Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#12 - Accessory Building Setback Variance1 STAFF REPORT DATE: 5/5/2020 TO: City Council FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Variance Request for 9495 Stillwater Blvd. REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director Planning Commission BACKGROUND: The City has received variance a request from applicant Greg Kotaska, for the property located at 9495 Stillwater Blvd. The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to expand an accessory building that is considered non- conforming due to its location in the front yard of the property. Accessory buildings are not allowed to be located closer to the front lot line than the principle structure. With the applicant wanting to expand the structures footprint, the need for a variance is triggered due to the non-conformity of the building location. Staff has met with the resident to discuss and understand the constraints of the site. With the shed being damaged in 2019 due to a storm, the applicant would now like to capitalize on the opportunity to expand the structure so it can better meet the applicant’s needs. The former shed was 512 sq. ft. in size and the applicant would like to rebuild the structure so it would be 576 sq. ft. in size. To do so, the applicant needs City approval a front yard setback variance because of its proposed location relative to the home and the front lot line of the property. ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL: The City Council is being asked to review and make a recommendation(s) on the requested variance. REVIEW/ANALYSIS: PID 15.029.21.34.006 Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family zone as Rural Single Family. Surrounding Land Use/ Zoning: Single family homes zoned as Rural Single Family. History: Used as Single Family Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 3/19/2020 60 Day Deadline – 5/18/2020 Extension Letter Mailed – N/A 120 Day Deadline – N/A Applicable Regulations: • Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement • Article VI – Non-Conforming Uses, Buildings and Structures • Article XI – Rural Districts PROPOSED VARIANCE 2 Variance Request. The applicant is requesting to rebuild an accessory building that is closer to the front lot line than the principle structure. If the applicant chose to rebuild the structure with the exact same square footage the City would not require a variance. However, because the building is non-conforming (due to its location) and is proposed to be expanded in size, the City requires a variance because of the proposed location. The applicant would like to increase the size of the building from 512 sq. ft. to 576 sq. ft. Although the size difference is only 64 sq. ft., the City considers the proposal an expansion, which triggers the need for a variance. Reason for Variance Requests The applicant is requesting the variance so the accessory structure may be expanded and remain located closer to the front lot line than what the Code would normally allow. Section 154.151 C. outlines what property owners are allowed to do with non-conforming buildings. Maintenance and repair are allowed, however, increasing the size of the structure is not allowed if the non-conforming aspect is related to a setback that is more than 10% of what is required. With that in mind, geographic constraints and lay out of the lot cause issues for a new location, such as the slope in the rear yard, the location of the home and the drainfield leaves very limited space for an alternative location. The applicant also wants to reuse the existing building site. APPLICABLE CODE When reviewing the criteria for an accessory structures a few different sections of the City Code may become applicable. However, the applicant is only needing a variance from the front yard setback listed in 154.406. “154.406 Accessory Structures, Rural Districts.) D. Structure Location, Rural Districts. No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot.” Standard Required Proposed Setback from the Front Property Line. 30 ft. Or The Principle Structure The distance to the front property line and the water would not change. Drain field Proposed Shed Location 3 Setback: As previously noted, accessory buildings cannot be located closer to the front property line than the principle structure or be less than 30 ft. from the lot line. Geographic constraints coupled with the location of the home and septic system make construction in the side or rear yard difficult. With the driveway and septic system on the eastern side of the property, there is limited space on the east while the land to the south and west would struggle with slopes and setback requirements from the pond. Staff is proposing a condition of approval that the setback for the new structure from the pond and the front lot line not be reduced. AGENCY REVIEW There have not been any comments submitted from other agencies or departments. Neighboring Comments: The applicant did provide Staff with a “petition” with the signatures of the surrounding neighbors who found no issue with the project. • Staff received an email from Wayne & Lori Goiffon at 9519 Stillwater Blvd. stating that they had no objections to the request. • Todd Alguire at 9447 Stillwater Blvd, who shares a driveway with the applicant, provided Staff with an email stating that they had no issues with the variance request. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. • Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. FINDINGS: • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of structure strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant would like to use the existing building pad and marginally increase the size of the structure, which is far below the maximum allowed size for the property. Furthermore, the site was more or less established to accommodate the existing configuration of the buildings. Also considering the drainfield on the east side of the lot and slopes surrounding the western side and rear of the property it becomes impractical to place an accessory building elsewhere on the lot. 4 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. FINDINGS: • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. With the majority of the property overtaken by water there is limited space available for improvements on site. It is also questionable whether an accessory building could meet the font yard setback and also not require a variance for the setback from the pond. With the home and existing structure being built prior to the current owner, there is no way the applicant would have been able to suggest a location that would accommodate the desires of Zoning Code. Beyond limited space in the rear of the home, due to steep slopes, and the required setback from the pond. The east side of the property holds the septic system, which also requires a 20 ft. setback. Also, with the property being wooded and in a shoreland district, tree removal on slopes is discouraged. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. FINDINGS: • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is questionable whether an expansion to the accessory building by 64 sq. ft. will be noticeable to the surrounding properties. With the building being rebuilt in the same location the character will remain intact. Also, the petition containing the signatures from the neighbors could lead to the belief that the existing neighborhood does not consider the request as a negatively change the locality. 5 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. FINDINGS. • Variance for Accessory Building Setback: With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The location of the structure would not shade the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit. 2. That the exterior finish of the structure must be similar to the principle structure in terms of design and color. Exterior design materials must be submitted with the building permit application. 3. If approved this variance approval is valid for 1 year and will expire on May 5, 2021. 4. The existing setback to the pond and the front lot line must not be reduced by the construction of the new building. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed variance is not expected to have fiscal impact to the City. OPTIONS: The City Council may: • Recommend approval of the proposed variance, subject to recommended findings and conditions of approval. • Amend the recommended findings and conditions and recommend approval of the variance, subject to the newly outlined findings and conditions of approval. • Move to recommend denial of all variance, citing findings for denial. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission had an opportunity to review the request and recommended approval as presented by a 7-0 vote at their April 13th, 2020 meeting. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to expand a non-conforming structure (due to its location to the front lot line) with the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2020-049 approving the request from Greg Kotaska at 9495 Stillwater Blvd. for a variance from the following standard: accessory structure setback from the front property line, subject to recommended conditions of approval.” ATTACHMENTS: 1) Narrative and Petition 2) Site Plan(s) 3) Building Plans 4) Additional Pictures CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO 2020-049 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE NON-CONFORMING DUE TO IT BEING LOCATED CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9495 STILLWATER BLVD. WHEREAS, Greg Kotaska (the “Applicant”) of 9495 Stillwater Blvd, Lake Elmo MN 55042 (the “Property”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City“) for a variance(s) to allow the expansion of an accessory building which is closer to the front lot line than the principle structure; and WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Code, Section 154.109; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variance on April 13th, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendations with respect to the requested variances to the City Council as part of the City Staff Memorandum dated May 5th, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its May 5th, 2020 meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in the Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code. 2) That all submission requirement s of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code have been met by the Applicants. 3) That the proposed variances include the following components: a) That the proposed accessory building will be expanded from 512 sq ft. to 576 sq ft. and the existing setbacks will not be reduced. 4) Practical Difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; • With respect to the proposed variance for the location of structure strict enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant would like to use the existing building pad and marginally increase the size of the structure, which is far below the maximum allowed size for the property. Furthermore, the site was more or less established to accommodate the existing configuration of the buildings. Also, the drainfield on the east side of the lot and slopes surrounding the western side and rear of the property make it impractical to place an accessory building elsewhere on the lot. 5) Unique Circumstances the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; • With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the plight of the Applicant is unique and has not been caused by the applicant. With the majority of the property overtaken by water there is limited space available for improvements on site. It is also questionable whether an accessory building could meet the font yard setback and also not require a variance for the setback from the pond. With the home and existing structure being built prior to the current owner, there is no way the applicant would have been able to suggest a location that would accommodate the desires of Zoning Code. Beyond limited space in the rear of the home, due to steep slopes, and the required setback from the pond. The east side of the property holds the septic system, which also requires a 20 ft. setback. Also, with the property being wooded and in a shoreland district, tree removal on slopes is discouraged. 6) Character of Locality the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located; • With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It is questionable whether an expansion to the accessory building by 64 sq. ft. will be noticeable to the surrounding properties. With the building being rebuilt in the same location the character will remain intact. Also, the petition containing the signatures from the neighbors could lead to the belief that the existing neighborhood does not consider the request as a negatively change the locality. 7) Adjacent Properties and Traffic the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; • With respect to the proposed variance for the location of the structure, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish property values. The location of the structure would not shade the neighboring properties or structures, nor would it impair air flow. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1) Based on the above findings, which show that all of the variance criteria for the location of the proposed accessory building have been met. The City Council hereby approves the requested variance for the location of an accessory building for the property located at 9495 Stillwater Blvd. The conditions for approval for variance approval are outlined below: 1. That the Applicant obtain all applicable permits including but not limited to a City building permit. 2. That the exterior finish of the structure must be similar to the principle structure in terms of design and color. Exterior design materials must be submitted with the building permit application. 3. The existing setback to the pond and the front lot line must not be reduced by the construction of the new building. 4. If approved this variance approval is valid for 1 year and would expire on May 5th, 2021. Passed and duly adopted this 5 th day of May, 2020 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ___________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: ___________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk