The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-09-22 PACKET 06.4.Planning Staff Report Nadarliyska Driveway Setback Variance Case V2014 -030 September 22, 2014 Proposal Ivaylo and Iveta Nadarliyska applied for a variance to the minimum driveway setback and the maximum driveway width requirements to allow the driveway at 7230 Jonathan Avenue South to be on a side yard drainage and utility easement and to be one foot from the property line instead of the required six feet and to be 31 feet wide versus the required 28 feet. 70TH ST C.S .22 - -- - ........... i 7064 o ° o o S 7001 \ gg20 $ Q �$ m 7009 �, O� ,D � � �- `�i a+ 'o ° n t°� `� 7033 1 cr 8 ."� 7007 -� 71STSTS m� 7015 10 m r 70237112 111 m t rev ^'gy ^ py 10 7042 7065 7124 7125 7126 7121 Z n 1 h 7137 `• 15 �'pQ� ^,� ^ ^o 7084 7107 7136 7147 7150 7749 '7� �\` 7146 7129 7152 �F S -� 6 7178 7167 7166 7161 S X83 73 y1t4 q 4/ �T �r�. 07190 N 7181 7188 71 7183 7198 '7- �^ ,\'� 1T9y- 098 71 Q 7201 7202 7191 71 7199 ry Tl9l 0 72ND STS zz 72 5 7210 7203 'ai 'o� e� m �,° b 7205 7208 Q 7217 7219 a 7217 7218 z 7241 N ° g l 0 2� STroS z � d 7229 7252 7229 7 30 N 9 7266 7243 7264 7329 p N AV >2 7246 >7307 7222. 1'Y ry gh�w � 7 7 3 .- -�7321 7347 7409 7442 v 7423 739'6' 40 �+_ 7342 7 34'g" �� __m 7358 7355 0 ° v u n 7419 7460 w v� S rn° 9634 73 7359 979 F 7364 W 7369 INDIAN BLVD S ^ q :� - 366 70719786 $' �� 737227375 Location Map Background This summer the applicants contracted to have their driveway replaced and expanded. The work was completed by a contractor who was not licensed with the City. In addition to being unli- censed, the contractor did not obtain a building permit. Shortly after the new driveway work was completed, one of the City's building inspectors noted the new driveway, and that it was not in compliance with the side yard setback requirements established in the City ordinance. The driveway is currently one foot from the south side property line instead of the required six feet and is 31 feet wide versus the required 28 feet at the front property line. Planning Staff Report Case V20114 -30 — Nadarliyska Driveway Variance September 22, 2014 Page 2 Expanded Driveway Detail The City contacted the homeowner and the contractor to have the driveway brought into compli- ance. After several failed attempts to have the contractor follow through on the Building Official's directive to bring the driveway into compliance, the applicants chose to file for the variance ap- plications. The Building Official is asking that the driveway be saw cut to the setback lines to remove the excess hard surface area. Property Characteristics The property has a two -story residential dwelling with an attached double car garage with a 1,356 square foot footprint and is located in a single family residential neighborhood. el ve I -e 6 J Neighborhood Detail p • l�l 4�S t41F X " ilar i _ I .�_.._ _ el ve I -e 6 J Neighborhood Detail Planning Staff Report Case V20114 -30 — Nadarliyska Driveway Variance September 22, 2014 Page 3 The garage was constructed 14.44 feet from the south side property line. An as -built certificate of survey is shown below. AS -BUllt Gettiticate Ot Survey Planning Considerations Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission must look to the zoning ordinance for guidance and direction. City Code Title 11 -2 -7: Variances, 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 regulations 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 recommend 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 re- quests, 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. N I o . 135.00 N89 017'02 °E all - 2.7 l ^11.11 `I _ ��' , I D I�0 ID �� N p 19• • -• J4 i Z r: :E j ", �g� I Di � 135 00 N89 °17 " E [ °� " m m C.r I (a 2U) I P , AS -BUllt Gettiticate Ot Survey Planning Considerations Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission must look to the zoning ordinance for guidance and direction. City Code Title 11 -2 -7: Variances, 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 regulations 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 recommend 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 re- quests, 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. Planning Staff Report Case V20114 -30 - Nadarliyska Driveway Variance September 22, 2014 Page 4 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 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 prop- erty, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The applicants have submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and the City Council, which is attached as Exhibit A. In the letter, the applicants propose two options. One is to obtain a var- iance as requested. The second would be to obtain a variance on the side yard setbacks, but reduce the driveway width to the required 28 feet. The third option being required by the City's Building Official is the reduction of the driveway to meet current ordinance criteria. rj- I I Ha SF %i CARAGF__ I t W - -- JONA / AV,' S ._. �. nA�PERYV U/✓F F/l1$ Request Option A A fs ssa /6 - 40DIFICA7 I W GARACF_ it \1 I 1 JONAYriAN Avf $ 1 _• PKOPrR7Y L %NE REHO✓FJJ L The City's Technical Review Committee reviewed the requests for the variances. The Committee was sympathetic to the Applicants plight with the contractor, but identified that they could not establish any findings of fact that would make the requests unique from any similarly situated property. The Committee noted further that the contractor expanded the driveway in accordance with the direction of the homeowner, but without a permit. Planning Staff Report Case V20114 -30 — Nadarliyska Driveway Variance September 22, 2014 Page 5 Public Hearing Notice The public hearing notice was mailed to 88 properties within 500 feet and published in the South Washington County Bulletin on September 10, 2014. Summary • The ordinance is specific about the setbacks and widths for driveways. • The City's Website and City Hall information boards and front counter have numerous sources where people can access setback and other zoning information. • Side yard setbacks create minimum areas on a property where utilities, green space, open space, snow storage, and stormwater management occur. There is a five -foot drainage and utility easement along the side property line. Recommendation Based on the lack of establishment of the findings for granting the requested variances, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council deny the variances to allow the driveway at 7230 Jonathan Avenue South to be on a side yard drainage and utility easement and to be one foot from the property line instead of the required six feet and to be 31 feet wide versus the required 28 feet. Prepared by John M. Burbank, AICP Senior Planner Exhibit A = Letter from the Property Owner To : The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove MN From: Iveta and Ivaylo Nadarliyski owners of the property on 7230 Jonathan Ave S, Cottage Grove MN with Legal Discription: PINE FOREST 3 RD ADD Lot 5 Block 3 and PIN: 10.027.21.11.0079 Dear members of the city council of Cottage Grove MN, We kindly ask you to consider our application for variance on the extended driveway since we have been misled, deceived and mistreated by the contractor who did the job - Blacktop Pro's represented by Joe Reif . When we first contacted Joe Reif (Blacktop Pro's ) we asked if the driveway could be extended according to the measurements it has right now (31' width with setback 1' from the property line) and questioned if this would be in compliance with the codes of Cottage Grove, if Joe Reif had a license and if he will be the pulling a permit for the job. He assured us that he is licensed and will be taking care of the permit and that he knows the regulations and the above discussed measurements of the driveway would be just fine. That's why we proceeded with the project and eventually paid the contractor. Even though the job was done as scheduled on 5/29- 5/30/2014 it had many imperfections that we additionally completed ourselves, after trying many times to contact Joe Reif (Blacktop Pro's) to come back and fix those. Our attempts have been ignored and he even stated he does not understand our English, ones we had paid him already. We asked him for the permit on 5/29/14 when he showed up with his crew to start the job and he said that he has the permit, but has forgotten to get it from his secretary and will be bring it the next day along with an invoice which we also requested to have . The following day, the workers showed up again and started rushing to finish. At the end they asked my wife to pay and she again requested to see the permit and an invoice to which the response was again that they were super busy and had forgotten those peppers in the office and will drop them off later, when they come back to fix the moved mail boxed and other things they left unfinished and never came back to fix. My wife felt intimidated and paid the negotiated amount of $3000.00 -three thousand dollars, after Joe Reif agreed at least to hand write some type of receipt confirming that he's received the payment from us. Few days after the drive way was extended we received a letter from the city of Cottage Grove, informing us that the driveway is not in compliance with the city codes, it turned out that the contractor had not pulled any permit and was not licensed for the city of Cottage Grove and that's how our ordeals started. We had discussed the driveway extension with our adjacent neighbors (Colene and Bob -7228 Jonathan Ave S; Arty and Jane -7232 Jonathan Ave S; Kim and Bruce Bialka -7231 Jonathan Ave S) and they have stated that have no objections against it In our communication with the city inspector — Robert LaBrosse we were willing to meet with the contractor - Blacktop Pro's -Joe Reif and to work out some solution, but he did not show up again at the scheduled mandatory meeting on Aug.26 2014. in consideration of the above circumstances, showing that we had no intention to violate any of the city codes and have been totally mislead and mistreated by the Contractor -Joe Relf we are requesting the city to consider and grant us the following variance on the driveway: 1)lf possible the driveway to be left as is — schematic 1- EXISTING 2)lf option one is unacceptable , we are requesting to be granted the width of the driveway to be 28', after cutting a piece around the fire hydrant with width of 3' and length 16' and forming a curve — schematic 2- MODIFICATION. Respectfully, Iveta and Ivaylo Nadarliyski �'X + 571NG 7�? TOi✓{+T�rRN I{%F S J�J 5XI S I IA)G- i I i � f CARAGF_ s JONA - AA AI yo as A vE 6 _o PROPER7 Gi��rr I ��y < §2 �,,� >,.. � � IcAT� d A, 72.30 JOAJArh.4n/I S •h5016 — AIODI/ / IvAI �1 i _7olvl1 - AA n/ A S _ ®— > p2OPERTy L n/E r _l tL S ih i� WLNYHQLFN,YD1DGDUOL\VNDWLNYHQLFN#KRWPDLOFRP!VSURSRVDOWLI%%%FRPSODLQWWLI%ODFNWRS3UR VWLI%ODFNWRS3UR 5('ULYHZD\9DULDQFH&DVH9&ODULILFDWLRQ.DWK\'HQQLV-RKQ%XUEDQN)ULGD\6HSWHPEHU30 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Burbank and members of the planning committee with the city of Cottage Grove , We would like to object to the opinion expressed by the City's Technical Review Committee , stating : "The Committee noted further that the contractor expanded the driveway in accordance with the direction of the homeowner, but without a permit". Attached is the contractor's proposal for the driveway addition . Through the whole process we have been following the contractor, not giving him any directions . That's why he is an independent contractor-we can not tell him what to do, we asked if the job could be done that way and he assured us that it can . He was the one that told us that the present dimensions of the driveway would be just fine, he was the one that lied about being licensed and fully aware of the city codes. He also lied to us that it's his job to take the permit and that he's going to secure the permit . Currently we have filed a complained with Better Business Bureau (please see attached) and from the contractor's response is pretty obvious that he continues to lie , including saying that we have not paid him (attached is a hand written receipt showing that we paid him $3000-three thousand dollars). Isn't it odd that the contractor did not take any actions against us if we had not paid him ? That is exactly because he is lying again . We have been a victim of a shameless liar "contractor" who clearly showed his disrespect not only to us (even discriminating us by saying that does not get our English ones we paid him ) , but also to the city officials, by ignoring us and the inspector Bob LaBross and not showing up for the meeting on Aug 26th, 2014 . As we subsequently found out by talking (getting estimate) of a licensed contractor, the driveway extension does not only non compliant with the city codes but also with the quality standards of the asphalt job as it was completed withing two days . The licensed contractor explained that the job for which we paid $3000-three thousand dollars will hardly last after the winter . Our request is unique because we did not intend to violate the city codes in any possible way, but we became victims of a contractor that lied and mislead us and the one that has to be punished is the contractor-Joe Relf (Blacktop pro's) , not us . /ǀĞƚĂΘ/ǀĂǇůŽEĂĚĂƌůŝǇƐŬŝ &ƌŽŵ͗ŬĚĞŶŶŝƐΛĐŽƚƚĂŐĞŐƌŽǀĞ͘ŽƌŐ dŽ͗ƚŝŬǀĞŶŝĐŬΛŚŽƚŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ͗ũďƵƌďĂŶŬΛĐŽƚƚĂŐĞŐƌŽǀĞ͘ŽƌŐ 1