4.0 BASR 08-11-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: V 09-04 Nelson Variance Page 3 Impervious Surface Number of Driveways Impervious Surface: Section 30-2025-(2) "Specific standards. a. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. In lieu of meeting this impervious surface requirement, a property may submit a stormwater drainage plan to the city for review and approval which restricts the developed five-year frequency event peak discharge to a rate no greater than the five-year historic undeveloped peak discharge. To the maximum extent possible, the drainage plan must also provide for methods of runoff settlement and/or filtration prior to discharge to the receiving water." Variance Criteria Since 2007, the City has reviewed two variance requests for impervious surface, and zero for the number of driveways. In 2007, the City granted a variance for Jeff Bickman (18575 Simonent Drive) for impervious surface, with the condition that the applicant utilize alternatives, such as rain gardens or porous pavers, to reduce runoff. In 2009, the City granted a variance for Fred McCoy to exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface. This decision was upheld by the DNR, after the DNR and McCoy agreed on a bluff stabilization plan and storm water management plan. 7. Lateral enforcement of the ordinance avill cause undue hardship. Driveway: The Ordinance limits private intersections with city streets to reduce the potential for collisions, maximize on-street parking, and facilitate walking and biking. Multiple driveways in the larger lot districts (A-1, R-1a) do not noticeably impact these goals. The ordinance allows access to a structure; the applicants basically desire a parking lot in the front yard. It is important to note that Simonent drive is a dead end road; the likelihood of cut-through drivers unfamiliar with the area is drastically reduced. Also, this reduces the conflicts. The applicants note that the proposed driveway number is not different than what would be permitted if the parcel remained two different lots. Although this is true, arguments based on "what might have been' are typically not used in determining hardship. In this case, the "what might have been" argument would not allow the house as proposed, as setbacks are not maintained. The applicants argue that allowing parking off the street reduces on-street conflicts. Impervious surface: The impervious surface proposed represents a substantial increase over permissible levels. The levels outlined in the ordinance are adequate for reasonable construction of a dwelling. In fact, the house and paver stone driveway (both driveways) almost equal the permissible amount - 10,157 permissible, 10,384 proposed with house and driveways. While it does not appear that a hardship exists, the applicant could employ alternative design measures (rain gardens, pervious stone, etc) to reduce the run-off impact. 2. The hardship is caused by sbecial conditions and circumstances avhich are peculiar to the ~ro~erty and the structure involved and avhich are not characteristic of or at~~licable to other lands or structure in the same area. Driveway: The lot to be created will be one of the larger above-water lots in the neighborhood, with the longest street frontage. In that sense, the lot is unique. ti:APLANMNG ~b1AIN\Case files\~'ariance\V 09-~~} ~lelson\PC staff report 8-11-09.doc