Loading...
4.0 BASR 08-11-2009!~ Ji cty or Elk -~-~ River REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Board of Ad~ustments 4• Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Planning Items August 11, 2009 Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager Item Description Reviewed by Request by Jake Nelson for Variance to exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface, and to allow an additional driveway, Reviewed by Case No. V 09-04 -Public Hearing Action Requested Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments approve the driveway variance request, subject to the following condition: 1. The two driveways do not exceed 30 feet in width. Staff recommends approval of the variance to exceed the maximum impervious surface requirement, subject to: 1. All comments in the letter dated August 5, 2009. Landscape plan Storm Water Management plan 2. Move proposed retaining wall at least 5 feet from the north property line. 3. Maximum impervious surface of 30% 4. Consolidate the two subject lots into 1 lot. 5. Provision of escrow to guarantee the improvements outlined above. Amount to be determined by staff once a landscaping and storm water management plan is approved. Background/Discussion The applicant desires to the remove the two existing homes on the property and build a single larger home. The proposed improvements require the granting of two variances; one for lot coverage, and the other for number of driveways. Financial Impact None Attachments Location Map Letter from Planning Manager dated August 5`h, 2009 • Applicant's Narrative • Site Plan Case Pile: V 09-U4 Page 2 General Information Nelson Variance Impervious Surface Number of Driveways Applicant Scott Smieja, on behalf of the owner Jake Nelson 60 Day Rule The application has been deemed complete as of July 30, 2009. The City must take action by September 30, 2009 Requested Action Variance approval Location and Size Approximately .93 acres on the west side of Simonet Drive, east bank of Lake Orono. Location Existing Use Land Use Plan Designation Current Zoning Subject Single Family Urban Residential R-1c Property Res. North Single Family Urban Residential R-1c Res. South Single Family Urban Residential R-1c Res. East Single Family Urban Residential R-1 c Res. West Single Family Urban Residential R-1 c Res. Overview In order for the applicant to construct the house they desire, two different variances are necessary. The first variance is for the construction of a second driveway, where only one is permitted. The second variance is to exceed the maximum 25% impervious surface regulations. The applicant proposed approximately 38% lot coverage. Applicable Regulations Driveway: Section 30-906-c-(2) "Single-family residential driveways. Single-family residential driveways shall not exceed 30 feet in width measured at the property line. Each single-family lot shall be limited to one driveway except: a. Lots that are one acre or larger in the A-1 and R1a zoning districts shall be allowed two driveways onto a city street, not exceeding 40 feet in total combined width. Driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 25 feet. b. In all single-family districts, if the area inside a looped driveway is 25 feet or less wide, the two legs of the loop, not to exceed 30 feet in combined width, shall be considered one driveway. c. In all single-family districts, corner lots shall be allowed to have one driveway on each street, not to exceed 40 feet in total combined width." S:APL_~NNING IGfAIN\Case Files\Vsuiance\l' 09-04 Nelson\PC staff report 8-11-U9.tloc Case File: V 09-04 Nelson Variance Page 3 Impervious Surface Number of Driveways Impervious Surface: Section 30-2025-(2) "Specific standards. a. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. In lieu of meeting this impervious surface requirement, a property may submit a stormwater drainage plan to the city for review and approval which restricts the developed five-year frequency event peak discharge to a rate no greater than the five-year historic undeveloped peak discharge. To the maximum extent possible, the drainage plan must also provide for methods of runoff settlement and/or filtration prior to discharge to the receiving water." Variance Criteria Since 2007, the City has reviewed two variance requests for impervious surface, and zero for the number of driveways. In 2007, the City granted a variance for Jeff Bickman (18575 Simonent Drive) for impervious surface, with the condition that the applicant utilize alternatives, such as rain gardens or porous pavers, to reduce runoff. In 2009, the City granted a variance for Fred McCoy to exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface. This decision was upheld by the DNR, after the DNR and McCoy agreed on a bluff stabilization plan and storm water management plan. 7. Lateral enforcement of the ordinance avill cause undue hardship. Driveway: The Ordinance limits private intersections with city streets to reduce the potential for collisions, maximize on-street parking, and facilitate walking and biking. Multiple driveways in the larger lot districts (A-1, R-1a) do not noticeably impact these goals. The ordinance allows access to a structure; the applicants basically desire a parking lot in the front yard. It is important to note that Simonent drive is a dead end road; the likelihood of cut-through drivers unfamiliar with the area is drastically reduced. Also, this reduces the conflicts. The applicants note that the proposed driveway number is not different than what would be permitted if the parcel remained two different lots. Although this is true, arguments based on "what might have been' are typically not used in determining hardship. In this case, the "what might have been" argument would not allow the house as proposed, as setbacks are not maintained. The applicants argue that allowing parking off the street reduces on-street conflicts. Impervious surface: The impervious surface proposed represents a substantial increase over permissible levels. The levels outlined in the ordinance are adequate for reasonable construction of a dwelling. In fact, the house and paver stone driveway (both driveways) almost equal the permissible amount - 10,157 permissible, 10,384 proposed with house and driveways. While it does not appear that a hardship exists, the applicant could employ alternative design measures (rain gardens, pervious stone, etc) to reduce the run-off impact. 2. The hardship is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances avhich are peculiar to the ~ro~erty and the structure involved and avhich are not characteristic of or at~~licable to other lands or structure in the same area. Driveway: The lot to be created will be one of the larger above-water lots in the neighborhood, with the longest street frontage. In that sense, the lot is unique. ti:APLANMNG ~b1AIN\Case files\~'ariance\V 09-~~} ~lelson\PC staff report 8-11-09.doc Case File: V 09-04 Page 4 Nelson Variance Impervious Surface Number of llriveways Impervious Surface: There does not appear to be a hardship relative to the impervious surface. However, there are options to reduce the impervious impact, including design and material changes. 3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the~etitioner'.r ozvn action or inaction. Driveway: The larger lot is a result of the petitioner's action of consolidating the lot. Impervious surface: The impervious surface is not a hardship. 4. The literal a,~lication of the provisions of this ordinance would derive the petitioner of rights enioyed by other pro~ierties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. Driveway: There are other `turn around' driveways in the neighborhood. These types of driveways are not that uncommon. The challenge with this lot is that due to the lake setback, the house must be moved close to the street, thereby reducing options. Reducing the width of the driveways at the property line would reduce the impervious surface area, and still provide the ability to park off street. Impervious surface: Taken individually, the impervious surfaces (patio/ pool, driveway, house, boat house) are not inconsistent with the neighborhood, just their size. By employing necessary runoff reduction and water quality improvement measures, the impervious surface concerns are mitigated to a degree. 5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversel~a~et the health safet oy r ave~are of the residents o the city or the neighborhood avhere the~ro~erty is located and avill be in kee~iing with spirit and intent ofthe ordinance. Driveway: The additional driveway, if installed, likely will not create a hazard for the public. If the width of the driveway was reduced, the driveway would be more consistent with the ordinance. Impervious Surface: The purpose of impervious surface regulations along water ways contributes to the community wide water quality question. Reducing the impervious surface allows more water to percolate into the ground, or to flow through vegetative areas to be cleaned before entering Lake Orono, or the rivers and streams. Although the standards for variance are not met, the ordinance does give authority for a property owner to increase the level of impervious surface if they: provide a "storm water drainage plan which restricts the developed five-year frequency event peak discharge to a rate no greater than the five-year historic undeveloped peak discharge. To the maximum extent possible, the drainage plan must also provide for methods of runoff settlement and/or filtration prior to discharge to the receiving water." Allowing the variance without requiring a storm water management plan in this situation would have a negative impact on the residents of the city, and would be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 5:APLANNING ~dAIN\Case Files\Variance\l' 09-(14 Nelson\PC shiFf report 8-ll-09.doc Case Pile: V 09-U4 Page 5 Nelson Variance Impervious Suzface Number of Driveways Grading/Drainage The grading plan provided with the building permit indicates water to sheet flow through the grass, to the lake or the street. To mitigate the concerns outlined regarding the impervious surface, it is recommended that a storm water management plan be developed, to be approved by the City engineer. The grading plan as proposed shows a retaining wall approximately 1 foot from the north property line. The effect of this will be the water running off the applicants' property will go onto the property to the north. Staff suggests that the retaining wall be setback from this property line a minimum of 5 feet. Lastly, the grading plan indicates retaining walls, although it is not clear as to their height or construction. This should be determined prior to building permit issuance. Landscaping In addition to the grading plan, a landscape plan should be prepared to mitigate the water quality concerns. The requirements of this plan are outlined in an attached letter dated August 5, 2009. Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up S:APLANNING ~Ir1IN\Case I^iles\Variance\V 09-U4 Nelson\PC staff report 5-11-09.doc W`d ZS~b£~6 6002/0£/L'6nnpdeW uoi;e~o~\uos~aN b0-60 ~\a~ueue~\sa~ij ase~\9NINNdId\~S 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 August 5, 2009 Mr. Jake Nelson 18660 Simonent Drive Elk River, MN 55330 Dear Mr. Nelson: The excessive clearing of shoreland vegetation last fall in Lake Orono's shoreline impact zone and steep slopes has serious and clear ramifications on the water quality, erosion control, structure screening, and water shading goals of the Ordinance. These trees once provided natural screening of shoreland development and maintained the scenic vistas of our many lakes and streams In attempting to mitigate the illegal removal of trees and vegetation in the shoreline impact zone, City Staff forwarded a restoration order on October, 2008 which, among other things, required a vegetation mitigation plan. This plan has not yet been approved, although comments have been forwarded. Anticipating the planned redevelopment of the two lots, and the resulting increase over permissible impervious surface area, it is suggested that: A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, be provided that best mitigates the harms to the shoreline utilizing, at minimum, the 22 trees outlined in the restoration order. The purposed of the shoreline critical zone being the following: a. Water quality b. Erosion control c. Structure screening from the water, and d. Water shading. Additionally, a stormwater drainage plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval which restricts the developed five-year frequency event peak discharge to a rate no greater than the five-year historic undeveloped peak discharge. To the maximum extent possible, the drainage plan must also provide for methods of runoff settlement and/or filtration prior to discharge to the receiving water. This will help reduce the concern from the significant increase of impervious surface, from an allowable 10,000 square feet to the proposed 15,440 square feet. (Section 30-2025, Elk River Ciry Code) Phone: 763.635.1000 Fax: 763.635.1090 www.ci.elk-river.mn.us Once a plan has been approved by the City, the City will require completion of landscaping and other improvements outside the limits of construction. The City will require an escrow deposit for the balance of work. For the City to issue a building permit, you must agree in writing that no final inspection will be conducted nor a Certificate of Occupancy be issued until the vegetation and impervious surface area mitigation work has been completed. This letter will be included as a condition of approval to the proposed Variances. Sincerely, ~~ ~-^ Jeremy B P1~nni ~ Phone: 763.635.1000 Fax: 763.635.1090 www.ci.elk-river.mn.us Narrative for Variance Request 1. By eliminating the front entrance driveway the hardship would be placed on our elderly friends, relatives who would have a lengthy walk to the front entrance. Particularly in adverse weather conditions. 2. The design of the house is using the two lots that currently each have a driveway. This house is an improvement to both lots and the development. By designing the garages to be offset to the side of the home, we have increased the developments curb appeal. 3. It is my understanding of the ordinance that a driveway to the garage and a driveway to the entrance of the home are allowed. Our intension is to accommodate city ordinances, at the same time improve the curb appeal and safety for guests. These two driveways will tie together to accomplish and satisfy these goals. 4. In viewing with the other homes in the development this proposed driveway is similar to those located 18660 Simonet Dr. and 18593 Simonet Dr. 5. The variance that we are requesting will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health safety or welfare of the city or neighborhood and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. This proposed driveway is intended to address all concerns listed above. The existing properties as they stand are each allowed 40' driveways. Our proposed plan will be a total of 40'. Which is less than the two combined existing driveways. In reviewing this plan with my neighbors who like I have been residing on this street for many years are in agreement with this proposed plan. Our intent is to improve the development for all involved. Our proposed driveway would also eliminate excessive parking on the street. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Our intentions are to provide a safe and welcoming environment for family, guests and neighbors. Respectfully, Jake & Lori Nelson JUL-27-2009 07:268 FROM: T0: 2951724 P.1 JUL 27,2409 11:15 MILD 95Z9Z75764 paq~ z ' . ~` ,. ~4 ~ ~ ~/~_ i ,i i if ~.. i~ _ .~ N OI ~~ 1l'Y! ~ a _ ~S h ~ ~ ~ o- ~ ~ ~t _ ~ ~ s , ` Q o ~ t3' ` ~' Si_ ~ ` } !. tiJ" l 4~ ~ `~ ~ ~ iF I T ~w ! CLf COf '`~ ~ ~: r~ i ~ ~ ~ tti t Q~QISL7 r•~ V ~ ~~f . tx n ~ r s :~: I ..~ ~ , _~ YI - 7 t ~ ~ ~~ 7 ~ _ r-r ~ m Js ° ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~y, a ~ ~ eL 4 b z ~;a z3 6 ~~~ ew. t Y ~ Y, `~° i ~ ~ \. sz y x ~ _ 3 if ~ YX Y 0 J ~l x ~ x i II{ ~ ~ + ,.~.. x \ \ u1 .~` ©' N ~ J ~+! ~ I 'ci,~ G J (~~ ~ - j ~ I ~. ~ ¢ ~ 2 rl •~ N l Z ~ V ~+ O o ~ O`1 (~ .tam, _ ~l yt N Q S 6 ~', Z~\ ro _ 9 N I d a 3 r I ~ (n M Tj . N s "-' i 1 '~ ~ ~ 2 6 t ^ ~ :, '~ '^ F'6t ~ x - `~ ~''~' / I ~' lV ~ ~ N N '~ ~ x l " l ~ N {'f8 ~ Z ~~~ -r ~ ~ x ~ ~ S•Z£ S Of ~. -max 3 '0 t ,., a Zz m XJ~~ B£ Wyk z' ~ I ' ~ ~. X i'IkR '~ tIti ..r~.0-~Oot~d~d ~ _ x ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ m 8£ ' iy ^- -' "' Oli Yd :r ~ ~ j -~ - 1 I~ n~ w ~ I of ? I x x i- 2 ~ o~ o mod ~ ~ =~ ~ ---~ ~ ~ ~ c~so~d ° C1~ ~~ °~ ~ _ y x r I c ' X x •- ~ ~ I a. '~ ~I z ~y ~. 9 t a vi a Ot ~ _;~ ,. a: _ ~ a ~ I x ~v .. \ $ z ~~ x _- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ N ~_` en _ ~ " ~ \ m I ~ z 2 + ='~ x Q MM J~ -. .. mil! \ °G -r .i' - \ -. ~ ~ V Z r xx `~~ W < z ~ ~ s l / ~ I _ ~V ~_ ~ `~ ~ ' \~N/~ ~~~~ x ,O` L ~\; 'c\ ~ ~ x i -~ o ~~ z ~m O ~x ~ t ~ ~ O ,~ a u '~, ~ ~ a ~ `