883 Spring Lake Road Southwest with conditions and to present it at the next Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: 3. If the Planning Commission would like additional information from the appli- cant about the requested variance, a motion and a second to table or con- tinue discussion of the item for specific purpose as directed by the Planning Commission. Alternative No. 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 24-16PC 2. Location Map 3. Narrative 4. Survey and Plan submitted 11-21-2024 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 24-16PC APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SUBSECTION 1130.403 OF THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2883 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2024, to consider a request from Michael Schipper, the property owner and Conrad Anderson, applicant, to approve a variance to construct and addition to an existing home in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District) Zoning District at the following property: 2883 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372 (PID 251330860) Lot 6, Block 49 of Spring Lake Townsite and vacated street between block 48 & 49. WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment 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 Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case PDEV24-000038 and held a hearing thereon on December 9, 2024; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code on the applicant’s property and the impact granting the Variance will have Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board considered the requirements of all other applicable State Statutes, the information in the application, the information in the staff report and the criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Board of Adjustment hereby adopts the following findings: a. The granting of the variance is harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The 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 1130) 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 Comprehensive Plan enables municipalities to develop legal standards and provides an avenue for relief from practical difficulties. The location of 2 the deck was constructed 26 years ago and was approved. The current condition has existed for two decades with no complaints or violations. The location of the improvement is within the minimum setback averaging for OHWL setbacks at 49 feet. b. Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. Variances from the code must identify a unique situation that requires remedy from a practical difficulty. In this case, there is an identifiable practical difficulty. c. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “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 Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The historical approval and long-term presence of the deck at 49 feet constitutes a unique circumstance not created by the current landowner. The request does not involve additional encroachment but merely seeks to formalize the existing structure's condition, ensuring a reasonable use that aligns with the property’s established use and neighborhood character. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein and withing the Agenda Report, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the variance with the findings of fact provided subject to the following conditions: a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. b. A Building Permit shall be obtained from the Building Department prior to the commencement of construction. c. The property owner shall remove impervious surface and pervious pavers as proposed on the approved survey and provide an as-built survey following construction to confirm the impervious surface coverage does not exceed 30% on the subject property. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024. _______________________________ Jason Tschetter, Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Casey McCabe, Community Development Director VOTE Johnson Tennison Fenstermacher Ringstad Tschetter Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐