Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-22 PACKET 06.1.STAFF REPORT CASE: V2014 -026 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 9/22/14 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 10/1/14 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Anthony Rudh REQUEST: Variances to allow an in- ground pool to be setback 39 feet from the bluff line when 100 feet is required and to allow an existing septic system to be 19 feet from the bluff line when 150 feet is required. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE: 8217 113th Street South R -4, Low Density Residential Transition Planning Area LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: CURRENT GUIDED NORTH: Residential Transition Planning Area EAST: Residential Transition Planning Area SOUTH: Residential Transition Planning Area WEST: Residential Transition Planning Area SIZE: N/A DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION Approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Cottage COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION � Grove her pdae ...,,,Peaty Meet Planning Staff Contact: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner, 651 - 458 -2874, iburbank(o)cottage- g rove. org Application Accepted: 8/15/14 60 -Day Review Deadline: 10/13/14 City of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Planning Staff Report Rudh Pool and Septic Setback Variance Case V14 -026 September 22, 2014 Proposal Anthony Rudh has made application for variances to allow an in- ground pool to be setback 39 feet from the bluff line when 100 feet is required and to allow an existing septic system to be 19 feet from the bluff line when 150 feet is required at 8217 113th Street South. (n V N ° O CO 8170 °m m m m ° o ell °� m i' 11301 _ aoi m a ton CO m m 1 711 ST CT s 113TH ST 5 11325 � O O ko T N_N ( CD m N pq M U0 !{( m O N N N N W W CO O O O O CO O O OD O O p m to fO O ^ N 1O °' ° 11343 115TH ST S - -= - -- RIVERACRE5 RD 8401 ;.. RIVERACRE RD 8222 8232 Qp]] Ill W + >.: •.'::-''y..: w,... =i_: ° o W OD WERACRE rn N 1 p OD ch 00 CD ,.., : .. r:i'. .L1:if ".:!+.:aYi)4Y:: j:P. .if. .'l:::�Y.+ ril ,`�, Background The property lies within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as well as the Critical Area. This national overlay designation currently relies on the established criteria for the Critical Area as a policy compliance tool. As required by ordinance, the application materials were forwarded for review and comment to the Minnesota DNR. The DNR is currently the desig- nated regional regulatory reviewing authority. The comments from the DNR are attached as Exhibit A. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -026 Rudh September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 6 Property Characteristics The applicant owns two adjacent lots that are south of 113th Street and north of the Burlington Northern railway. The house is located on the northern lot. The southern lot contains steep slopes that are part of the River Valley Terrace. The established bluff line, which is identified in red below, crosses the site near the common property line between the two lots. These lots were created prior to the establishment of the Critical Area Ordinance and many of the homes that were subsequently built there are within the required setback area. Planning Considerations Bluffline Setback Variance In relationship to the actual 100 -foot bluffline setback established in the ordinance criteria, the house and existing deck are built approximately 84 feet from the bluffline. The proposed pool, if constructed, would be 39 feet from the bluffline versus the required 100 feet. The findings section of the Critical Area ordinance states, 'The prevention and mitigation of irre- versible damage to this resource and the preservation and enhancement of its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historic values is in the furtherance of the health, safety, and general welfare of the Planning Staff Report Case V14 -026 Rudh September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 6 City." The setbacks and other criteria established for this overlay were created in order to ensure that this decree is followed. Steep bluffs and ridges in the district are susceptible to erosion and are usually vegetated with significant natural communities. The Natural Resource Inventory com- pleted for the City does not identify any significant natural communities in this location. During the review, the City's Technical Review Committee voiced concern about routine pool drainage caus- ing erosion problems if it were to be directed over the edge of the bluff. A recommended condition of would be to prohibit this action. Septic System Variance The applicant is also requesting a setback variance from the bluff line for an existing septic system. The septic system is 19 feet from the bluffline. Contrary to existing ordinance criteria, the septic system location was approved in 1998 by the Washington County Health Department and was subsequently installed according to that approval. When the septic was installed, the review and approval of septic systems had been recently transferred from Cottage Grove to the County. This disconnect from the zoning review process seems to be inadvertently neglected during that transition period. Based on the circumstances of the septic installation, staff recommended that the property owner make application for the septic variance to avoid any future title issues. Ordinance Criteria Title 11 -2 -7: Variances Sections A and D states that: A. Authority And Purpose: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regu- lations of this title. D. Consideration By Planning Commission; Recommendation: Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission, and for its recommendation to the city council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this title so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this title and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recom- mend such conditions related to the variance, regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recommendation within sixty (60) days after the request is referred to it, unless the applicant requests, in writing, that an extension of time for review be granted by the planning commission. The planning commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision 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. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -026 Rudh September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 6 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 injurious 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 adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Additionally, Title 11- 15 -13(2) states that: When considering a proposal for a variance or other applications within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Planning Commission and City Council shall address the following items in making their decision: a. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. b. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. c. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. d. The location of the site with respect to floodways, flood plains, slopes and bluff lines. e. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vege- tative cover. f. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. g. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. h. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. i. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. j. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land." The applicant's response to the ordinance criteria is attached as Exhibit B. Public Hearing Notice The public hearing notice was mailed to 25 properties within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the South Washington County Bulletin on September 10, 2014, Summary • The ordinance allows pools as an accessory structure subject to certain safety requirements. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -026 Rudh September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 6 • Similarly situated pools in the subject property's neighborhood have not shown to be detrimental to the established bluffline. • Existing erosion control measures during construction are more stringent than the adoption of the Critical Area Rules. • An approval would include additional conditions to protect the bluffline Recommendation The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council grant approval of the vari- ances to allow an in- ground pool to be setback 39 feet from the bluff line when 100 feet is re- quired and to allow an existing septic system to be 19 feet from the bluff line when 150 feet is required at 8217 113th Street South, based on the following findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval: Findings of Fact — Septic System Setback Variance: A. Contrary to existing ordinance criteria, the septic system was approved in 1998 by the Washington County Health Department and was subsequently installed according to that approval. B. When the septic was installed, the review and approval of septic systems had been recently transferred from Cottage Grove to the County, and this disconnect from the zoning review process seems to have been inadvertently neglected during that transition period. C. There are no significant natural communities in this location. Findings of Fact — Pool Setback Variance: A. The required grading and erosion control measures are much more stringent than when the Critical Area ordinance was adopted, allowing for the pool to be constructed without negative impacts to the bluffline. B. The pool is a below design grade and will not cause any detrimental views of or from the river. C. Other pools are similarly constructed in the neighborhood and have not shown to be detrimental to the established bluffline. D. There are no significant natural communities in this location. Conditions of Approval: 1. A building permit application must be submitted for the pool. 2. A state electrical permit must be obtained for the pool. 3. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved by the City. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -026 Rudh September 22, 2014 Page 6 of 6 4. The approved erosion control measures shall be completed prior to scheduling the first building inspection. 5. Excess earthen material resulting from the construction of the pool shall not be depos- ited over the bluff or adjacent steep slope. 6. Drainage of the pool shall be diverted so as to prevent direct outfall of runoff over the bluff. 7. The pool safety requirements found in City Code Title 9 -11 -4 shall be followed. 8. If any archeological items are unearthed during the pool construction process, construc- tion activities must be halted and the City must be contacted. Prepared by John M. Burbank, AICP Senior Planner Attachments Exhibit A= DNR Response Exhibit B = Applicants response to the ordinance criteria From: Sorensen, Jenifer (DNR) [mailto.jenifer.sorensen @state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:00 PM To: Kathy Dennis Cc: Shodeen, Molly (DNR) Subject: RE: Variance Applications at 8217113th Street South Kathy— Molly Shodeen and I have discussed the variance application for 8217 113 Street South, Cottage Grove. The applicant has not provided enough information to justify their request. s' In order to show practical difficulty, the applicant must demonstrate why the in- ground pool cannot be placed in a portion of the lot that would meet setbacks. Please have the applicant justify why the pool cannot be placed in a different part of the lot that meets setback requirements. The pool orientation, as shown on the plan, unnecessarily increases the setback encroachment. By rotating the pool orientation 90 degrees, the setback encroachment for the pool at this location could be reduced by about 20 feet. Please have the applicant justify why this unnecessary encroachment is required. The pool is considered an impervious surface. Will the applicant be required to mitigate (such as with a rain garden) the increase in impervious surface? Also, please have the applicant explain in their application why the after - the -fact variance is required for the septic system. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input. Jenifer Sorensen Jenifer Sorensen, PE, PhD Metro Area Hydrologist MN DNR — Division of Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Rd; St Paul, MN 55106 (651) 259 -5754 a enifer.sorensen @ state.mn.us Cottage Community Development Department Planning Division (roe 12800 Ravine Parkway South Telephone: 651- 458 -2827 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Fax: 651 -458 -2897 cvww.coltaoe- grove.ora E -Mail: plannmg(ucottage -q rove o VARIANCE APPLICATION — RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA The Planning Commission and City Council may recommend a variance from the strict application of the zoning ordinance, if they find that your application meets the findings below. Please provide a DETAILED response to all of the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. Please circle: es No 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please circle: Yes No 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. Please ex lain, Aa „ 9reu✓t6 Poo1 f.� a r 61M40k., 0e /)D way .fedpal -drlmJ f/ JtYri o6Ze�tt Z of the ZD41hg ►' ✓lhfitD� . 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. Please identify these circumstances. �4ucbitwervt . y,45 Ccr^G UYI lT,,c 61 d c ✓rte 5. 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 classifications. Please list the conditions that are unique. 5�z 44 tVVl -At 6. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Please circle: Yes No 7. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare i unous to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Please circle: Ye No 8. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Please identify any potential impact the requested variance may have. E_ -1 ] GROVE /VO eZ7NpC,�- 5 2 TAGE Economic hardship is not regarded by the Courts as a reason for approval. Neighborhood support or opposition, without any basis of facts, is not regarded by the Courts as reason for either approval or denial. Applicant Name: A9 Tkna 1 ? 4A Case #: V.�'()/ ` o'''( FcF GEIV D G 1 5 2014 Property Owner: Anthony P Rudh COTTAGE GROVE Property Address: 817 113th St. S. Property ID Number: 33.027.21.23.0009 Property Legal Description: House's Island View Lot 9 & Lot 10 BEING w 50' Reason for Application: 1) Property owner is requesting a variance for proposed location of an in ground pool The property is located in Zone R4 which is part of the Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District Zoning Regulation. The specific Development Standard that drives the variance request is: C. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback From Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100) landward from the bluff line of the river. The proposed pool would be located closer than 1 00' to the "bluff line" as shown in the attached drawing (attachment 1). In the property owner's opinion, building the pool in proposed location in no way jeopardizes the stated objectives of the Development Standard and therefore a variance should be granted. A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on -site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. Building a in- ground pool will in no way impact the aesthetic integrity, natural environment, erosion to bluffs, flood damage or pollution of the bluff line. Also, there are no alternative locations on the property for the pool that would meet both Washington County septic system and City of Cottage Grove set back requirements. B. Variances: 1. Variances from strict compliance with the setback, lot size, height restriction or line of site requirements contained in this Chapter may be issued by the City Council following a procedure as required by Section 11 -2 -7 of this Title. Variances shall only be granted where there are particular hardships which make the strict enforcement of this Chapter impractical. "Hardship" means the proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by this Chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his /her property, not created by the landowner after April 25, 1975, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship for the reasonable use of the property and associated structures. In addition, no variance shall be granted that would permit any use that is prohibited in the Critical Area River Corridor. 2. When considering a proposal for a variance or other applications within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Planning Commission and City Council shall address the following items in making their decision: a. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. No Impact b. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. No Impact c. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. No Impact d. The location of the site with respect to floodways, flood plains, slopes and bluff lines. No Impact e. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. No Impact. In fact, the City of Cottage Grove recently installed a storm water drain that collects run -off from 8251 113 St S and directs it onto my property near the bluff line indicating that erosion potential is not a concern at this location. f. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. No Impact g. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. No Impact h. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. No Impact The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. No Impact j. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. No Impact 2) Property owner is requesting a variance for the existing septic system due to unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner During the City of Cottage Grove permitting process for the in- ground pool, the property owner was advised that the existing septic system drain field does not meet the bluff line set back requirements. Property owner had the septic system installed in 1998 with all proper permits from Washington County. The septic system design and location was developed by the PCA Certified Professional that Washington County recommended. The design and location plans were reviewed and approved by Washington County Health, Environment and Land Management division and found to meet all setback requirements for "property boundaries, rights of way, easements, wetlands" (attachment 2). The county inspector was on site during construction and approved the location prior to backfilling. Because the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County have offered different interpretations setback requirements for the septic system, I am asking for a variance from the City of Cottage Grove to protect myself in the event I sell the property in the future.