Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030-2020-20-000 V T Y Land Use Planning & Land Information ST . C R O I X C rVis ~ C10fil lt-A Resource Management Community Development Department March 28, 2014 File Ref. #VR88192 Kristine Levine 232 Cedar Drive West Hudson, WI 54016 RE: Parcel #030-2020-20-000, Gov't Lot 2, Section 01, T29N, R20W, Town of St. Joseph Dear Ms. Levine: The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment (Board) has reviewed your requests for the following items: Variance for reconstruction of a nonconforming accessory structure (deck) and expansion of a nonconforming principal structure in the Lower St. Croix Riverway Overlay District pursuant to Sections 17.36.I.3.b and 17.36.1.2 of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. After the hearing on March 27, 2014 the Board granted both variance requests with conditions. The enclosed document is the formal decision regarding the application. You must obtain any other required local, state, and federal permits and approvals. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. ly, Pamela Quinn Land Use Specialist Enclosures: Formal Decision cc: Clerk, Town of St. Joseph Mike Wenholz, Wisconsin DNR Eric Rolland, agent Todd Dolan, Building Inspector Phone 715.386.4680 Government Center, 1101 Carmichael Road, Hudson, W154016 Fax 715.386.4686 www.sccwi. us/cdd www.facebook.com/stcroixcountvwi cdd[)co.saint-croix. wi. us FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN File Number: VR88192 Applicant: Kristine Levine, property owner Parcel Number: 01.29.20.426E Complete Application Received: February 3, 2014 Hearing Notice Publication: Weeks of March 10 and 17, 2014 Hearing Date: March 27, 2014 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Having heard all the testimony, considered the entire record herein, and visited the site, the Board of Adjustment makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pertinent to the applicant's special exception requests: 1. The applicant is Kristine Levine, property owner. 2. The site is located at 232 Cedar Drive West in Part of Gov't Lot 2, Section 01, T29N, R20W, Town of St. Joseph, WI. 3. The Town of St. Joseph Town Board's recommendation for approval was received on March 26, 2014 in the form of a copy of the Town Board draft meeting minutes from March 6, 2014. 4. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources submitted comments regarding the applicant's variance requests, which are summarized as follows: Deck Reconstruction - Unless the BOA finds all three required standards for granting a variance are demonstrated, the requested deck reconstruction should be denied. If the BOA finds that a variance can be granted, the department made the following recommendations: 1. Portions of the existing deck to the south and southeast that are within the slope preservation zone should not be allowed to be reconstructed. The portion of the deck not in the slope preservation zone that would be allowed to be reconstructed should do so only within the same footprint that is outside the slope preservation zone. 2. The total footprint (area) of all nonconforming accessory structures within 75- feet of the OHWM, within a slope preservation zone, or within the bluffline setback may not exceed 500 square feet, as per s. 17.36 I.3.b.4). If a variance is granted, the final plans shall meet the maximum square footage requirements of s. 17.36 I.3.b.4). 3. The department does not agree that allowing two sets of stairs represents the minimum relief necessary. Thus the department recommends the proposed stairs to the south side of the deck not be allowed. The stairs to the north provide egress and ingress from the deck, allow direct access to the walkway leading to the tram, and are further from the bluffline. 4. If approved, conditions are to be included to meet s. 17.36 I.3.b.5) - 7) (i.e. the deck be visually inconspicuous and earth-tone in color, and mitigation measures be required). Expand a Nonconforming Principal Structure Within the 40-foot Bluffline Setback Unless the BOA finds all three required standards for granting a variance are demonstrated the requested expansion should be denied. If the BOA finds that a variance can be granted, the department requests it allow only the minimum relief necessary beyond code requirements and recommends all requirements under s. 17.3 6.1.2.e. 1) be included as required conditions, including appropriate mitigation, such as storm water runoff capture and "treatment" from the principal structure via an engineered and approved system. Proposed replacement of the existing chimney with a cupola 1. No part of the cupola may be any higher than the existing chimney, AND 2. The cupola can only be for aesthetic and natural lighting purposes, and not used in any way for increased human habitation. 5. The applicant filed an application with the Board of Adjustment for a variance to reconstruct a nonconforming accessory structure (deck) within the bluffline setback area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway district pursuant to Section 17.36.I.3.b. of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The deck is in need of more than ordinary - 1 - maintenance and repair to meet current Uniform Dwelling Code requirements and will meet the intent of the ordinance in that: • The reconstructed deck will be smaller than the existing one, which is approximately 950 sq. ft. in area; • No vegetation will be harmed during reconstruction; • The public interest would not be harmed by granting the variance; • The deck is and will continue to be inconspicuous from the river; • and property values will not be negatively affected. 6. When determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists, the Board of Adjustment must identify unique physical characteristics of the property that would otherwise prohibit the applicant from using the property for a permitted purpose, and then weigh the burden placed on the applicant in meeting the requirements of the Ordinance against the public interests being protected. The original house and its accessory structure (deck) were constructed less than 40 feet from the bluffline prior to the adoption of the Riverway ordinance and as such are legal nonconforming structures. The perimeter of a portion of the deck extends over the slope preservation zone, but the request will not increase the nonconformity of the structure since the proposed reconstructed deck will be reduced in size by 97 sq. ft. The resulting deck would be approximately 853 sq. ft. in area. 7. Literal enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting the reconstruction of a legal nonconforming accessory structure (except garages or sheds) would limit the applicant's continued use of the deck as a safe, structurally-sound platform for ingress and egress from existing doorways on the house. The applicant is requesting relief from the standards in the Riverway ordinance Section 17.36 I.3.b.4), which requires a maximum of 500 sq. ft. for each accessory structure, to allow a reduction of the existing nonconforming accessory structure's footprint from approximately 950 sq. fI. to 853 sq. ft. 8. In Chapter NR 118.08(3) ordinary maintenance and repair of nonconforming accessory structures is allowed, but "Nonconforming accessory structures may not be structurally altered, reconstructed or expanded." Ordinary maintenance and repair of the existing deck structure will not be sufficient to prevent further deterioration or meet decay prevention requirements in Comm 21.10 of Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce Chapter Comm 21 Construction Standards. The applicant's request would also bring the deck into compliance with state specifications for safe handrails, footings, frost protection, and structural support/attachment to the principal structure. However, the applicant cannot comply with Comm 21.225 without reconstruction of the deck, which would be a violation of prohibitions contained in NR 118.08(3) and Section 17.3 6.1.3.b of the St. Croix County Riverway ordinance. Conflicting statutory requirements contained in separate state regulations is a hardship that was not self-created by the applicant. 9. Substantial justice would be done by allowing continued use of a deck attached to the principal structure, which is allowed in the Lower St. Croix Riverway District, and which will mostly be reconstructed within the footprint of the original deck. The reconstruction will reduce the size of the existing nonconforming accessory structure's foundation/footprint. The deck will be rebuilt to current Wisconsin building code standards. With conditions that mitigation measures will include replacement of the POWTS, a stormwater management plan to comply with requirements and standards in Section 17.36.H.7, and an affidavit recorded to describe the approved stormwater management plan and disclose its maintenance requirements pursuant to Section 17.36.H.7.g,1) & 2), the reconstructed deck will meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and comply with mitigation requirements in Section 17.36.I.5.a., b., and c.3). 10. The applicant filed an addendum application for a variance to allow expansion of a legal nonconforming principal structure within the bluffline setback area in the Lower St. Croix Riverway district pursuant to Section 17.36.I.2.e.1) of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. The expansion is proposed to allow the applicant's agent to create an entry foyer with a roof overhang on the landward side of the house. This would facilitate interior remodeling to replace a spiral stairway with a traditional stairway at an acceptable angle to allow access between the lower level and the upper living areas. 11. When determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists, the Board of Adjustment must identify unique physical characteristics of the property that would otherwise prohibit the applicant from using the property for a permitted purpose, and then weigh the burden placed on the applicant in meeting the requirements of the Ordinance against the -2- constructed within public interests being protected. The house is a legal nonconforming principle structure that was- the bluffline setbacks prior to adoption of the county riverway ordinance. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship due to the entire house being within the 40 foot bluffline setback; expansion parallel to the river or on the landward side of the house would still be within this setback. These site characteristics were not self-created by any actions of the applicant. 12. The applicant is requesting minimal relief from the standards in the Ordinance. The existing structure and proposed expansion meet the requirements in Section 17.3 6.1.2.e. 1) with the exception of meeting the 40-foot bluffline setback. The proposed expansion would be over an area already covered by concrete walk and steps. The roof will not exceed the maximum height of 35 feet, will be earth-toned colors, will not be visible from the river, and the expansion will not exceed the 2000 square foot maximum total footprint specified in 17.36.I.2.e.1)i). 13. Substantial justice would be done by allowing the applicant to expand the existing legal, nonconforming residence on the property to add an entry foyer with a roof overhang. The proposed expansion is on the landward side of the house, so will be visually inconspicuous, will comply with requirements for earth-tone building materials, and will not disturb any vegetation. With conditions for mitigating the expansion by implementing a stormwater management plan that will route roof runoff to areas for infiltration and for replacing the existing POWTS, the project will meet the purpose of the-ordinance in preventing soil erosion and contamination of surface and groundwater. DECISION On the basis of the above Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the record herein, the Board granted the applicant's variance requests, with the following conditions: 1. The variances will allow the applicant to reconstruct a deck attached to the principal structure and to construct an entry foyer with a roof overhang on the landward side of the house in accordance with the plans submitted on February 3, 2014, and as provided in the conditions below. This approval does not include any additional structures, impervious coverage, filling and grading, or other activities. 2. The applicant shall secure all necessary permits and approvals from the Town of St. Joseph and obtain any other required local, state, or federal permits and approvals including but not limited to a land use and sanitary permit for a replacement POWTS. 3. Footings of the existing deck that are within the slope preservation zone may not be reconstructed or used. The reconstructed deck within the bluffline setback area may not exceed 853 square feet, including a two-foot overhang of the structure which may extend over the slope preservation zone. 4. In compliance with the mitigation requirements in Sections 17.36.I.5.c.3) &4), the applicant will direct stormwater runoff from house gutters away from riverward slopes into approved stormwater infiltration structures and protect existing trees within the bluffline setback to maintain slope stability and visual screening of the house from the river. Prior to commencing demolition and reconstruction of the deck, the applicant must submit to and have approved by the Land Use Administrator the following items: • A storm water management plan designed to infiltrate runoff from the house roof, including redirecting discharge from downspouts away from the bluffline. • Record an affidavit against the property referencing the decision and stormwater management plan, including a long-term maintenance agreement for runoff infiltration structures. The applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the affidavit to the Zoning Administrator. The intent is to make future owners aware of the limitations and responsibilities incurred as part of the Board of Adjustment's variance decision. 5. As indicated in the plans submitted, the proposed project will be visually inconspicuous, will comply with requirements for earth-tone building materials, and will not require removal of existing mature trees that screen the house from the river. Within 30 days of completion of the deck reconstruction, the applicant shall provide certification that the deck was constructed according to the approved plans and in compliance with state UDC code. -3- 6. The existing POWTS must be evaluated and a replacement system must be designed in preparation for submittal of a sanitary permit application. The sanitary permit application will require an addendum land use permit to be issued prior to any building permits for remodeling of the house. 7. Any minor change or addition to the project, including but not limited to design of the project, shall require review and approval by the Land Use Administrator prior to making the change or addition. Any major change or addition to the originally approved plan will have to go through the variance approval process. 8. The applicant shall have one (1) year from the issuance of these approvals to commence reconstruction of the deck and expansion of the principal structure and two (2) years to complete it. Failure to do so may result in expiration or revocation of this decision, after which time the applicant will be required to secure a new variance before starting or completing the project. 9. These conditions may be amended or additional conditions may be added if unanticipated circumstances arise that would affect the health and/or safety of citizens or degrade the natural resources of St. Croix County. Conditions will not be amended or added without notice to the applicant and an opportunity for a hearing. 10. Accepting this decision means that the applicant has read, understands, and agrees to all conditions of this decision and has no objections if county staff conducts unannounced onsite inspections to check for compliance with the conditions of this permit. The following vote was taken to approve both of the requests: Chairman Malick, yes; Peterson, yes; Sontag, yes; Nelson, yes; McAllister, yes. Motion carries. APPEAL RIGHTS Any person aggrieved by this decision may file an appeal in St. Croix County circuit court within 30 days after the filing date shown below, pursuant to Sec. 59.694(l 0), Wisconsin Statutes. St. Croix County assumes no responsibility for action taken in reliance on this decision prior to the expiration of the appeal period. St. Croix County does not certify that the identity of all persons legally entitled to notice of the Board of Adjustment proceedings, which resulted in this decision, was provided to the County. If an appeal is taken of this decision, it is the responsibility of the appellant to submit at his/her expense a transcript of the Board of Adjustment proceedings to the circuit court. The Community Development Department can be contacted for information on how to obtain a transcript. It is the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to submit its record (file) of this matter to the circuit court. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Signed: Clarence W. "Buck" Malick, Chairman Date Filed: March 28, 2014 -4-