Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-03 PACKET 08.A.COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider: 1. Denying a variance application to allow an in- ground swimming pool and decking six feet from the rear lot line when 15 feet is minimum rear yard setback and to place the in- ground pool and pool decking on drainage /utility easements. 2. Granting a variance reducing the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 10 feet for the proposed in- ground pool and pool decking with the condition that no part can encroach on or over any drainage /utility easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATIO 1. Approve the resolution denying the variance allowing an in- ground pool and decking six feet from the rear lot line and to place the pool and decking on drainage /utility easements. 2. Approve the resolution approving the reduction of the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 10 feet with a condition that no part of the pool can encroach on or over any drainage /utility easement. DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 9/24/12 ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 9/25/12 ® RESOLUTION: Draft - Deny easement encroachment Draft - Approve setback ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Excerpt from 9/24/12 Planning Commission meeting minutes (unapproved) ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS City Ad inistrator ate COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: [ ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: September 25, 2012 RE: Robert Koch Variance Applications — In- Ground Swimming Pool Setback and Encroachment in Easements Proposal Robert Koch, 7595 63rd Street Circle South, has applied for a variance to the following ordin- ance requirements: 1. Reduce the required 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to six feet for the placement of an in- ground swimming pool and pool decking around the pool; and 2. Permit the proposed in- ground pool and pool decking around the pool to encroach four feet into a ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the rear lot line and en- croach ten feet into a 54.84 -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the east property line. 3. Reduce the required 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 10 feet with no encroachment on or over any drainage and /or utility easement. �Uaz 1 � Location Map Advisory Commission Recommendations Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed Robert Koch's variance requests at a public hearing on September 24, 2012. Mr. Koch attended the meeting. There was no other written or oral testi- mony received. Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 2 of 8 At the public hearing, Mr. Koch stated that he believed that the minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures was 10 feet, not 15 feet as referenced in the planning staff report. Mr. Koch explained that the ten -foot minimum rear yard setback was described in the City's Swim- ming Pool handout he obtained from the City. City staff confirmed to the Planning Commission that the City's Zoning Ordinance does require accessory structures within the R -2.5 zoning dis- trict to have a 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback, despite information provided to the contrary. The handout accurately described the prohibition of any accessory structure in drainage and utility easements. Mr. Koch also stated that he believed his proposal to construct a swimming pool within the existing drainage and utility easements on his property would not adversely im- pact any drainage patterns or storage capacity within the adjoining stormwater basin. The Planning Commission expressed concerns with allowing structures within drainage and util- ity easements, particularly for drainage swales that are designated as emergency overflow routes and stormwater basins that manage runoff from a regional drainage perspective. The Commission supported the Public Works and engineering staff's recommendation that the pro- posed swimming pool and pool decking should not encroach in the easements. The Commis- sion did support the idea that the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback could be reduced to 10 feet if there was no encroachment or disturbance to the ground area within the drainage and utility easement. The Planning Commission provided two recommendations for the City Council's consideration Both recommendations are described below: Recommendation No. 1 The Planning Commission's first recommendation is denial of the variances requested by Mr. Kock based on the findings described in the planning staff report. This recommendation passed by 5 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention, and one member not voting. The one abstaining member re- cused himself at the beginning of the Planning Commission discussion because they are a neighboring property owner. The member not voting could not decide. The findings of fact sup- porting the recommended denial to the variances originally proposed by the applicant were incorporated in the attached draft resolution. Recommendation No. 2 Assuming that the in- ground swimming pool and pool decking does not encroach any drainage or utility easement, the Commission believed that the swimming pool will not impact stormwater storage in the basin or adversely affect drainage patterns in this area. The Planning Commis- sion, by an 8 -to -0 vote with one abstention, recommended to the City Council that a variance be granted to reduce the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback requirement to 10 feet and denying a variance that would allow the in- ground swimming pool and pool decking to encroach into and /or over any drainage and utility easement. An excerpt from the Planning Commission's unapproved minutes is attached. • ' =• The property is zoned Residential (R -2.5). In the R -2.5 zoning district, the minimum rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures and swimming pools is 15 feet. City ordinance prohibits structures from being placed on public easements. This parcel has 10 -foot wide Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 3 of 8 drainage and utility easements platted along the north and south property boundary lines, a 5- foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west property boundary line, and a 54.84 -wide drainage and utility easement along the east property boundary line. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provi- sion of this title, if they find that: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. 7. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or inju- rious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja- cent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or in- crease the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Planning Considerations Property Characteristics The house was constructed in 2007. The lot is at the end of a cul -de -sac and has about 140 feet fronting 63rd Street Circle. Drainage and utility easements exist along all four sides of the lot. Drainage and utility easements ten feet in width are platted along the north, south, and west property boundary lines. A 54.84 -wide drainage and utility easement exists along the east side of the property. All the easements existed and the drainage swales were graded before the con- struction of the house on this lot. An aerial photograph of the property with the proposed in- ground swimming pool depicted is shown below. hiT�rCPw y f F M. 631d Sheet Clr. Q € to A0 A 3 © J .-Illy %N fro o �x� 1 roLw.wna woL ' j 2009 Aerial Photograph w L: FEfRt VG IUYL i :.�✓ . vI FRDFDSED1l c FT Fi RF FWRF00T WAE DECK - AROUNDi PODL Close -up Aerial Photo of Subject Property Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 4 of 8 A copy of the as -built survey for this parcel showing the location of the existing house and re- taining wall is attached as Exhibit A. Proposed In- Ground Swimming Pool The proposed 17 -foot by 34 -foot in- ground swimming pool will have a four -foot wide pool deck around its perimeter. The swimming pool and decking will encroach ten feet into the drainage and utility easement on the east side of the property and four feet into the ten -foot drainage and utility easement along the rear lot line. The edge of the pool decking is proposed to be six feet from the rear lot line. City ordinance requires a 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback. Below is the applicant's preliminary sketch plan showing the proposed location of their in- ground swimming pool: Site Plan Topographically, the house pad is the highest point on the property. There is a gradual slope away from the house foundation. A relatively deep drainage swale exists between the retaining wall east of the house and the east property boundary line. This drainage swale is an emer- gency overflow route between the stormwater basin located north of 63rd Street and the storm - water basin located south of the applicant's property. If proposed in- ground swimming pool is placed within the drainage and utility easement, it could be susceptible to stormwater damage if the stormwater basin south of the applicant's property was full of water. The stormwater elevation within this basin has been very low since its con- struction in 2006. This basin is part of a regional stormwater management system that provides stormwater storage from other developments west, north, and east of this site. As additional de- velopment occurs within this sub - drainage, more stormwater will discharge into this basin. Utilities The property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and all City urban services are available in this area. Utility companies were notified of this application and have not sub- mitted any comments. There is a city stormwater pipe connecting the stormwater basin north of 63rd Street Circle to the stormwater basin on the south side of the street. This pipe is located between Lots 2 and 3 Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 5 of 8 and between Lots 6 and 7, Block 5. The emergency overflow route from the north basin to the south basin is along the east side of Lots 4 and 5, Block 5 of Silverwood Addition. The appli- cant's property is on Lot 5, Block 5. Public Works Department staff and the City Engineer have reviewed this variance application and do not support the applicant's request to place the in- ground swimming pool in the easements. The platted easements are highlighted in yellow on the subdivision plan shown below. The red square is the approximate location of the proposed in- ground swimming pool. Plat Map Showing Existing Easements Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 6 of 8 The red flags delineate the west edge of the 54.84 -foot drainage and utility easement. View from Applicant's Back Yard Along the East Property Line Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 7 of 8 City Department Comments and Recommendations The Public Works Department and Engineering staff recommend that the proposed pool and related ancillary structures and equipment not be located within any drainage and utility ease- ment. The grading plans for the Silverwood Addition and neighboring Pinecliff Addition were based on a stormwater management design that provided regional ponding within the two ex- isting basins. Both basins were designed to provide stormwater storage capacity for a major storm event. The drainage and utility easements dedicated on the subdivision plats were deemed necessary in preserving the integrity of the stormwater management system and to in- sure no structures would potentially be damaged during high water levels. These easements and emergency overflow routes were created before any lot was purchased and homes con- structed. Placement of the proposed pool and decking within the easements would negatively impact the design and function of the easements. The City's Technical Review Committee be- lieves the proposed in- ground pool could be placed in the rear yard without encroaching on any easement. Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices were mailed to 153 property owners who are within 500 feet of 7595 63rd Street Circle. These notices were mailed on September 12, 2012. The location map shows the 500 -foot buffer around the site. The public hearing notice was also published in the South Washington County Bulletin on September 12, 2012. View from Applicant's Deck Toward the Stormwater Basin Honorable Mayor Bailey, City Council Members, and Ryan Schroeder Koch Variances — In- ground Pool Setback and Easement Encroachment September 25, 2012 Page 8 of 8 That the City Council accepts the Planning Commission's recommendations and adopts a resolu- tion for the following: Denying Robert Koch's variance application to construct an in- ground swimming pool and pool decking to be six feet from the rear lot line when City ordinance requires a 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback and to place the in- ground pool and pool decking upon drainage and utility easements. The reasons for denial are based on the facts described in the plan- ning staff report and incorporated in the attached draft resolution. Approval of this resolution is denial of the variances described above. 2. Granting a variance reducing the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 10 feet for the pro- posed in- ground pool and pool decking and denying the in- ground swimming pool and pool decking to encroach on or over any drainage and utility easement. A draft resolution for each variance scenario described above and as recommended by the Planning Commission is attached for your consideration. engineering Coon Ra Ids Office S1uv1et5 Heighm UfGce P 2422 EtlwPtis' De NC cmLENC1N6RUS cnNNIanNNrx+ 1.wo nruvEYnns LANDSCAPAAWCTnT 201851h A-PIM N.W. Mendota lkights, MN 55120 Coon Rapids, MIN 55433 (651)6811914 F- 6819468 Mendota Heights Office (76317831884) FR0831883 Certificate of Survey tor: K. HOVNANIAN HOMES 7595 63RD STREET CIRCLE SOUTH. COTTAGE GROVE, IAN MOO =L: GERSHWN ELEVATION:C FT LOT AREA HOUSt AREA �2.850 FT REVISED 6/28/07 GRADING AS -BUILT 913.} A 915.6 923 4 x 92x4 } x923.1 t S88'S9'17 "E 80.05 63RD STREET CIRCLE SOUTH }} 133 92 1 3 qzo Co � 914.8 r`T 916.2, ,, �4Z> ` hh x9229 1 /� +� IZ) 923" NO f Q p O,S33.2 �q 923.5 v Yr t; J 923.5 ' 7 V� x922.1 9214 Y sa'3'B 923.1 923.1 923.2 _ � / \% 4]. "x 92a/ 422,*f 921.2 914.3 x 9152 \, 923.7 �- .924.3, _ l� sz44 - N r ^ 1 424 9.. - .924.9 922.2 9-0. 9Ox 9 914.6 / L 6RIVEV{AY .. 920.0 1 O f4�5 x925.6 x' .3... q U 925.6 92� 7 ___. POTCh a _925.8 - � 925 / 922_4 ' + z j t szfi. 36 0. 0 4 2 O _ y19.6 70.7 - gxa 9230 / �� GA /RACE X925.} , 9226 9193 1 yj .EXISTWG HOUSC r� 13.0 921. 913.3 x 'rM / ' % 919.2 • 9127 917.6 (' / /'J1.0 #9177 �m 912B K. 917.4 , 91].B 917.6 xi V917.3 0 9178 t x . Z 916.8 I' 1 j x917.1 91 G.49 41G. x�I %917.0 �1q 912.2 V) x 917.2 M F x9;6.5 5 F � , 6E ` Fc. 4 915.7 1 x 916.0 911.6 L T .,,, _ _ _ _ X 9:5.6 915.1_ J I 911.8 x �- 1 'X91 .0 4' 4.5 x 914.3 O 5 64 _ \ -� 914 3 913 9123 - HWL - --- - 911.1 DRAINAGE AND'[JnL.TY r F.ASFMENT PER PLAT X912.0 x912.0 x911.9 X911.% X9119 x98.9 1 S88'55'41 "E 144.84 POND 2 I , NVA_=910.0 HWL =913.2 rYl n'I n- n 101B ADD UNILT< TCDGL AS REOUIRED Vll I E. HOUSE ELEVATION PROP05 E,XIS TANG LOWLS1 FLOOR ELEVATION: 918.5 918.6 NOTE HNUPOSEV WIWES SHOWN PER GRACING PLAN BY: JAMCS HILL NOTE BUiLOING D94ENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTKAL LOCATION TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV.: 926.5 926.5 Of STRUCTURES ONLY, SEE 0CMTECTURAa PLANS FOR BULDR40 AND roUr40AnaN D9.+o4s10F4s. GARAGE SLAB ELEV. ®DOOR= 525.7 925.8 ATE: NO "ECIFIC S02S INVLSPGAnON HAS BEEN COL'PLETEO ON THIS LOT 81 THE SURVEYOR, THE SNTABIUTY OF SDfiS TO SUPPONI THE 5F£CIFIO HOUSE PROPOSED IS NO' THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SURVEYOR. K GOD.00 DCNOTCS Cln5T94C ELEVanON N-ITE THIS CERMCATE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EASEMENTS OTHER THAN ( 000.00) DENOTES P EPOSED ELEVATION TH.O%' SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. = DENOTES DRA94ACC ANO UntITY CASEUD4T NOTC. CONTRACTOR OUST VERIFY DPIVFWAY DESIGN 3ENUTES DRAWAGE FLOW DIRECTION -�- 9ENOtES SPIKE NOTE 3EARNCS SHOWY ARC OASES ON AN ASSUMED OATUN FO _ 00 - W 1 DENOTES ELEVATION ON RECE IVE V!(' NCRL CERTIFY TO K. HO \NANIAN HOMES THAT TIES IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A AUG F7 L ry L �� SURVEY OF THE SCUNDARIES CF. LOT 5, BLOCK 5, SILVERWOOD WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY OF COTTAGE G IT DOES 140T PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMCNTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRE[" SUPERVISION THIS b1H DAY OF OFCEGBER, 2006. SIGNED:' PIONEER ENGINEERING, P.A, - r SCALL ' INCII = 30 FEET -°- '906� 106096007 M71Vx3 " -L. .x -- - --- JOh- C. Lorson License o. WHEREAS, Robert Koch applied for variances to City Code Title 11- 3 -3(C), Setbacks, and Title 11- 3 -4(E), Encroachments Over Easements, to reduce the 15 -foot minimum rear lot line setback for accessory structures to six feet and to allow the in- ground swimming pool and the four -foot wide pool decking along the pool sides to be placed on existing drainage and utility easements. The property is legally described as: Lot 5, Block 5, Silverwood 1st Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. Commonly known as 7595 63rd Street Circle South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the variance application request, was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and no one spoke for or against the application. The applicant was present at the meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance criteria and findings of facts established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance; and WHEREAS, Planning staff recommended denial of the variance application to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention, and 1 member not voting, recommended to the City Council that the variance to allow the pool and decking to encroach into the drainage /utility easements be denied; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby denies the variances from City Code Title 11- 3 -3(C), Setbacks, and Title 11- 3 -4(E), Encroachments Over Easements. Denial of these variances is based upon the following findings of fact: Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 2 of 2 A. The property currently has a reasonable use and constructing a swimming pool in the rear yard can still be accomplished without encroaching on any drainage and utility easement. Fencing around the pool will be allowed in the drainage and utility easements. The City is not responsible for any damage to the fence caused by high stormwater levels. B. Placement of a swimming pool or other structures within this drainage and utility easement designated as an emergency overflow route for stormwater drainage and adjoining a stormwater basin with a 913.2 -foot high water elevation may cause the stormwater storage capacity of this basin to be reduced, thus potentially increasing the high water elevation for this basin. C. Granting the variance might be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. D. The Silverwood Addition plat was recorded on March 17, 2006, at the Washington County Recorder's office. The emergency overflow swale along the east side of the property and the stormwater basin south of the subject property were graded with the site grading for the entire subdivision and before any public improvements (e.g. water, sanitary sewer, streets, etc.) were constructed. The building permit for this property was issued on December 22, 2006, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on June 20, 2007. The drainage and utility easements, emergency overflow route, and stormwater basin existed before the applicant purchased the property. E. Denial of this variance application is to preserve the stormwater storage capacity and the future integrity of managing this regional stormwater system. F. The Public Works Department and engineering staff recommended that the proposed in- ground swimming pool not encroach into any drainage and utility easement for this property in order to maintain the functionality of this stormwater management system. Passed this 3rd day of October, 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk - - A NY 'HIM I � WHEREAS, Robert Koch applied for variances to City Code Title 11- 3 -3(C), Setbacks, and Title 11- 3 -4(E), Encroachments Over Easements, to reduce the 15 -foot minimum rear lot line setback for accessory structures to six feet and to allow the in- ground swimming pool and the four -foot wide pool decking along the pool sides to be placed on existing drainage and utility easements. The property is legally described as: Lot 5, Block 5, Silverwood 1st Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. Commonly known as 7595 63rd Street Circle South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the variance application request, was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and no one spoke for or against the application. The applicant was present at the meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance criteria and findings of facts established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance; and WHEREAS, Planning staff recommended denial of the variance application that proposed to place an in- ground swimming pool with four -foot wide pool decking along the sides of the swimming pool to be six feet from the rear property line and encroaching four feet onto the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the rear lot line and encroach ten feet into the 54.84 -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the east property line. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstention, and 1 member not voting, recommended to the City Council that the variance to allow the pool and decking to encroach into the drainage /utility easements be denied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend to the City Council a reduction to the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures to 10 feet for this property with the condition that the in- ground swimming pool and pool decking does not encroach on or over any drainage and utility easement. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a variance from City Code Title 11- 3 -3(C), Setbacks, to reduce the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback from the rear property line to 10 Resolution No. 2012 -XXX Page 2 of 2 feet and denying a variance to Title 11- 3 -4(E), Encroachments Over Easements. Approval of the accessory structure rear yard setback is based upon the following findings of fact: A. The 913.2 high water elevation in the stormwater basin south of the applicant's property is contained within existing drainage and utility easements. B. The stormwater basin south of the applicant's property is public open space that will not be developed for the construction of any dwellings. C. The construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard can still be accomplished without encroaching on any drainage and utility easement. Fencing around the pool will be allowed in the drainage and utility easements. The City is not responsible for any damage to the fence caused by high stormwater levels. D. Granting a variance to reduce the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 10 feet for the proposed in- ground swimming pool will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. E. Constructing an in- ground swimming pool that is ten feet from the rear lot line will not cause any adverse impact to the stormwater storage capacity designed for this existing stormwater basin or jeopardize the future integrity of managing this regional stormwater system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota hereby grants a variance to Title 11- 3 -3(C), Setbacks for purposes of reducing the 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback from the rear property line to 10- feetis subject to the following conditions: The property owner must complete a building permit application and submit detailed construction plans for the proposed in- ground swimming pool. A building permit must be issued by the City before construction starts. 2. No part of the in- ground pool, pool decking, foundation, or filter pump unit encroaches on or over any drainage or utility easement. 3. Fill material necessary for the in- ground swimming pool and pool decking is prohibited within any drainage and utility easement. Passed this 3rd day of October, 2012. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk ■ , • M-11 L O UILTim Robert Koch has applied for a variance to setback requirements for in- ground pools to allow a swimming pool to be six feet from the rear property line when ten feet is the minimum and to allow the pool decking to encroach four feet into the south drainage/ utility easement and ten feet into the east drainage /utility easement at 7595 63rd Street Circle South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Robert Koch, 7595 63rd Street Circle South, asked about the 15 -foot setback from the rear property line, stating that it was his understanding that it was 10 feet. McCool responded that the easement is 10 feet wide; the setback in the R -2.5 zoning district is 15 feet. Koch noted that the pool handout references 10 feet from the rear lot line. McCool explained that there are different setbacks for different zoning districts. Koch stated the reason they feel a four - foot setback from the rear property line is appropriate is because there are no neighboring yards behind his property. He also noted they have never seen water get more than a third of the way up in the overflow pond area, even during heavy rains. They want to use more of their yard and try to get the pool as far from the deck as they can. Koch stated that the easement line on his application is wrong, so instead of encroaching 10 feet into the east easement, they would only need about six feet. McCool stated that the City Code for swimming pools, surrounding aprons, and decks must meet the established accessory structure setbacks for the appropriate districts. The ordin- ance requirement for accessory structure setbacks for property zoned R -2.5 is 15 feet. Koch noted that the handout was inaccurate. McCool stated that staff would correct it. Koch reiterated that he is asking for variances to both the rear and side setbacks to allow the pool into the easements, noting that there is sand under the overflow pond and drainage easement. Reese stated that he is a nearby property owner and recused himself from the discussion and vote on this application. Harter asked when Koch received the handout. Koch responded that the pool contractor picked it up a month ago. Harter stated that his understanding is that as construction contin- ues to occur, there becomes a significantly higher risk for damage to the pool structure. He asked if the risk that would be borne by only this property owner or will other property owners be affected by the construction of the pool. McCool responded that displacement of the storage capacity of the basin due to filling in around the base of the swimming pool, capacity will be lost and the water has to go someplace else, which would be to other properties. Harter asked if the concern is only for this one specific instance or for setting a precedent for granting other variances in the area. McCool responded that staff is concerned about this application. The pond and stormwater system have been designed with a certain flow and storage capacity. Staff acknowledges that there is very little water in the stormwater basins Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Koch Pool Variance — Case V2012 -026 September 24, 2012 Page 2 of 4 but it could fill up and cause an overflow issue. Koch stated that they are not going to level that area off; they are replacing dirt with a structure. There may be a one -foot wall on that side to get it level. Heurung asked if the dimensions include the deck around the pool and if it is concrete. Koch responded yes. Wehrle asked where is the high water mark. McCool stated that high water elevation is in the stormwater basin and the overflow drainage swale is along the tree line. He explained that water would fill in the drainage swale and once that fills up to the high water elevation, it will go into the drainage utility easement on the property. Pearson asked if Koch talked to the pool contractor about concerns if the drainage area fills up with water. Koch responded that they will put a solid concrete wall on that side. He stated that he has never seen water in there and is comfortable taking that risk. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Heurung asked how much the concrete apron would change the elevation of the existing ground. Koch responded about one to two feet higher. Heurung asked about the normal water level in the pond and how far it is below the yard. McCool displayed the as -built survey of the property, which shows the high water elevation. He explained that the platting and grading for the development took place and the easements determined before any homes were built in this subdivision. Within the area of the south basin, the normal water elevation is 910.0 and the high water elevation is 913.2. The high water elevation does encroach onto this property. The back of the house is at an elevation of 918.6. Heurung asked how the ca- pacity of the drainage pond would be affected by the pool and decking and if stormwater could end up in the pool. McCool responded that based on the proposed location of the pool and the design of the stormwater basins in this area, in the event of a 100 -year flood the pool area would be flooded. City staff does not feel storage capacity of the basin should be jeopardized. Heurung stated that this could be an insurance issue. Pearson asked if there is room elsewhere on the property for the pool. Koch responded yes, but ideally wants to tuck it back. He stated that if the pool could be located 10 feet from the property line instead of 15 feet, it would not encroach on any easements. Pearson stated he is concerned about the concrete buckling over time. He is also concerned about granting a variance when there are other options available on the property that would not encroach on any easements and about setting a precedent. Koch stated that with the 15 -foot setback, the pool size will need to be reduced. Brittain expressed confidence in the City's engineering department's plans for these storm- water basins and their recommendation on whether or not something can encroach on easements. He suggested discussing allowing the pool and decking to be setback 10 feet in- stead of the required 15 feet if it does not encroach on easements. Rostad agreed with Brittain. Rostad stated he more concerned about encroaching on the drainage easement than the rear yard setback. Koch stated that when they bought the house, they were told that there Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Koch Pool Variance — Case V2012 -026 September 24, 2012 Page 3 of 4 was a pond. They were also informed by city officials that the pond would never fill, which is why he believes it is safe to encroach on the easement. McCool stated that staff did discuss with the applicant the need for storage capacity in the pond prior to his application being submitted. Harter asked if the flow of the water is the biggest concern. McCool responded not just flow but storage. Harter asked if there was anything that could be done during the construction of the pool to ease those concerns, such as grading or digging another area a little deeper. McCool responded possibly, but those details would have to be submitted for review. Peterson asked for clarification on how recent the pool handout is. Koch responded he re- ceived the same handout four years ago and a month ago. Peterson asked if something changed since that was printed or is it just a mistake. Burbank explained that the handout summarizes the zoning code. The pool handout was not updated after the R -2.5 zoning dis- trict was established. This is just an instance where an informational handout was not up- dated, but the zoning ordinance shows the correct setback. McCool added that the handout does state pools are not allowed in easements. Brittain made a motion to deny the pool variance based on the findings of fact listed below. Wehrle seconded the motion. A. The property currently has a reasonable use and constructing a swimming pool in the rear yard can still be accomplished without encroaching on any drainage and utility easement. Fencing around the pool will be allowed in the drainage and utility easements. The City is not responsible for any damage to the fence caused by high stormwater levels. B. Placement of a swimming pool or other structures within this drainage and utility easement designated as an emergency overflow route for stormwater drainage and adjoining a stormwater basin with a 913.2 -foot high water elevation may cause the stormwater storage capacity of this basin to be reduced, thus potentially in- creasing the high water elevation for this basin. C. Granting the variance might be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. D. The Silverwood Addition plat was recorded on March 17, 2006, at the Washington County Recorder's office. The emergency overflow Swale along the east side of the property and the stormwater basin south of the subject property were graded with the site grading for the entire subdivision and before any public improvements (e.g. water, sanitary sewer, streets, etc.) were constructed. The building permit for this property was issued on December 22, 2006, and the Certificate of Occupancy was issued on June 20, 2007. The drainage and utility easements, emergency over- flow route, and stormwater basin existed before the applicant purchased the property. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Koch Pool Variance — Case V2012 -026 September 24, 2012 Page 4 of 4 E. Denial of this variance application is to preserve the stormwater storage capacity and the future integrity of managing this regional stormwater system. F. The Public Works Department and engineering staff recommended that the pro- posed in- ground swimming pool not encroach into any drainage and utility ease- ment for this property in order to maintain the functionality of this stormwater management system. Motion passed on a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays (Ventura, Heurung), 1 abstention (Reese), and 1 not voting (Harter). Ventura agrees that the easement on the east side of the property is an issue. The misinfor- mation about the setback requirement between the 10 and 15 feet is something that should be re- examined if the applicant so chooses. Heurung agreed with Ventura that the applicant was basing his plans on misinformation. He also does not understand how this would have much of an effect. He agrees that there is a precedent setting issue here. Harter explained that he did not vote because he was undecided. Koch asked if he could request at the City Council meeting that a variance be granted so the pool could be 10 feet from the rear property line but not be in any easement. McCool stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to reduce the 15 -foot setback to 10 feet but that the pool could not encroach into any easement. Brittain stated that without feedback from the City Engineer on the water storage displace- ment, he would be uncomfortable supporting that. McCool explained that there is only a 10- foot easement along the rear property line and the high water elevation is in the 10 -foot easement. Rostad stated that Koch is suggesting moving the pool within his property where there is no easement. Brittain asked if that would not impact water flow or storage. McCool responded correct because water storage will be in the easement area. Burbank stated that since this request is less than the application that was advertised, the Commission could act on it without having to republish the hearing notice. Brittain stated that he would be comfort- able supporting the amended request as long as the pool and decking is not within any easements. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow the pool and decking to be setback 10 feet from the rear property line when 15 feet is the minimum without any encroachments in any drainage and utility easements. Harter seconded. Motion passed on an 8 -to -0 vote with 1 abstention (Reese).