11/10/2008 Council Packet (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Schwartz Page 3 use is permitted, including necessary repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non - conforming use. Paragraph 9 states alterations may be made to a structure containing non - conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of units or expand the size or degree of the non - conformity. Smith's lot is in the R -X Rural Executive zoning district. The minimum lot size is ten (10) acres in that district. This lot is about 4.22 acres (about 1.01 acres of wetland and 3.21 acres of upland) which is less than half of the 10 acre minimum size required. Thus the structure is a nonconforming use because the lot is smaller than the code requires. A strong argument can be made that the proposed building additions are not permitted because they intensify the non - conforming use and expand the size and degree of non - conformity. 5. Document #1 shows no trees on the Smith property adjacent to or near your common lot line with Smith. Based on this document, the trees near that common lot line are actually on your property and owned by you. Document #5 item #3 states that Smith will be removing all but one of the trees. If Smith removes any trees without your approval, he will be trespassing and liable for damages. 6. Subdivision 11 Drainage of Section 3 General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance states that no land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted which results in surface water runoff causing unreasonable flooding, erosion or deposit of minerals on adjacent properties. Such runoff shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, drainage way or other public facility. It is my expert opinion, based on my inspection of the property, that existing runoff from the area of the addition on the north side of Smith's house currently flows across your lot. However, the Documents lack sufficient survey elevations to show the amount of this existing runoff. If the addition on the north side of Smith's house is built, surface water from the roof of that addition will be channeled to your lot and cause unreasonable flooding, erosion and deposit of minerals on your property and will damage your trees. The Documents show a proposed ditch to solve the problem. However, if the ditch capacity is inadequate, additional runoff will flood your property. The arrows on Document #1 are not sufficient to show whether this proposed ditch will solve the problem. Additional information is needed including the cross section and slope of the proposed ditch and calculations to show that it has adequate capacity to carry the projected runoff. Unsigned and uncertified calculations in Document #2 show the capacity of a pipe that can carry the expected flow, but do not show the location, size and slope of the pipe, and do not show the capacity of the proposed ditch. Document #1 must show the location, size and slope of the pipe and a ditch with adequate capacity so that runoff will not damage your property and construction of the ditch will not damage your trees. The Documents lack sufficient clarity for City approval now or enforcement later if issues arise regarding the proposed improvements. The runoff onto your property is currently minimized by existing natural hardwoods and purposefully planted conifers that minimize and prevent erosion. However, Smith's plan is to remove all but one of these trees. T: \Projects \Schwartz \letter to Schwartz 11- 10- 08a.doc