The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/12/2019 P&Z Packet CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, June 12, 2019 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. SWEARING IN OF BOARD MEMBERS 4. ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE CHAIR 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 2019 6. OPEN MIKE 7. ACTION ITEMS A. 6626 Enid Trail-Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width B. 6650 Enid Trail-Variance for Impervious Surface Coverage C. 1393 Hunters Ridge-Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Update 9. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike – The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4-minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more – groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. on May 8, 2019. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Items 3 and 4 were tabled and the Agenda was approved. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Root made a MOTION to approve to the April 10, 2019 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 5-0. VI. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:31 P.M. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:31 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. VII. ACTION ITEMS A. Saddle Club 4th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat Katie Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. DATE : May 08, 2019 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 6:46 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Paul Tralle, Michael Ruhland, Michael Root, Sue Peacock, Neil Evenson, Perry Laden, Jeremy Stimpson MEMBERS ABSENT : Michael Ruhland STAFF PRESENT : Katie Larsen, Mara Strand Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2019 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Root asked for clarification on the deck options for Lot 2 Block 2. The applicant demonstrated a house with a deck on the property. Mr. Root asked staff to describe the wetland banking process. The process and validity of wetland banks was explained. Mr. Stimpson asked if staff have heard from the property owners of Lot 5 and Lot 2. Staff have not heard from the property owners during the final plat/final plan process. Mr. Laden stated the property set back on Lot 1, Block 3 looks to be 40 feet. Ms. Larsen confirmed Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 3 were approved during Saddle Club 3rd Addition approval process.. Chair Tralle noted the applicant changed from Royal Oaks Reality. Staff explained Royal Oaks and DuPont Holdings are different business entities operated by the applicant. Mr. Root made a MOTION to approve the Saddle Club 4th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. Motion was supported by Ms. Peacock. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project updates All Seasons Rental broke ground on May 2, 2019. A model home and townhome is framed and under construction in Watermark. Eastside Villas, Saddle Club 4th Addition, and Lino Lakes Mini Storage pre-construction meeting recently took place. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 6:46 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Mara Strand 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 7A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: June 12, 2019 REQUEST: 6626 Enid Trail Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width CASE NUMBER: VR2019-003 APPLICANT: Adam Neeck 6626 Enid Trail Lino Lakes, MN 55014 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: May 10, 2019 60-Day Review Deadline: July 7, 2019 120-Day Review Deadline: September 5, 2019 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 12, 2019 Tentative City Council Work Session: July 1, 2019 Tentative City Council Meeting: July 8, 2019 BACKGROUND The property owner of 6626 Enid Trail, Adam Neeck, submitted a Land Use Application for a curb cut/driveway width variance. He is requesting a 34 foot curb cut/driveway width be allowed. City ordinance allows for a maximum 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. ANALYSIS Sharper Homes was issued a building permit in May 2018 to construct a new home at 6626 Enid Trail in the St. Claire Estates subdivision. The certificate of survey submitted with the building permit indicated a proposed curb cut/driveway width at the right-of-way line of 25.5 feet (Attachment #3). 2 The Grading As-built survey dated November 1, 2018 indicated the constructed curb cut/driveway width at 34 foot (Attachment #4). This was also field verified by the City Engineer’s department. The driveway is 8 feet wider than allowed. Per the applicant’s narrative, the closing date to purchase the home was on November 15, 2018 and it was too late in the year to have the driveway replaced (Attachment #2). A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued on November 13, 2018 and a $1,000 escrow was collected from the property owner until the driveway issue is resolved. The parcel is a 16,139 sf corner lot on a platted cul de sac. The paved road and curb are approximately 60 feet from the lot line (aka right-of-way line). The existing driveway is 34 feet wide at the property line and tapers to 20 feet at the curb. The ordinance allows for a 26 foot wide driveway from the property line to the curb. The applicant states in their narrative several reasons why it is hard to comply with the ordinance due to the distance from the curb to the property line. Staff will note that platted cul duc sacs and 4 stall garages are not unique (Attachment #6). The distance from the curb to the property line is not relevant and the Certificate of Survey submitted with the building permit showed that a compliant driveway is possible. A 26 foot wide driveway from the curb to the property line is feasible and would be compliant. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is located in an urban residential subdivision. The City Engineer does not approve widening of the curb cut. The property owners would be required to cut out an 8 foot wide section of the driveway. They are requesting a variance instead of having to cut out a section of the driveway. Zoning Ordinance Per Section 1007.044(3)(h): 7. Curb Cut/Driveway Width. No curb cut shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width within a residential zoning district, or thirty-six (36) feet in width if the property is in a commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public zoning district, as measured at the street right-of-way line unless approved by the City Engineer. The driveway associated with such curb cut may increase in width at an angle not greater than forty-five (45) degrees. At the March 5, 2018 Council Work Session, staff presented a report regarding driveway widths. The staff report detailed that driveway width restrictions are fairly common and serve a number of purposes. These include: • Maintain front yard green space and enhance the streetscape. • Preserve areas for on-street parking. • Minimize impact and maintenance costs to public right-of-way and utility corridors. • Preserve street snow storage. • Minimize conflicts with vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles using street. • Minimize impervious surfaces. 3 The Council concurred that the current regulations are fine and the ordinance was not amended to allow for wider driveways. Attachment #5 is a Driveway Exhibit depicting a 26 foot wide curb cut and 45 degree angle. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking of motor vehicles upon various parcels of land or structures. The variance to allow for a 34 foot curb cut/ driveway width is not harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant’s property is intended for single family dwellings with houses, garages and driveways. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, there is no practical difficulty in complying with the required 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner was created by the home builder installing a 34 foot wide driveway. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is a single family residential neighborhood with houses, garages and driveways. 4 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential for a residential subdivision and driveways are consistent with residential uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow for a 34 foot curb cut/driveway width at 6626 Enid Trail. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Applicant’s Narrative 3. Certificate of Survey 4. Grading As-Built Survey 5. City’s Driveway Exhibit 6. Driveway Photos 6626 Enid Trail Legend June 4, 2019 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 600 ft ± DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STREET A 26' RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY LINEDRIVEWAYPROPERTY LINECURB CURB CUT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY LINE: 26 FT. MAXIMUM IF RESIDENTIAL 36 FT. MAXIMUM IF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY MAY INCREASE AT AN ANGLE NOT GREATER THAN 45°. Nov. 2018 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 7B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: June 12, 2019 REQUEST: 6650 Enid Trail Variance for Impervious Surface Coverage CASE NUMBER: VR2019-002 APPLICANT: Sharper Homes 14840 Aberdeen Street NE Blaine, MN 55449 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: May 7, 2019 60-Day Review Deadline: July 6, 2019 120-Day Review Deadline: September 4, 2019 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 12, 2019 City Council Work Session: July 1, 2019 City Council Meeting: July 8, 2019 BACKGROUND The property owner of 6650 Enid Trail, Sharper Homes, submitted a Land Use Application for an impervious surface coverage variance. They are requesting an impervious surface coverage of 43.7% be allowed. The City’s Shoreland Management Overlay ordinance allows for a maximum impervious surface coverage of 30%. ANALYSIS Existing Lot and Proposed House Plans Sharper Homes submitted a building permit application in April 2019 to construct a new 5,030 sf home (2,512 sf basement + 2,518 sf main floor) at 6650 Enid Trail in the St. Clair Estates 2 subdivision (Attachment #8). The legal description of the parcel is Lot 3, Block 2, St. Clair Estates. The subdivision is a standard R-1, Single Family Residential zoned subdivision platted in 2017. All lots meet the required 80 foot lot width, 135 foot lot depth and minimum 10,800 square foot lot size. The approved grading plan for this lot includes a 65 foot wide x 55 foot deep house pad with the garage/driveway on the south. The proposed house plan is 64 feet wide x 75 feet deep (this includes a 3 stall garage). The garage/driveway was also flipped to the north side creating more impervious surface. The certificate of survey submitted with the building permit indicated an impervious surface coverage of 43.7% (Attachment #7). Per the survey: Total Lot Area = 10,819 sf House, Porch & Future Shed Area = 3,756 sf Driveway Area to ROW Line = 862 sf Sidewalk Area = 107 sf Total Impervious = 4,725 sf Total Impervious Coverage = 43.7% As defined by both State Statue and City Ordinance, shoreland is land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake. The subject site, 6650 Enid Trail, is located within 1,000 feet of Rice Lake and is in the Shoreland Management Overlay district (Attachment #2). The maximum allowed impervious surface is 30%. Shoreland Management The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) is the state agency that administers Minnesota Administrative Rule, Chapter 6120, Shoreland and Floodplain Management. MNDNR drafted a model Shoreland Management Ordinance that was adopted in 1995 by the City as required by State Statute 103F.201 to 103F.221. The City ordinance is Chapter 1102: Shoreland Management Overlay and the City is responsible for administration of the ordinance. The City and MNDNR work together in reviewing shoreland land use applications such as variances. Per the City’s Shoreland Management Overlay ordinance: Section 1102.01Statutory Authorization and Policy: (1) Statutory authorization. Local government units are required to adopt shoreland management ordinances in M.S. §§ 103F.201 to 103F.221, as it may be amended from time to time. This Shoreland Overlay District chapter is adopted pursuant to these authorizations and policies and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in M.S. Ch. 462, as it may be amended from time to time. (2) Policies. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the city affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The 3 Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The responsibility for the management of shoreland areas is hereby recognized by the city. Section 1102.03 Definitions. SHORELAND. Land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lakes and land located within 300 feet from the streams classified in § 1102.05 or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Commissioner. Section 1102.07(1)(c)4. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed the following percentages of lot area: NE RD GD R Single-family 30% 30% 30% 30% Two-family/duplex 30% 30% 30% 30% Triplex/quad/townhomes 35% 35% 35% 35% Commercial/industrial 60% 60% 60% 60% The subject site, 6650 Enid Trail, is a single-family lot located within the shoreland overlay of Rice Lake which is classified as a Natural Environment (NE) lake. Therefore, the maximum allowed impervious surface is 30%. It should be noted that even if this lot were not in the shoreland overlay district, the standard R-1 allowed impervious surface coverage is only 40%. The proposed house plan with 43.7% impervious would not meet either of these minimum requirements. As explained in the MNDNR Shoreland & Floodplain Variance Guidance handout (Attachment #6), in the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most important tasks. As impervious surface coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering the public waters increases. The handout also details “Considerations for Findings”, “Range of Outcomes” and “Conditions on Variances”. Applicant’s Narrative See Attachment #3 for the Applicant’s Narrative. The following summarizes the applicant’s variance arguments followed by City’s response in italics. 1. The lot is irregular with an atypically long driveway. The lot is a standard 80’ wide x 135’ deep R-1 lot. The applicant chose to “flip” the house and relocate the driveway to the north causing it to be longer and larger. 4 2. The applicant proposes a rain garden/infiltration basin in the rear yard, gutter and downspouts and side yard swale. Reasonable conditions such as rain gardens, porous pavers or downspouts could be required only if all variance criteria are met. As detailed below, these variance criteria are not met. 3. A paver driveway and sidewalk could reduce the total impervious coverage but the upfront costs make this option the expensive partial solution. As discussed above, these could be reasonable conditions to require only if findings support granting the variance. Staff has the same concerns regarding annual maintenance and costs for any proposed mitigation such as rain gardens, infiltration basin and/or pavers. 4. The Client’s ability to make different choices is limited with regard to floor plan and lot choice due to limited lot selection and health issues. The client prefers this rambler house plan; however, this is not a unique circumstance. The MNDNR handout clearly states unique circumstances do not include physical limitations or personal circumstances created by the property owner such as size of home or design preferences. 5. The Applicant’s ability to market this lot is reduced by nearly half due to lot selection, Sharper’s PlanBook and private covenants. The Applicant noted the proposed house is a custom built rambler; therefore, a custom built rambler or two (2) story dwelling that meets requirements can be designed. The City is not obligated to approve house plans in order to meet private development covenants. Engineering Comments The City Engineer reviewed the revised grading exhibit that was submitted with the variance application (Attachment #4). The revised grading exhibit provided shows a proposed swale along the southerly property line directing water towards the rear lot line, discharging into a small infiltration basin/rain garden located in the northeast corner of the lot. The City Engineer does not recommend the practice of stormwater management for individual lots within a subdivision to accommodate non-compliant site construction for the following reasons: a. Overall functionality and longevity of the storm sewer system (BMP) in question. b. Tracking of potential BMP modification by current or future homeowner an issue. c. Need for private stormwater maintenance agreement recorded against the property in perpetuity. d. Need for additional drainage and utility easements. e. Who is responsible for maintenance? f. Are sureties secured for potential maintenance costs? 5 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Comments MNDNR reviewed the variance application and recommends denial due to lack of unique circumstances, not in harmony with intent of ordinance and no practical difficulty (Attachment #5). As noted in their letter and handout and consistent with City ordinance, all variance criteria must be satisfied to approve a variance. Not all criteria are met; therefore, the variance should be denied. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the Shoreland Management Overlay ordinance is to protect public waters. Per the ordinance Policy statement, the uncontrolled use of shorelands of the city affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. Impervious surface coverage limits are important because as coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering the public waters increases. The variance to allow for 43.7% impervious surface coverage is not harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The variance requested does not seek minimal relief of the maximum allowed impervious surface but is a substantial deviation that is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the City’s Shoreland Ordinance. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Goal#1 of the Comprehensive Plan’s 2030 Vision for Natural Resources and Amenities is to identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the community. The variance request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Increased impervious surface coverage is a detriment to natural areas and water quality. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. There is no practical difficulty in complying with the required 30% impervious surface coverage 6 requirement. The lot is a standard 10,800 sf, R-1, Single Family Residential that meets lot width, depth and size requirements. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The lot is a standard 10,800 sf, R-1, Single Family Residential parcel that meets lot width, depth and size requirements. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. The plight is created by the landowner’s preference to construct a single family home too large for the parcel. The City is not obligated to approve house plans in order to meet private development covenants. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent lots are 12,000 sf + lots with 2,500-2,800 sf homes. Impervious surface coverage on these lots is less than 30%. The subject lot is 10,819 sf with a proposed 5,030 sf house. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential for a residential subdivision and driveways are consistent with residential uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff and MNDNR recommend denial of the variance to allow for 43.7% impervious surface coverage at 6650 Enid Trail. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Shoreland Management Overlay District Map 3. Applicant’s Narrative and Supporting Documents 4. WSB Engineering Letter dated June 3, 2019 5. MNDNR Letter dated June 5, 2019 6. MNDNR Variance Guideline Handout 7. Certificate of Survey 8. House Plans 6650 Enid Trail Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 400 feet 6/5/2019 Shoreland Management Overlay District Legend Shoreland District June 5, 2019 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 600 ft ± Memorandum To: Katie Larsen, City Planner From: Ed Youngquist, WSB & Associates Diane Hankee, City Engineer Date: June 3, 2019 Re: 6650 Enid Trail – Lot Impervious Variance As requested by City Staff, WSB and Associates, Inc. has reviewed the grading revisions for 6650 Enid Trail (Lot 3, Block 2, St. Clair Estates) prepared by Sharper Homes and received on May 7, 2019. The following documents were reviewed: • Project Narrative • Exhibit A - Grading Concept Sketch with Infiltration/Rain Garden Area • Declaration of Building Covenants for St. Clair Estates Project Background The property owner of 6650 Enid Trail, Sharper Homes, submitted a Land Use Application for an impervious surface coverage variance. They are requesting an impervious surface coverage of 43.7% be allowed. The City’s Shoreland Management Overlay ordinance allows for a maximum impervious surface coverage of 30%. The grading exhibit provided shows a proposed swale along the southerly property line directing water towards the rear lot line, discharging into a small infiltration basin located in the northeast corner of the lot. This basin has a proposed emergency overflow of 902.0. The basin discharges northerly – onto adjacent property. Comments: 1. Exhibit A suggests the infiltration basin is sized for 30% impervious lot coverage. The proposed lot coverage is 43.7% impervious. 2. Soils information and stormwater modeling not provided to support infiltration basin design. 3. Infiltration basin design required (cross section, materials, infiltration calcs) 4. The E.O.F. of the basin meets the requirement for separation from low opening. 5. Stormwater maintenance agreement required for the infiltration basin. 6. Drainage and utility easement required if city maintained. 7. Proposed house falls off the constructed house pad – correction needed. 8. Revised grading plan for St. Clair Estates will be required. Conclusions: 1. A stormwater management plan was reviewed and approved for the entire St. Clair Estates development. We do not recommend the practice of stormwater management for individual lots within a subdivision to accommodate non-compliant site construction for the following reasons: a. Overall functionality and longevity of the storm sewer system (BMP) in question. b. Tracking of potential BMP modification by current or future homeowner an issue. c. Need for private stormwater maintenance agreement recorded against the property in perpetuity. d. Need for additional drainage and utility easements.. e. Who is responsible for maintenance? f. Are sureties secured for potential maintenance costs? If you or the applicant has any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ed Youngquist at (763) 287-7167 or eyoungquist@wsbeng.com. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN, 55106 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ecological and Water Resources Division Central Region Headquarters 1200 Warner Road, St Paul MN 55106 June 5, 2019 Katie Larsen City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Re: Variance Application for 6650 Enid Trail Dear Ms. Larsen, Thank you for the opportunity to review the impervious surface variance application for 6650 Enid Trail in Lino Lakes, MN. As impervious surface coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is reduced. Regulating the amount of impervious surface allowed is important for all areas where development occurs in order to limit the amount and maintain the quality of water that runs off and into lakes, wetland and rivers. In the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of the most important tasks local governments can undertake. Variances to shoreland ordinance standards are an important tool for balancing property rights with the public’s right to clean water and healthy habitats. However, variances to shoreland standards should be rare and only for exceptional situations. The variance criteria in Minnesota Statutes must be used for determining these exceptional situations. Note that ALL five variance criteria must be satisfied to approve a variance. These five criteria are: • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? 2 I reviewed the application against the five criteria above and below is a summary of how the application compares to three of them that the City may want to review the variance request against. 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. These do not include physical limitations or personal circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface provision, such as size of home or design preferences. The only unique circumstances presented in the application are the minimum house size requirements contained in the declaration of building covenants for St. Clair estates. The covenant states that the minimum house size is 1500 sq. ft. The house that is proposed (excluding garage) is approximately 2650 sq. ft. The 1150 sq. ft. difference between the minimum house footprint allowed in the development covenants, and the footprint selected by the landowner, results in the impervious surface percentage increasing from 33.0% to the requested 43.7% (this assumes the garage and driveway area are unchanged). A smaller house, along with a small change in driveway length or garage location or dimensions, could keep impervious below the 30% maximum impervious allowed. Therefore, there are not unique circumstances that justify the variance. Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? The purpose and intent of restricting impervious surface is to limit the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters as development increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is reduced. The variance requested does not seek minimal relief of the maximum allowed impervious surface but is a substantial deviation that is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the City’s Shoreland Ordinance. The proposed variance for a large increase in impervious surface sets a precedent for other less developed areas of the City. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? There are alternative home designs that would allow development to occur on the property without needing a substantial deviation to the allowed impervious surface. The proposed footprint of the selected home is very large for the size of the lot and incorporates a long driveway due to the garage being placed on the left side of the home. When evaluated against the purpose and intent of the City’s Shoreland Ordinance the proposed development does not use the property in a reasonable manner. Recommendation After reviewing the application, it appears that the variance request is being driven by the design preference of the landowner. Legal standards require that variances may only be granted when the applicant establishes that there are “practical difficulties” in complying with the official control. 3 The DNR recommends denial of the variance request to increase the allowed impervious surface to 43.7% of the lot at 6650 Enid Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. As you review this application, we suggest you consider the questions in the attached Impervious Surfaces fact sheet, which was developed to specifically address the statutory criteria as they pertain to impervious surface. State rule requires that final decisions regarding variances be sent to the DNR within 10 days of the decision. The DNR monitors the circumstances and frequency under which local governments approve variances to shoreland ordinances and may take legal action in situations where variances that don’t meet the statutory criteria, and result in negative impacts to shoreland areas and adjacent public waters, are approved. Please notify me within 10 days of the planning commission and city council’s decisions, including the rationale or “findings of fact” and a summary of the public record and testimony. If you have any questions please call me at 651-259-5822. Sincerely, Jason Spiegel North Metro Area Hydrologist Attachment Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, 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 and floodplain ordinances. Why are impervious surface coverage limits important? In the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes, wetlands, or rivers. As impervious surface coverage increases, the rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate from - or grant a variance to - impervious surface limits. 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 impervious surface variance request, with considerations, is provided below. Example Impervious Surface Variance Request A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot. The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor’s lot, which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland. The building plans for the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the neighbor’s property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision in the local ordinance. 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 shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest. These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which established impervious surface caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion, transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not? Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? 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 additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with these goals and policies? Why or why not? Impervious Surfaces Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, 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. These do not include physical limitations or personal circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious surface limit created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce driveway length or reducing the lakehome’s footprint?  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 located 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 riparian 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. Since the impervious surface cap is generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters, it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the purposes of the regulations? Why or why 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 could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a variance rather than the any 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 could find that the construction footprint is reasonable, the circumstances are unique given the adjacent wetland, and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the hydrology of the area (as determined through runoff calculations).  If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area, then conditions may be imposed, such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit. Conditions on Variances If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water 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. Several examples are provided below:  Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);  Use permeable pavement systems for walkways, driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);  Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);  Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming from structures and driveways); and/or  Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level (to provide infiltration near public waters). More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 7C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: June 12, 2019 REQUEST: 1393 Hunters Ridge Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width CASE NUMBER: VR2019-004 APPLICANT: Michael Settimi 1393 Hunters Ridge Lino Lakes, MN 55014 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: June 3 2019 60-Day Review Deadline: August 2, 2019 120-Day Review Deadline: October 1, 2019 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 12, 2019 City Council Work Session: July 1, 2019 City Council Meeting: July 8, 2019 BACKGROUND The property owner of 1393 Hunters Ridge, Michael Settimi, submitted a Land Use Application for a curb cut/driveway width variance. He is requesting a 30 foot curb cut/driveway width be allowed. City ordinance allows for a maximum 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. ANALYSIS The applicant submitted a narrative that describes the need for a 30 foot wide curb cut (See Attachment 2). In summary, their family has several vehicles parked in the driveway and ingress/egress is difficult without damaging other vehicles or the lawn. 2 The existing driveway is 18 feet wide at the property line. The ordinance allows for a 26 foot wide driveway from the property line to the curb. The owner could widen the driveway an additional 8 feet and be compliant at 26 feet wide but they are requesting an addition 12 feet to go to 30 feet wide. The property is zoned R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential and is located in an urban residential subdivision. The parcel is 0.52 acres, 95 feet wide and platted in 1996 as Pheasant Hills Preserve 7th Addition. The City Engineer does not approve widening of the curb cut. A 26 foot wide driveway from the curb to the property line is feasible and would be compliant. Zoning Ordinance Per Section 1007.044(3)(h): 7. Curb Cut/Driveway Width. No curb cut shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width within a residential zoning district, or thirty-six (36) feet in width if the property is in a commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public zoning district, as measured at the street right-of-way line unless approved by the City Engineer. The driveway associated with such curb cut may increase in width at an angle not greater than forty-five (45) degrees. At the March 5, 2018 Council Work Session, staff presented a report regarding driveway widths. The staff report detailed that driveway width restrictions are fairly common and serve a number of purposes. These include: • Maintain front yard green space and enhance the streetscape. • Preserve areas for on-street parking. • Minimize impact and maintenance costs to public right-of-way and utility corridors. • Preserve street snow storage. • Minimize conflicts with vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles using street. • Minimize impervious surfaces. The Council concurred that the current regulations are fine and the ordinance was not amended to allow for wider driveways. Attachment 5 is a Driveway Exhibit depicting a 26 foot wide curb cut and 45 degree angle. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking of motor vehicles upon various parcels of land or 3 structures. The variance to allow for a 30 foot curb cut/ driveway width is not harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant’s property is intended for single family dwellings with houses, garages and driveways. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, there is no practical difficulty in complying with the required 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. The parcel is a standard R-1X, Single Family Executive lot. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by the landowner and the numerous vehicles needed to be parked in the driveway. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is a single family residential neighborhood with houses, garages and driveways. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential for a residential subdivision and driveways are consistent with residential uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow for a 30 foot curb cut/driveway width at 1393 Hunters Ridge. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Applicant’s Narrative 3. Property Survey 4. Applicant’s Existing vs Proposed Driveway Sketch 5. City Driveway Exhibit 1393 Hunters Ridge Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch = 400 feet 6/4/2019 DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STREET A 26' RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY LINEDRIVEWAYPROPERTY LINECURB CURB CUT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY LINE: 26 FT. MAXIMUM IF RESIDENTIAL 36 FT. MAXIMUM IF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY MAY INCREASE AT AN ANGLE NOT GREATER THAN 45°. Nov. 2018