Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZ Packet 02.24.22If you need accommodations for the meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or rjuba@ci.hugo.mn.us, thank you. Agenda Hugo Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals Thursday, February 24, 2022 Hugo City Hall 6:30 PM A. ROLL CALL: Arcand, Petty, Weidt B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 27, 2022 C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Ranell and Dan Tennyson – 12582 Ingersoll Avenue North front yard and shoreland setback variances to allow the reconstruction of an existing accessory building. D. NEW BUSINESS E. OLD BUSINESS F. ADJOURNMENT Minutes for the Board of Zoning Meeting of Thursday, January 27, 2022 Chair Weidt called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. PRESENT: Petty, Weidt. ABSENT: Arcand. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the BOZA Meeting of August 26, 2021 Board Member Petty made a motion, seconded by Weidt to approve minutes for the meeting of August 26, 2021 Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Joel and Amanda Kruse – Variance requests for property north of 122nd Street and west of Ingersoll Avenue North along Sunset Lake. The applicants are seeking approval of two variance requests for the property located along Sunset Lake. The property is currently vacant and is zoned Rural Residential. The applicants would like to build a home on the property. Staff provided an overview of the two variances. The applicants are requesting a building setback to be 21.2 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required, and a building front yard setback to be 19.3 feet from front property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. Staff stated that if the applicant were to meet the shoreland building setbacks, there would not be a building area for the home. Staff also outlined the practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance requirements found with the requests. It is in staff’s opinion that the applicant meets all requirements necessary to approve the variance requests. Staff recommended approval of the variances to allow a building setback to be 21.2 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required, and a building front yard setback to be 19.3 feet from front property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. Staff noted that the DNR did not comment Chair Weidt opened the public hearing at 6:35pm. No one came forward to speak. Chair Weidt closed the public hearing at 6:35pm. January 27, 2022 BOZA Minutes Page 2 Board Member Petty made a motion to approve the two variance requests for property along Sunset Lake to allow a building setback to be 21.2 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required, and a building front yard setback to be 19.3 feet from front property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. Seconded by Chair Weidt. Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. Adjournment Board member Petty, Chair Weidt seconded, to adjourn at 6:37 pm. Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried. Respectfully Submitted, Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Agenda Number C.1 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Hugo Board of Zoning Adjustments FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ranell and Dan Tennyson – 12582 Ingersoll Avenue North Front yard and shoreland setback variances to allow the reconstruction of an existing accessory building DATE: February 18, 2022, for the Board of Zoning meeting on February 24, 2022 ZONING: Rural Residential (RR) REVIEW DEADLINE (120-days): March 20, 2022 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The property is approximately .55 acres in size. It is located on the east side of Sunset Lake along Ingersoll Avenue North. The applicant would like to reconstruct an accessory building and attach a lean-to. The accessory building will be reconstructed on the concrete pad that has been used for the existing accessory building. The applicants are requesting the two following variances: 1. A building setback to be 6.9 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required by ordinance. 2. A building front yard setback to be 19.8 feet from the east side property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. Hugo City Code, Section 90-137, classifies Sunset Lake as a Recreational Development lake and requires a 100 foot setback for structures. 2. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a higher level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Tennyson Variance Page 2 2 3. ANALYSIS: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The property is guided as Large Lot Residential (LL) in the 2040 Land Use Plan and is zoned Rural Residential (RR). The surrounding properties are also guided LL and zoned RR. The surrounding properties are a combination of large lots and small lots closer to Sunset Lake. B. Natural Characteristics of the Site The property is along Sunset Lake. There are wetlands present on the property along the lake. No wetlands are proposed to be impacted with the application requests. The property slopes down towards the lake. C. Variance Standards Shoreland and Front Yard Setback Variances The applicants are requesting the two following variances: 3. A building setback to be 6.9 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required by ordinance. 4. A building front yard setback to be 19.8 feet from the east side property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. Staff used these standards to review the variance request and finds that it meets the standards as follows: (1) Law. The variance as requested is permissible by law. The variance request is permissible by law. (2) Practical Difficulties. The applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the zoning regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance and; The property has a home and accessory building on the property. The property owner would like to reconstruct the accessory building because the age and condition of the garage. Accessory buildings are allowed in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district and meets the size allowed in that zoning district. Tennyson Variance Page 3 3 b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and; The property is unique because it narrow and sits tightly between Sunset Lake and Ingersoll Avenue North. Between the home and the accessory building are the septic system lines and well that limit construction of a building in that location. Further, construction of a building on any portion of the site would require a variance. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because the property owner would not have a building area for an accessory building without the granting of variances. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Several homes and accessory buildings in the area do not meet the shoreland setback requirements. The building is proposed to be in line with the other homes in the area. The proposed variance requests would not change the overall character of the area. It is in staff opinion that there are practical difficulties in meeting the shoreland setback requirements. If the applicant were to meet the shoreland setbacks, there would not be a building area for an accessory building. The proposed building area related to the proposed setbacks will fit in with the other homes and accessory buildings on the neighborhood. (3) Spirit and Intent. The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The spirit and intent of the shoreland setback requirement is to keep buildings a reasonable distance from the lakes. There is an accessory building already on the property and the applicant is simply requesting to reconstruct the accessory building. The variance requests would not change the overall character of the area, therefore, would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. (4) Prohibited Use. The variance, if granted, shall not have the effect of allowing any use prohibited in the district. The construction of an accessory building is allowed in the RR zoning district. (5) Hazard Consideration. The variance, if granted, shall not permit a lower degree of flood protection than required by this chapter. The variance shall be determined the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and the variance shall not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. A portion of the property is located within a FEMA designated floodplain. The reconstructed accessory building will not be located in this area. Tennyson Variance Page 4 4 (6) Septic and Well Compliance. The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is in compliance with city and state codes. Septic and well are already on the property. 5. CONCLUSION: It is in staff’s opinion that the applicant meets all requirements necessary to approve the shoreland and front yard setback variance requests. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the following: 1. A building setback to be 6.9 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required by ordinance. 2. A building front yard setback to be 19.8 feet from the east side property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Resolution for Approval of Shoreland and Front Yard Setback Variance Requests 3. Property Survey 4. Accessory Building Elevations 5. DNR Comment Letter Ingersoll Avenue NorthTennyson Variances - 12582 Ingersoll Ave N Location Map Hugo, MN Site Roads Hugo Border Parcel Boundary ¯0 100Feet1 in = 100 feet Document Path: S:\Mapping\Emily\LocationSite Maps\2022\Tennyson Variances.mxdSite RESOLUTION 2022-7 APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND SHORELAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SUNSET LAKE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12582 INGERSOLL AVEUNE NORTH WHEREAS, Ranell and Dan Tennyson have requested variances to reconstruct an accessory building 6.9 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) mark of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required by ordinance, and to be 19.8 feet from the front property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance, legally described as: Lots 27, 28, and 29, Sunset Park, Washington County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed the variance requests at a duly called public hearing and recommended approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the variance requests to construct a house 6.9 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) mark of Sunset Lake, where 100 feet is required by ordinance, and to be 19.8 feet from the front property line, where 40 feet is required by ordinance, with the following findings: 1. The requested variance is from the setback requirement of the ordinance and is permissible by law. 2. Because of circumstances unique to the property, there are practical difficulties on meeting the ordinance. 3. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner and construction of a single family homes house is allowed in the Rural Residential District. 4. The proposed variance would not noticeably alter the character of the area. 5. The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 6. Single family homes are a permitted use in the Rural Residential District. 7. The variance will not alter that floodplain. 8. The subject property will be served by individual well and septic systems. 9. The proposed building shall meet all zoning and shoreland requirements in the City Code. Resolution 2022-_____ Page 2 ADOPTED by the City Council this 7th day of March, 2022 _______________________________ Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Michele Lindau, City Clerk Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 February 17, 2022 Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Tennyson Variance Application, 12582 Ingersoll Avenue, Hugo Dear Emily Weber, Thank you for notifying DNR of the upcoming hearing to discuss the Tennyson variance application for the property at 12582 Ingersoll Avenue North in Hugo. In the course of reviewing the applicant’s request for a variance to allow an accessory structure to be built 6.9 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Sunset Lake, I observed a 2021 aerial photo in Google Maps that appears to show intensive removal of trees along the property’s shoreline. When compared to aerial photos from 2020 in the Washington County Property Viewer, it’s apparent that the removal has resulted in a substantial reduction in shading of the lake water surface and in screening of the garage as viewed from the water during summer, leaf-on conditions. The vegetation removal appears to be inconsistent with Sec. 90-181(i) of the city’s code and the state’s shoreland management standards. In addition to screening structures and providing shade, I note that shoreline vegetation is critical for preventing erosion and stabilizing shorelines. Please see the attached DNR’s guidance document on variances from OHWL setback standards in shoreland. Should the city determine that the factual findings support granting the variance, I recommend the city impose conditions requiring establishment of shoreline vegetation to restore screening of the accessory structure as viewed from the water. DNR’s Maintaining and Restoring Natural Shorelines webpage is a useful resource. Sincerely, Dan Scollan East Metro Area Hydrologist cc: Dan Petrik, DNR Lake & River Shoreland Program Manager John (Jack) Gleason, DNR South District Hydrologist Supervisor Attachments: Shoreland & Floodplain Variance Guidance Series – OHWL Setbacks Page 1 of 2  Variance Guidance Series – OHWL Setback, Updated 10/10/2012    Shoreland & Floodplain  Variance Guidance Series  This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along  lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland, floodplain, and river‐related ordinances.    Why are setbacks from the OHWL important?  The Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) is a dynamic area of high biodiversity and ecological function, as well as the regulatory line that separates local land use and state public waters jurisdictions. Setbacks from the OHWL are established in statewide rules and administered through local ordinances to ensure adequate spacing between structures and public waters to protect against runoff and pollution, and to preserve the natural shoreline. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate from - or grant a variance to - a required setback. They may do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests, local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose conditions to protect resources. An example OHWL variance request, with considerations, is provided below.   Example OHWL Setback Variance Request  A property owner requests a variance to construct a 1000 square foot  addition on an existing home on a lake. The proposed addition would  be located 75 feet from the OHWL of the lake instead of 100 feet as  required by the local shoreland ordinance. The property owner claims  that the addition is needed to provide extra space for a growing  family, that it will improve the value and appearance of the property,  and that there is no other reasonable location on the property due to  the design of the home and an adjacent wetland.     Considerations for Findings  A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request, all of the following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:  Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?   Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual property owner against the purposes of the local shoreland regulations - in this case a setback from the OHWL - for protecting public waters. Statewide Shoreland Management Rules establish structure setbacks from the OHWL for several reasons, including but not limited to managing the effects of shoreland crowding, preventing pollution of surface water, and maintaining property values and natural characteristics of shorelands. These regulations are implemented through local ordinances. Considerations: What are the purposes of the OHWL setback as established in the local shoreland ordinance – what is it intended to prevent or protect? Will deviating from the required OHWL setback on this property undermine the purposes and intent? Why or why not?  Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?  The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community’s vision for the future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations: Which goals and policies apply? Is allowing structural encroachment within the OHWL setback area on this property consistent with these goals and policies? Why or why not?   OHWL Setbacks  Grading Limits Page 2 of 2  Variance Guidance Series – OHWL Setback, Updated 10/10/2012     Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?  Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land such as lot dimensions, steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees that prevent compliance with the required setback. These do not include physical limitations created by the property owner or personal circumstances such as a growing family or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be allowed to deviate from the required setback when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property that prevent compliance with the setback requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the setback created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance?  Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?  Consider the size of the proposed structure, the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition and associated grading close to the shoreline can detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water quality by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area, negatively affecting recreational, natural, and economic values. Considerations: Does the variance provide minimal relief or a substantial deviation from the required setback? Does it affect the natural appearance of the shore from the lake? Does it affect the hydrology of the area?  Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?  Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. The OHWL setback is generally intended to keep development away from the water’s edge and to maintain the natural characteristics and function of the shoreline. As such, development within the setback area should only be considered when no other alternatives exist, particularly if the public water at stake is impaired or at risk of becoming impaired. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed addition is reasonable in this location given the sensitivity of the riparian area, any known water quality impairments, and the purposes of the setback regulations? How or how not? Note: The last three criteria address practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties.    Range of Outcomes  Based on the findings, several outcomes can occur:   If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met, then the variance must be denied. For example,  the local government may find the proposed size and design of the addition creates the circumstances  necessitating a variance rather than unique physical characteristics of the property.   If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met, then the variance may be granted. For example, the  local government may find that the circumstances are unique given the adjacent wetland, that the  encroachment of the addition within the setback is reasonable given its orientation, that it won’t alter the  hydrology and natural characteristics of the riparian area, and that there would be no other impacts.   If the variance is granted and the addition in any way affects the setback area or public water, then conditions  may be imposed to mitigate the impacts. For example, the local government may find that the addition  increases the home’s visibility from the water and that the associated grading alters the hydrology of the area,  and impose conditions such as reducing the size of the addition, decreasing the amount of grading involved,  requiring tree protection measures, and requiring rain gardens to infiltrate additional runoff.  Conditions on Variances  If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the lake or river and the riparian area, and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Examples are provided below:  Additional impervious coverage within the setback area – require a smaller addition, rain garden, riparian buffer, or other method to reduce and/or infiltrate additional runoff before entering the lake;  Increased crowding and visibility of structures from the lake – require the planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasses to reduce the visibility of the structure and maintain natural characteristics; and/or  Reduced natural characteristics and habitat – require protection of existing trees during construction and/or restoration of an equivalent area within the setback to native vegetation to maintain the natural characteristics and ecological functions of the riparian area (which also treats stormwater). More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html