Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZ Packet 11.14.24If 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, November 14, 2024 Hugo City Hall 6:30 PM A. ROLL CALL: Arcand, Petty, Weidt B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 23, 2024 C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Jim and Laurie Stodola – Variance request to allow for a deck to be placed within the required 100-foot setback of the ordinary high-water level of Sunset Lake. D. NEW BUSINESS E. OLD BUSINESS F. ADJOURNMENT Minutes for the Board of Zoning Meeting of Thursday, May 23, 2024 Chair Weidt called the meeting to order at 6:32 pm. PRESENT: Arcand, Petty, Weidt. ABSENT: None. STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Max Gort, Associate Planner Approval of Minutes for the BOZA Meeting of October 12, 2023 Board Member Arcand made a motion, seconded by Chair Weidt to approve minutes for the meeting of October 12, 2023. All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Michael and Lindsay Osterman, 12494 Goodview Avenue North – Variance request for an accessory building to be placed in front of the house. Associate Planner Gort provided a background on the request submitted by Michael and Lindsay Osterman for their property located at 12494 Goodview Avenue North. The request was to allow for a 3,000 square foot accessory building to be placed in front of the house, where placement behind the house is required by ordinance. The request has practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance standards. The request is a reasonable use because accessory buildings are allowed in the R-3 zoning district, the proposal meets all other ordinance requirements, an d existing trees provide adequate screening from the view of the road and the neighboring property to the north. The 10-acre property is unique due its location in a zoning district designed for much smaller lots, the rear of the property consisting of 6.66 acres of wetland, and the sloping terrain in the remaining buildable area behind the house that would require significant grading, fill, and tree removal. The variance will not alter the character of the area since accessory buildings are common on large lots, and the existing trees will provide some screening from view of the road and adjacent properties. The spirit and intent of the accessory building placement requirement is to prevent accessory building from dominating the front of the house, but the existing trees along with the building’s offset from the house will meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff found that the request met the necessary requirements to approve a variance, and recommended approval of the variance request to the Board. The applicants, Michael and Lindsay Osterman, introduced themselves to the Board and did not have any further comments. Chair Weidt stated that the proposed building location will be well screened, and the applicants stated that they will plant additional trees after the building is constructed. October 12, 2023 BOZA Minutes Page 2 Chair Weidt Opened the Public Hearing at 6:38 PM. No one spoke. Chair Weidt closed the Public Hearing at 6:38 PM. Board Member Petty made a motion, seconded by Board Member Arcand, to recommend approval of the Variance request for 12494 Goodview Avenue North. Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion carried. The request will be considered at the City Council meeting of June 3rd, 2024. Adjournment Board Member Arcand made a motion, seconded by Board Member Petty to adjourn at 6:40 pm. Ayes: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried. Respectfully Submitted, Max Gort, Associate Planner Agenda Number C.1 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION STAFF REPORT TO: Hugo Board of Zoning Adjustments FROM: Max Gort, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Jim and Laurie Stodola, 12757 Homestead Drive North – Variance request from the shoreland overlay district rules to allow construction of a deck to be 56 feet from the ordinary high-water level of Sunset Lake, where a structural setback of 100 feet is required by ordinance. DATE: November 12, 2024 for the Board meeting of November 14, 2024 ZONING: Rural Residential (RR) LAND USE: Large Lot Residential (LL) REVIEW DEADLINE: November 25, 2024 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicants are asking for a variance to construct a deck to be attached to the east side of the house. The requested variance is to allow for the deck to be located 56 feet from the ordinary high-water level (OHWL) of Sunset Lake. Section 90-137 – Shoreland District in City Code classifies Sunset Lake as a Recreational Development (RD) lake, and requires a minimum structure setback of 100 feet from the OHWL. The proposed deck would be constructed on the southern side of the property and would be in-line with the existing house. The property is approximately 1.09 acres and is located within the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district. 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. Stodola Variance – 12757 Homestead Drive North Page 2 2 3. ANALYSIS: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning The surrounding properties to the north, west, and south are zoned Rural Residential (RR) and are designated as Large Lot Residential (LL) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. The surrounding properties range from 1-3 acres in size and are occupied by single-family homes. B. Natural Characteristics of the Site The property has some sloping terrain with a steep slope in the rear going towards Sunset Lake. The property is located within the shoreland overlay district and is subject to the shoreland rules under Section 90-137 of City Code. There are no known wetlands on the site. 4. VARIANCE STANDARDS: The Board must review the requested variances with the standards outlined in Section 90-38 of the land use regulations. Staff used these standards to review the variance request and finds the following: (1) Law. The variance as requested is permissible by law. The proposed variance 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; Decks are allowed in the RR zoning district. The proposed deck would be constructed in- line with the existing house. There is an existing line of trees and vegetation that provide adequate screening from the view from the neighboring property to the south. The proposed deck meets all other building requirements outlined in city code. The proposed variance is a reasonable use. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and; This property, along with several neighboring properties on the shore of Sunset Lake, have houses that were likely constructed prior to the adoption of shoreland rules regulating structural setbacks from lakes. A large portion of the existing house is currently located within the required 100-foot setback from the OHWL of the lake. Construction of the deck in a location where it meets the shoreland setback requirement would place the deck in front of the house and facing the road, rather than behind the Stodola Variance – 12757 Homestead Drive North Page 3 3 house and facing the lake. Any deck on the east side of the house would require a variance. The requested variance is due to unique circumstances. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The deck would be placed behind the house, meaning that it would not be visible from view of the road, and will be screened from the view of adjacent properties by existing trees. The view from the public water would not be significantly altered because the deck is proposed to be constructed in-line with the existing house. The requested variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, It is in staff’s opinion that the proposed deck has practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance standard. (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 minimum setbacks outlined in the shoreland ordinance is to protect the view from public waters from being dominated by buildings. The deck would be constructed in-line with the existing house, and would not significantly alter the view of the house from the lake. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the state shoreland rules (MR 6120.2500 – 6120.3900) and makes recommendations on variance requests for local shoreland ordinances. The DNR area hydrologist has reviewed the proposal, and recommends that if the variance is approved that the City apply conditions to mitigate potential impacts. Staff is requiring that all existing trees will remain as a condition of approval in the variance resolution. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the spirit and intent of the shoreland ordinance. (4) Prohibited Use. The variance, if granted, shall not have the effect of allowing any use prohibited in the district. Decks are permitted 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. The property where the deck is proposed is not located within a FEMA designated floodplain. (6) Septic and Well Compliance. The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is in compliance with city and state codes. The property is served by a well and septic system. Stodola Variance – 12757 Homestead Drive North Page 4 4 5.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: It in staff’s opinion that the applicant meets the requirements to approve a variance outlined in city code. Staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the conditions in the resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Map 2.Resolution 3.Site Plan 4. MnDNR Shoreland Variance Guide 5. Letter of Support from Neighbor RESOLUTION 2024-__ APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK WITHIN THE SHORELAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SUNSET LAKE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12757 HOMESTEAD DRIVE NORTH WHEREAS, Jim and Laurie Stodola have requested approval of a variance to allow construction of a proposed deck to be located 56 feet from the ordinary high-water level of Sunset Lake, where a setback of 100 feet is required by ordinance, on property legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 1, Royalhaven Estates, Washington County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals has reviewed said variance at a duly called public hearing on November 14, 2024, and recommends approval with the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed facilities shall be in adherence to the site plan dated September 26, 2024. 2. The proposed variance is permissible by law. 3. The proposed deck would be constructed in-line with the rear of the existing house, there are existing mature trees that provide screening from the view of neighboring properties, and the proposed deck meets all other building requirements, establishing the deck as a reasonable use. 4. The existing house is already located within the minimum shoreland setback, and construction of the deck in a location that meets the shoreland rules would place the deck in front of the house, facing the road and significantly altering the view of the house from the road, creating unique circumstances that are not created by the landowner. 5. The proposed deck would be located behind the house, and will be screened from the view of neighboring properties by existing trees. The proposed deck being constructed in-line with the existing house will not significantly alter the view from the public water. The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 6. There are practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance standards. 7. The spirit and intent of the setbacks within the shoreland ordinance is to protect the view from public waters from being dominated by buildings. Since the deck will be constructed in-line with the existing house, the requested variance will not significantly alter the view of the house from the public water. The variance as requested meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 8. The use is allowed in the RR zoning district. 9. The property is not located within a floodplain area. 10. The property is served by City sewer and water. Resolution 2024-23 Page 2 11. In order to mitigate the visual impact of the requested variance, all existing trees in the rear of property are required to remain or replaced if removed. 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 request for Jim and Laurie Stodola to construct a deck to be located 56 feet from the ordinary high-water level of Sunset Lake, where a setback of 100 feet is required by ordinance, for the property located at 12757 Homestead Drive North. ADOPTED by the City Council this 18th day of November, 2024. _______________________________ Tom Weidt, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Michele Lindau, City Clerk 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