HomeMy WebLinkAbout#10 - 7962 Hill Trail Variance STAFF REPORT
DATE: 11/7/2018
REGULAR
ITEM #: 10
MOTION
TO: City Council
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Shoreland Variance Request to exceed the allowed impervious surface
within the shoreland district as well as exceed the allowed maximum
driveway width – 7962 Hill Trail.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a variance application from Thomas and Linda Burns of 7962 Hill Trail N. to allow
the construction of a driveway that would exceed the allowable width set within the code as well as
exceed the allowed impervious surface limit for the shoreland overlay district.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
The City Council is being asked to provide final comment and approval on the above-mentioned variance
requests.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Thomas and Linda Burns
Property Owners: Same as Applicant
Location: 7962 Hill Trail N. PID# 05.029.21.44.0038, Subdivision name Demontreville
County Club Lot(s) 400 Subdivisioncd 37445, Washington County
Request: Variance from Shoreland Standards – Impervious surface as well as exception
to maximum width of driveway standards.
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Residential Dwelling
Surrounding Land
Use:
Surrounded by other single-family detached residential dwellings and abuts
Lake Demontreville on the east property line.
Existing Zoning: Rural Single Family/Shoreland Overlay District
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family
History: The current home was rebuilt in 2013/2014 after the previous structure was
removed.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 9/21/2018
60 Day Deadline – 11/20/2018
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable
Regulations:
Article V – Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Article XIX – Shoreland Management Overlay District
Article XI – Rural Districts
Article IX – General Regulations
City Council
11/7/2018
Page 2
Request Details. The applicant is proposing to expand their main driveway so that easier access onto the
private drive can be created. Due to the connection of their driveway onto the private drive and then the
connection from there onto the main road, it has caused difficulty for the home owner to maneuver their
vehicles in and out of the drive way. Beyond the connection of the drives the transition of elevations
between them has increased the difficulty as well, as stated by the applicant. Also, the home owner opted
to build a split level garage to take advantage of the previously existing (lower driveway) driveway and
parking pad in the rear. The current configuration is small and as the applicant has stated in their narrative,
they cannot back recreational vehicles etc. into the garage without driving onto the yard.
The Applicant is seeking variances on the following items:
Structure Setbacks:
Since the variance request is not related for alterations to the structure(s) onsite there will not be a formal
review of those items. The review will only consist of the impervious surface and driveway standards.
93.26 Driveway Standards
Maximum width - All driveways shall have a maximum width of 26 feet within the public right-of-way. In
the absence of platted right-of-way, the setback at which point the driveway width is measured shall be
established by the prescriptive easement as determined by the City Engineer. Increased driveway width in
the public right-of-way up to commercial standard (34 feet) will be considered for active farms or
agricultural properties.
- The previously approved plans for the site allowed the applicant a main driveway width of 18ft. as
well as the 12 ft. for the second smaller driveway. This also exceeds the allowed limit of 26ft. by
4 ft. The current proposal would exceed the limit by 16 ft.
Number of Curb Cuts – Up to two curb cuts may be allowed when neither access is onto a collector or
arterial street, when the lots exceeds 150 ft. in width , when there is a minimum of 40 ft. spacing between
the driveway curb radii, and when the total width of both driveways does not exceed 26 ft. The street would
be classified as a local street. See table below for compliance with numerical figures.
- Though the driveway comes out onto a private drive the ROW technically extends the width of the
front lot line (see graphics for visual). Being that this is the case the maximum width will still
apply. Because of the topography of the driveway to the private drive the applicant has stated that
they have had difficulty transitioning from the garage and driveway and then onto the private road
(see section f. of the applicant’s narrative). Also, due to the layout of the lot the applicant states it
made most sense to create a two level garage to utilize the smaller driveway that previously existed.
Impervious surface within the Shoreland: The shoreland code imposes a more restrictive standard when
it comes to impervious surface. Normally a home within the Rural single Family zone would be allowed
to have 25% of the property as impervious. However, being that this home falls within the shoreland
district, un-sewered lots are limited to 15%. Unfortunately, the design did not allow the applicant to stay
under the 15% threshold. The current proposal is requesting to exceed the allowed impervious surface limit
by 1.5% or 664 sqft.
Code Location Code Setbacks Proposed Setbacks
Maximum Driveway Width 93.26 A. (b) 26 ft.*(combined width) 30 ft. (Main Driveway – proposing change)
12ft. +apron(Second Driveway – no change)
Lot width 93.26 A. 1. (c) 150 ft. 219.76 ft.
Distance of Curb Radii 40 ft. 44 ft.
Impervious Surface 154.800 table 17-3 15% (Un-sewered Properties) 16.5%
City Council
11/7/2018
Page 3
Adjacent Property Variances. As far as staff is aware the City has not granted similar variances in regards
to driveway widths in the area. However, there are many properties which exceed the allowed impervious
surface limits in the area either by variance approval or grandfathering.
8114 Hill Trail 22.1% impervious surface
7972 Hill Trail 17% impervious surface
8130 Hill Trail – Was for septic and structure setbacks, impervious surface dropped from 27 to 25%
8056 Hill Trail 25.4% impervious (variance for setbacks, connected to City 201 system)
Department Review:
Engineering Review.
Generally the city would not want to allow an expansion beyond the established code regarding
driveways. Allowing an increase in size will bring more of a cost to the City down the line compared to
those that met the code as the City will often replace the driveway from the street to the edge of the ROW.
Also, the new driveway should be required to drain, primarily to private yard areas, either north of south
of the driveway. The extent of paved surface that drains directly to the street should be minimized since
there is no existing drainage system within the street.
DNR Review: Staff has not received comments from the DNR regarding the variance request. Generally
speaking they are not in favor of allowing increased impervious surface beyond the approved limits.
Planning Review:
As shown the driveway does technically fall within the City ROW which is why the variance is needed for
an increased width, but instead of connecting to a public street the driveway comes out onto a private drive.
After discussing the request with Public works it was stated that the City does not maintain the private
City Council
11/7/2018
Page 4
drive. Because of this staff does not feel the impact of replacing the space between the ROW to the property
line would be as impactful when discussing the larger driveway. Unless the street is reconfigured there
would not appear to be an increased cost to the city when the street is repaired.
The applicant states in their narrative that due to the configuration of the lot, topography, and requirements
that were applied at the time they were limited to the location of where the home could be placed. Because
of this, the split in the roadways have proven difficult to access and leave the driveway. Also mentioned
in the narrative is the cost which would be applied to the applicant if they had to use pervious pavers to
complete the driveway. Staff would like to remind the commission that financial burden is not grounds to
approve a variance request.
Staff is inclined to support the request for an expanded driveway width at the ROW. However, staff
does not feel that the applicant has been able to meet certain criteria for variance approval as it
relates to impervious surface. Because the applicant is the one who proposed the designed for the
current home the burden of limited impervious surface has been created by the applicant. For
example, a reduced house foot print could have been proposed, reconfigured pathways, etc. Findings
for both driveway expanded width and impervious surface are provided. After reviewing the
proposal staff does not see that the proposed parking pad in the rear of the home would need variance
approval. Though, variance approval may be triggered by the impervious surface that it may bring to
the lot.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake
Elmo City Code Section 154.109 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can
be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with recommended findings from Staff regarding
applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict
enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficulties - “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 an
official control.
FINDINGS FOR DRIVEWAY: Staff does recognize that the expanded driveway is larger than what
would normally be allowed, but because it does not directly connect to the public street it would not
appear to be impactful on public infrastructure. Furthermore the current elevations, as stated in the
narrative and review, have proven difficult for the applicant to access and leave the property.
Because of this Staff feels this criteria is met.
FINDINGS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Staff does recognize that it is a reasonable request to
have adequately sized parking spaces/driveway surfaces that would allow property owners to
achieve adequate use of their property/buildings. Given the impervious limitations, the applicant has
not be able to utilize their current “parking pads” without pulling onto sections of their yard to back
recreational vehicles into the lower section of the garage. Staff feels this criteria is met.
City Council
11/7/2018
Page 5
2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS FOR DRIVEWAY: Because the ROW extends back further, is of a less standard design,
elevations of the access, and the expanded drive does not directly connect to a public street staff is of
the impression that this request fits the unique circumstances criteria. With all of these items
combined the circumstances do seem to be more unique than not. Because of this staff feel this
criteria is met.
FINDINGS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Staff feels that by granting an increased driveway
width, impervious surface increases are expected. However, the standards for impervious surface
and driveway widths are separate. As discussed in the report staff feels the width standard has
grounds for approval where the impervious surface does not. The difficulty of dealing with limited
impervious surface does appear to be caused by the applicant. Being that they are the ones who
proposed the initial figure of the impervious surface up to the threshold, staff does feel this difficulty
is caused by the applicant. Because of this staff feels this criteria is not met.
3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
FINDINGS FOR DRIVEWAY: Understanding that variances provide exceptions to the code,
driveways can normally be any width and reduced down at the property line. Given that the
connection is to the private drive the standard of width would not be the same as if direct connection
the public road was provided. Because of this exception, staff does not feel the width will negatively
impact the local character. Because of this staff feel this criteria is met.
FINDINGS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Staff does not feel that the requested increase in
impervious surface would be out of character for the area. There are many properties in the area
that do exceed the 15% limitation. Staff feels this criteria is met.
4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to properties adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS FOR DRIVEWAY: The proposed improvements will not alter or impair supply of light
or air to adjacent properties. Staff understands that larger openings generally provide better and
more direct access onto the intended roadway/drive. Staff does not feel that the expanded driveway
would cause a negative impact to either light, air, or congestion. Because of this staff feel this
criteria is met.
FINDINGS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Staff has been unable to determine a reason as to
why the requested increase in impervious surface would have an impact on either light, air,
congestion, or property values within the area. Staff feels this criteria is met.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
City Council
11/7/2018
Page 6
OPTIONS:
• Move to approve Resolution 2018-127 approving the variance request, subject to findings and
conditions of approval as recommended by Staff. (includes approval of the driveway width not the
impervious surface)
• Move to approve Resolution 2018-127 with amended findings or conditions of approval.
• Move to deny Resolution 2018-127 and the variance request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission: There was some discussion regarding the requested variance as it relates to the impervious surface limits. The planning commission was also unable to adjust the finding so that the request could be approved. The commission recommends that Council “Move to recommend approval of the request for an expanded driveway width, subject to conditions of approval as recommended by staff” 6-0
Staff supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission. It seems difficult to support the
impervious surface difficulty of limited impervious surface as that seems to be caused by the home
owner. Where the ROW, topography/elevations associated with the roadway are not. If City
Council feels there are grounds to support the increase impervious surface, the finding(s) may be
reworked.
Staff also recommends the following conditions of approval:
1) The Applicant shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and other
applicable jurisdictions.
2) The grading of the driveway shall be required to drain, primarily to private yard areas, either
north of south of the driveway. The extent of paved surface that drains directly to the street
should be minimized since there is no existing drainage system within the street.
3) It shall be a condition of approval that all outstanding items related to City of Lake Elmo New
Construction Permit 2013-00393 be completed and approved before the release of any permits
associated with this variance
The suggestion motion for taking is as follows:
“Move approve Resolution 2018-127 which grants a variance for an expanded driveway
width, subject to findings and conditions of approval as recommended by Staff”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Applicants narrative and survey(s)
543597v1 SJS La515-1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO 2018-126
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY WITH A LARGER WIDTH
THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CITY CODE. AND DENYING A VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO
AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BEYOND THE ALLOWED AMOUNT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7962 HILL TRAIL N.
WHEREAS, Thomas and Linda Burns (the “Applicants”) of 7962 Hill Trail N, Lake Elmo
MN 55042, which is legally described as SUBDIVISIONNAME LANE'S DEMONTREVILLE
COUNTRY CLUB LOT 400 SUBDIVISIONCD 37445, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Washington County, Minnesota (the “Property”) have submitted an application to the City of Lake
Elmo (the “City“) for a variances to allow the expansion of a driveway which exceeds the maximum allowed
width of 26 feet and an increase in impervious surface for the Property beyond the allowed 15 percent for properties
within the Shoreland District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed width of the upper driveway on the Property being requested by the
Applicants is 30 feet and there are no adjustments to the lower driveway (south) on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the requested increase in impervious surface being requested by the Applicants for the
Property is 16.5 percent; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published , mailed, and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo
Zoning Code, Section 154.109; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said variances
on October 22, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and
recommendations with respect to the requested variances to the City Council as part of the City Staff
Memorandum dated November 7th, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the variances at its November 7th, 2018 meeting; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City
Council makes the following:
FINDINGS
1) That the procedures for obtaining a variance are found in the Section 154.109 of the
Lake Elmo Zoning Code.
2) That all submission requirement s of Section 154.109 of the Lake Elmo Zoning Code
have been met by the Applicants.
3) That the proposed variances include the following components:
a) That the upper driveway on the Property be allowed to exceed the maximum allowed
driveway width of 26 feet with it being a width of 30 feet.
b) That the impervious surface on the Property be allowed to exceed the maximum allowed
543597v1 SJS La515-1
impervious surface of 15 percent by 1.5 percent (16.5 percent).
4) With respect to the proposed variance for the driveway width, the strict enforcement of the
City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the Applicants propose to use the
Property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. It is recognized that the
expanded driveway is larger than what would normally be allowed, but because it does not
directly connect to the public street but rather to a private driveway/road, it will not be impactful
on public infrastructure, thus the Applicants would be using the Property in a reasonable
manner.
5) With respect to the proposed variance for the increased amount of impervious surface, the strict
enforcement of the City’s zoning regulations will cause practical difficulties and the Applicants
propose to use the Property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The
Applicants’ request would allow them to have adequately sized parking and driveway spaces
that would allow them to achieve adequate use of their home, thus, the Applicants would be
using the Property in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, the Applicants have not been able to
use their current parking pads on the Property without pulling onto sections of their yard to back
recreational vehicles into the lower section of the garage.
6) With respect to the proposed variance for the driveway width, the plight of the Applicants is due
to circumstances unique to the Property not created by the Applicants. Because the City right-of-
way extends back further and is of a less standard design, the change in elevations of the access
to the Property, and because the expanded driveway does not directly connect to a public street,
these are all circumstances that were not created by the Applicants that created their plight.
Therefore, this criterion has been met with respect to the variance for the driveway width.
7) With respect to the proposed variance for the increased amount of impervious surface, the plight
of the Applicants is due to circumstances created by the Applicants. The Applicants designed the
home and the other areas of impervious surface on the Property. Therefore, the Applicants have
been able to control the amount of impervious surface that is on the Property and this criterion
has not been met with respect to the variance for the increased amount of impervious surface.
8) With respect to the proposed variance for the driveway width, the proposed variance will not alter
the essential character of the locality in which the Property is located. Driveways can normally
be any width provided that their widths are reduced down at the property line. Furthermore, the
Applicants’ proposed driveway will not be connecting to a public street but rather to a private
driveway. Therefore, the wider driveway will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and this criterion has ben met.
9) With respect to the proposed variance for the increased amount of impervious surface, the
proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the locality in which the Property is
located. There are many properties in the area that do exceed the 15 percent limitation to the
extent that is being requested by the Applicants. Therefore, the increased amount of impervious
surface on the Property would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
10) With respect to the proposed variance for the driveway width, the proposed variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the Property or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood. Larger access points generally provide better and more direct access
onto the intended driveway/roadway which would help with any congestion. There is no impact
on the supply of light or air to properties adjacent to the Property. The improvement to the
Property would most likely increase the Property’s value which may positively impact
neighboring property values. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
11) With respect to the proposed variance for the increased amount of impervious surface, the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the
Property or substantially increase the congestion of public streets or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood. Larger access points generally provide better
543597v1 SJS La515-1
and more direct access onto the intended driveway/roadway which would help with any
congestion. There is no impact on the supply of light or air to properties adjacent to the Property
caused by the variance. The improvement to the Property would most likely increase the
Property’s value which may positively impact neighboring property values. Therefore, this
criterion has been met.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
1) Based on the above findings, which show that all of the variance criteria have been met
with respect to the variance for the driveway width, the Applicants’ application for a
variance from the maximum driveway width requirement of 26 feet for a 30 foot wide
driveway is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions:
a) The Applicants shall secure any required permits and plan approvals from the City and
other applicable jurisdictions;
b) The driveway shall be graded so that it drains primarily to private yard areas that are located
either north or south of the Applicants’ driveway. The extent of driveway surface that drains
directly to the private driveway should be minimized since there is no existing drainage system
within the private driveway; and
c) It shall be a condition of approval that all outstanding items related to City of Lake Elmo New
Construction Permit 2013-00393 be completed and approved before the release of any permits
associated with this variance.
2) The Applicants’ application for a variance from the impervious surface requirements for
the driveway on the Property is hereby denied based on the finding that the Applicants
cannot meet all of the variance criteria set forth in the City Zoning Code, specifically, that
the plight of the Applicants is based on circumstances caused by the Applicants and not
circumstances unique to the Property. Therefore, the Applicants must ensure that the total
amount of impervious surface on the Property does not exceed 15 percent when
constructing the driveway.
Passed and duly adopted this 7 th day of November, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Lake
Elmo, Minnesota.
________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 1
7962 Hill Trail – Variance Application
Written Statements
9/19/2018
a. Current Property Owners:
Thomas and Linda Burns
b. Site Data:
c. Variance from Provisions:
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 2
d. Proposal:
We request the expansion of the 15% impervious surface limit (per 154.800 Un-
sewered Maximum impervious lot coverage) to 18% which will enable us to install
functional / safe to navigate driveways (primary for the "upper" garage and
"secondary" for lower garage). We also request the allowance of the primary
driveway to flare out to 30' at the roadway to allow safe entry from Hill Trail N and
safe backing onto the private driveway (used by us and the 7972 / 7978 / 7982 Hill
Trail addresses) as we leave the property.
e. Pre-application Discussions with Staff:
Interaction with City Staff on this topic was done primarily with Ben Prchal starting
in July 2018. After trading a few emails, we met to review the driveway project at
the city office. Through numerous email exchanges after the initial meeting, we
discussed various options from pervious pavers to other ways to stay below the
impervious limits. Feeling like I had no other reasonable options, I requested
several bids for a "pervious" paver primary driveway. After receiving bids of $40K-
60K for pervious pavers (which is significantly over our budget), we shifted the
conversations to filing for a variance. Ben sent me the variance application packet
and provided help in the completion of the documents.
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 3
f. Practical Difficulties:
Primary ("Upper") Driveway:
Because of the location of the "split" in the roadway between Hill Trail N and the
private driveway that services our property as well as properties 7972 / 7978 /
7982 Hill Trail N, access to our driveway is challenging. In addition to the split,
because Hill Trail is sloped upwards following the elevation of the hill (to the North)
and the private driveway is sloped downward - there is an elevation change at that
point that is too steep to drive over with standard vehicles.
The following two pictures illustrate this issue. The first image shows the elevation
change from the middle of the proposed driveway. The second image shows how
Hill Trail N slopes upward while the private driveway to the neighbors slopes
downward.
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 4
Because of this situation, following is a depiction of how we currently enter the
driveway traveling Northbound on Hill Trail (red car) and how we back out onto the
private driveway to leave the property (blue car). This approach works currently
because the existing red rock (temporary) driveway is wider than the driveway
width drawn on the original survey. Note: The red driveway outline is similar to
the newly proposed driveway and the blue line is the outline from the original
survey (partially covered by the blue car). Because Hill Trail can be busy and it is
difficult to see up the hill when backing up, it is not safe to back directly onto Hill
Trail (plus it would be quite a navigational feat).
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 5
The two main issues with the upper driveway that was drawn on the original survey
is that it's width narrows quickly to only 18' at the lot line and because of the
impervious surface limits, it is too narrow to safely navigate backing onto the
private driveway. As a test, we marked off the footprint of the driveway from the
original survey and tried to back a car out of the right hand garage stall and onto
the private driveway. It was very difficult to crank the wheel for the driveway bend
near the house without nearly hitting the right hand side of the garage door frame
and we usually ended up driving off the edge of the "marked" driveway where it
was reduced to only 18' at the lot line. And this was my wife and I doing these tests
- who utilize the driveway every day. It will be even more of an unsafe struggle for
friends / visitors who would be unfamiliar with the difficult bends in the driveway.
Also, the width of the driveway where it meets the private driveway needs to be
wide enough to allow entry from Hill Trail (red card in the previous picture) making
sure to clear the "split" in the road and also provide a safe way to back onto the
private driveway (blue car in the previous picture). After many trial attempts we
found that 30' will provide enough width to meet both of these requirements.
Interestingly, the originally approved survey had a width of 30' at the street.
Secondary ("Lower") Driveway:
Because of the layout of the original lot, it made the most sense to create a two
level garage with spancrete flooring on the upper level. To access the lower
garage, we currently use a portion of the driveway that existed previously with the
original house (that was demoed and replaced with the current structure). The
lower garage is used for boat / trailer storage and the servicing of our automobiles
/ etc.
The main issue with the lower driveway that was drawn on the original survey is
that because of the impervious size limits – it would be very difficult to back a boat
/ snowmobile trailer into the lower garage without the need to drive off of the
driveway. It would also be difficult to pull a boat / snowmobile trailer out of the
lower garage without driving off of the drawn driveway.
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 6
In addition to the issues with backing up and pulling a trailer, we would also like to
use the lower driveway for guest parking and with the size and layout drawn on the
survey, this would not be possible.
Increasing the size and layout of the lower driveway to the proposed 1427 sq ft
would solve both of these issues and make this a functional driveway.
g. Property Circumstances:
As previously stated, the major reason for the primary driveway size issue is due to
the "split" in the roadway from Hill Trail N to the "local" private driveway. Because
of the building setback requirements, there was no other location for the house on
this lot - which as a result placed the primary driveway right in line with the
roadway split.
h. Neighborhood Character:
Since the upper and lower (temporary) driveways are currently crushed red rock,
installing concrete for the upper and asphalt for the lower driveways will be an
immediate improvement in the aesthetics of this property. And once the "final"
driveways are installed, we will then be able to install the landscaping / trees /
bushes / flowers / beds / etc which will further improve the look and value of the
property.
And in comparison to other "local" neighbors, several have more than 25%
impervious surfaces with the largest being over 33% (see the following pictures).
The average of the 7 neighboring properties that were analyzed was 23% and none
of the studied properties had less than 17.5% impervious surfaces. The three
included properties in this application were granted variances in the years since the
15% ordinance change was approved.
Therefore, we believe that granting an increase of 3% to 18% impervious surfaces
for our property will not negatively impact the essential character of the
neighborhood.
7962 Hill Trail N – Variance Application Page 7