Loading...
VAR 02-17O CINOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 - (763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287 CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE October 29, 2002 Robert and Constance Metcalf 860 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Metcalf: On October 29, 2002, the Fridley City Council officially denied your request for variance, VAR #02-17, to exempt the property owner from installing the code -required hard surface driveway on Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood Addition, generally located at 860 West Moore Lake Drive. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call me at 572-3599. Sincerely, /C f"'� a—_ Paul Bolin Planning Coordinator FRIDLEY CITY COUNUt, MEE G OF OCTOBER 28, 201,E PAGE 19 UPON A VOICE VOTE, AL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UN IMOUSLY. 17. RESOLUTION NO. 6 -2002 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 2002 NUISANCE ABATEMENT. MOTION by Coun member Bolkcom to approve the Resolution No. 62-2002. Seconded Councilmember W lfe. UPON A VOKE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION COMED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-17, BY ROBERT AND CONSTANCE METCALF, TO EXEMPT THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM INSTALLING THE CODE REQUIRED HARD SURFACE DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 860 WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE (WARD 2). Mr. Bolin, Planning Coordinator, stated that in 1997, the City declared all gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. He said that staff recommended denial of the present request. The property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake. It has a carport and was built in 1958. It is zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential, as are the surrounding properties. Mr. Bolin stated that the summary of petitioners' hardship statement is: "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. I believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance." The petitioners are concerned about the aesthetic impact of a hard -surface driveway. The petitioners are seeking to be exempt from installing a hard -surface driveway as required by the City Code, which has declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. He said they were declared a nuisance for a number of reasons, including: soil gets contaminated with oil and vehicle fluid, and the gravel gets into the City's storm water and detention ponds. Mr. Bolin said when the driveways were declared a public riuisance, the City Council gave property owners five years to have their gravel driveways paved. The five-year deadline is December 31. By that date, all gravel driveways in the City must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt. If this request was granted, it would be unfair to the other 435 property owners who have complied and paved their driveways. It would also set a precedent and entitle the remaining property owners who have failed to comply, to request the same variance. Ms. Constance Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive, approached and stated that they made this appeal to save their driveway. She said they drove around and looked at the other gravel driveways in the City. She indicated that some were not defined the way their driveway was and they were not flat. She said their driveway is a formal driveway that is lined on the edges and is done with crushed red river rock. She indicated that it tended to settle down into the sand. FRIDLEY CITY COk .:IL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, I&X002 PAGE 20 Ms. Metcalf stated that she was disappointed because only one member of the Appeals Commission took the time to drive by their driveway.. She stated the driveway, is modest, defined and well -cared for. She pointed out to the Appeals Commission that there were problems in the City with all the water runoff going into the Mississippi River. She stated the maintenance is low. She pointed out the neatness of their driveway and how level it is. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what happened when there were heavy rains. Ms. Metcalf responded the light rain soaks in. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the snowplows didn't have some effect on the rock. Councilmember Barnette stated that there were 42 unpaved driveways. He said it was hard to make an exception. Mayor Lund asked about flagstone. Councilmember Barnette replied it was very expensive. Mayor Lund stated he did not know how they could make an exception. He said he believed that that having a hard -surface driveway would increase the homestead's value. Councilmember Bolkcom commented on how many others had already taken care of their driveways. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to deny Variance Request, VAR #02-17. Seconded Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 19. PUBLIC INFORMATI MEETING ON THE CITY OF FRIDLEY PART 1 WELLHEAD PROTECAON PLAN. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Di ector, stated the entire report is available to the public, and a CD -Rom version has been pro ' ed to neighboring cities. It included the delineation of wellhead protection areas and D (Drinking Water Supply Management Area). He said the report was prepared by Stev Robertson of the Minnesota Department of Health. The program in general is administered the Department of Health and associated with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act. He said the Anoka County Wellhead Planning Group, which e nsists of 10 Anoka County cities working together was created. He said he believed the are one of the earlier groups which is why they are working directly with the Department of ealth. The other members of the group are Anoka, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Coon Rapi s, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ramsey, and Spring Lake Park. AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 CITY OF FRIDLEY Date: October 23, 2002 To: William Burns, City Manager From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stephanie Hanson, Planner Subject: Variance Request, VAR #02-17, Robert & Constance Metcalf M-02-125 INTRODUCTION Constance & Robert Metcalf, owners of 860 West Moore Lake Drive, are seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes & Council resolution that has declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the October 9, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting, a public hearing was held for VAR #02-17. After reviewing the facts, the Appeals Commission recommended denial of the request due to a lack of hardship. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION City Staff recommends denial as the City Council deemed all gravel drives a public nuisance in 1997. Granting of this request would be very unfair to the 435 property owners who have complied and paved their drives since 1997. Granting of this variance would be precedent setting and entitle the few other property owners, who have failed to comply, to the same variance. Granting of this request would, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the Code unenforceable. 76 City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #02-17 October 9, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Constance & Robert Metcalf 860 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance to exempt property owner from installing code required hard surface driveway. Existing Zoning. R 1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 860 West Moore Lake Drive Size: App. 11,050 sq. ft. .25 acres Existing Land Use: Single family home. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family, R-1 E: Single Family, R-1 S: Moore Lake W: Single Family, R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.06.A.(2) requires all vehicles to be parked on a hard surface. Sec. 110.02 has declared all gravel drives to be a public nuisance in the City of Fridley. Zoning History: 1956 - Lot is platted. 1958 - Home is built. Legal Description of Property: Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood 2nd Add. Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: W. Moore Lake Drive provides access to site. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban landscaping. 77 SUMMARY OF PROJECT Petitioner is seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes, which have declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. I believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. "— Constance & Robert Metcalf SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial, as the City Council deemed ALL gravel driveways to be a public nuisance in 1997. - Granting of this variance would be precedent setting CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE CC -10/28/02 (Existing Drive) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin, Stacy Stromberg, & Jon Haukaas VAR #02-17 REQUEST Constance & Robert Metcalf, owners of 860 West Moore Lake Drive, are seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes & Council resolution that has declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUMMARY OF .HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. I believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also am personally concerned about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard surface driveway on the appearance of our property. " — Constance & Robert Metcalf ANALYSIS The property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake. The lot is somewhat rectangular shaped, with the home facing West Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 1958. The petitioner is seeking a variance to be exempt from City Code requirements for hardsurface drive and parking. The petitioner is also seeking an exemption from the City's Public Nuisance Ordinance which states that gravel driveways are a public nuisance. In 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring gravel driveways a public nuisance. They were declared a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as: they can cause erosion, contaminate soil with oil and other vehicle fluids, and deposit gravel in the City's storm sewers and detention ponds. When gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners five years to have their gravel driveways paved. The five year deadline is quickly approaching, which means all gravel driveways in the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by December 31, 2002. Though the Metcalf s drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance, as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petitioners (attached). Photo number two clearly shows rutting of the wheelpaths as the driveway intersects with the city sidewalk. There is also visual evidence of gravel being eroded onto that sidewalk from the driveway traffic and rain. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel driveway. A rock/gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains forcing the water to run off and cavy some of the rock/gravel/soil materials with it, hence erosion. During the winter months, the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening. Therefore the change to a paved driveway will not have any effect on the amount of water ponding at the end of the driveway (Photo #6 & 7). This is merely the result of the curbline of West Moore Lake Drive in front of the property being north facing and heavily shaded from the existing trees. This type of exposure does not allow the sun to melt the snow along the edges of the street, therefore hindering the free flow of snow melt to the storm sewer system. A grouted flagstone driveway similar to the walk and stoop pictured in Photo number 4 could be an acceptable alternative allowing the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their property. Granting of this request would be very unfair to the 435 property owners who have complied and paved their drives since 1997. Granting of this variance would be precedent setting and entitle the few other property owners, who have failed to comply, to the same variance. Granting of this request would, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the Code unenforceable. For all of the reasons mentioned in this report, staff strongly recommends denial of this variance request. RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends denial as the City Council deemed all gravel drives a public nuisance in 1997. 79 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the October 9, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Robert and Constance Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive Ken and Cathy Anderson, 132 River Edge Way 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #02-17, BY ROBERT & CONSTANCE METCALF: Per Section 205.07.06.a.(2) and Section 110.02 of the Fridley City Code, to exempt the property owner from installing the code -required hard surface driveway on Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood Addition, generally located at 860 West Moore Lake Drive. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated the petitioners are requesting a variance to be exempt from installing a hard - surface driveway as required by City Code and Council resolution that has declared all gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. Mr. Bolin stated the subject property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 1958. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding properties. The petitioners' summary of hardship statement is the "the main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway, I believe our property is unique to this respect, and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also have personal concern about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard -surface driveway in the appearance of our property. " Mr. Bolin stated that in 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring all gravel driveways a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as causing erosion and contaminating soil with oil and other vehicle fluids. Gravel driveways cause a large amount of gravel in City storm sewers and retention ponds. The petitioners are requesting a variance to be exempt from the City Code requirement for hard -surface parking and from the City's public nuisance ordinance which previously stated that all gravel driveways in the City are a public nuisance. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated that when gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners a five-year deadline (December 31, 2002), which means all gravel driveways within the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by December 31, 2002. Mr. Bolin stated that although the Metcalfs' drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petitioners. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel drive. A rock gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains, forcing the water to run off, and carrying some of the rock gravel soil and materials with it; thereby causing erosion and getting into City storm sewers and catch basins. Mr. Bolin stated that during the winter months, the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening; therefore, there is no effect from the amount of water running off the driveway. The ponding shown in the photos provided is a result of the curb line of West Moore Lake Drive in front of the petitioners' home facing to the north and is heavily shaded from the existing trees. This type of exposure does not allow the snow to melt along the edges of the street; thereby hindering the free flow of snow melt into the storm sewer system. Mr. Bolin stated one driveway option would be a grouted flagstone driveway, similar to the petitioners' existing walk and stoop. This would allow the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their property while still meeting the City's pavement requirements. Mr. Bolin stated that granting this request would be very unfair to 435 property owners who have complied and paved their driveways since 1997. Granting this variance would set a precedent and entitle this same variance to the few other property owners who have failed to comply. It would also, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the City Code unenforceable. City staff recommends denial of this variance request as the City Council deems all gravel driveways a public nuisance. Ms. Jackson asked if the ordinance specifies concrete or asphalt or just hard surface. Mr. Bolin answered "hard surface." Mr. Kuechle asked whether the City has any other areas where there are a lot of exemptions; for example, length of grass. His inquiry was made in relation to the long prairie grass that people have for natural lawns. Mr. Bolin replied, no. Mr. Zinter stated he was uncertain on the non -inclining definition. Are there other driveways that have that same condition? Mr. Bolin stated that 476 drives were identified in 1996. Most driveways are fairly level and when paving, you can direct the surface water any way you wish. You can make the water run off on both sides or build the driveway up on one side to make the water run away from the home. The petitioner, Ms. Constance Metcalf, pointed out again the flatness of their driveway and stated it is not a hazard for runoff carrying the rock because, as seen in the photo, the rock is not carried away and it is very, very flat. She also pointed out in the photo how the design is very natural. A APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 3 Ms. Metcalf stated she also wanted to appeal being in the "11th hour" of the ordinance as they had not received the first letter from the City regarding the requirement. The first they heard of this requirement was when a salesman came to their door a few years ago. Ms. Metcalf wanted to make a point in terms of water runoff, stating she remembered back in the first days when everyone was very conscious of the environment, there was publicity about the open parking lot for bricks being porous and allowing water to soak into the earth, rather than the problems they have now with all the concrete and blacktop causing the water to rush down to the Mississippi River. She feels in that respect their driveway is a good thing. Ms. Metcalf stating the suggestion of Mr. Bolin to use flagstone was a good idea but she is afraid of the cost. Regarding the collection of water at the end of the driveway, she stated they do need to fill that in some. Mr. Zinter asked Ms. Metcalf if they have had to periodically add rocks to the driveway over the years. Ms. Metcalf replied that it is remarkable the way the driveway maintains itself and that only a couple of times have they had to add rock. Mr. Metcalf mentioned the statement about erosion in the first paragraph of the ordinance. He stated their driveway does not have any erosion problems. It is paved with crest red river road and, with its jagged edges, it packs into a hard surface. He states there is a very small hole from the house to the street, just a few inches, caused when the street was put in 15-20 years ago. The street was too high, and there is only about six inches of elevation from the front road back to the sidewalk. He stated a light rain mostly soaks into the driveway, and a heavy rain runs out the back of the carport into Moore Lake. Mr. Metcalf stated he and his wife are retired and living on a fixed income and do not welcome this unnecessary requirement. Ms. Jackson inquired as to whether there is a product that could be laid over something like crushed red rock to seal it and glue it down. Mr. Bolin stated he knew of an aggregate mix that is used and the red rock is actually mixed in with the concrete. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to close the hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:51 P.M. Dr. Vos stated that a requirement for a variance is a hardship, and he did not see anything in this request that shows a hardship. He states he would vote against the appeal. Mr. Jones agreed. Mr. Jackson stated she believed this is a very important, viable ordinance, and it would be very difficult for the City to start measuring different levels on every driveway and try to have an exception based on decor. She understood that black asphalt may not look as good in the petitioners' situation, but, hopefully, the petitioners can find another option that would maintain the look of their driveway. She commented on how the Commission must be fair to everybody. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 4 Mr. Zinter stated that in the winter, it must be hard not to pick up some of that gravel with a shovel or a snowblower, and having it end up on the driveway, on the sidewalk, or on the street. He, too, would vote for denial of the variance. Mr. Kuechle stated he looked at the property, and there is no doubt the petitioners have done a good job of maintaining it. He did not think the small water retention is really a big issue and thinks the argument can be made the water runoff to the street in their situation is minimal. However, he also is not able to come up with a clear hardship, and there are alternatives if they do not choose to use concrete or bituminous surface. They could use flagstone which is of course a little more expensive. The concern he has is setting a precedent. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of variance request, VAR #02-17, by Robert and Constance Metcalf. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kuechle stated this will go to City Council on October 28. Ms. Metcalf asked what the term "hardship" meant, and Mr. Kuechle provided an example. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kuechle called the October 9, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Larry Kuechle, Ken Vos, Blaine Jones, Gary Zinter, Sue Jackson Members Absent: None Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Coordinator Stacy Stromberg, Planner Robert and Constance Metcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive Ken and Cathy Anderson, 132 River Edge Way APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2002,_APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to approve the September 25, 2002, Appeals Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST. VAR #02-17 BY ROBERT & CONSTANCE METCALF: Per Section 205.07.06.a.(2) and Section 110.02 of the Fridley City Code, to exempt the property owner from installing the code -required hard surface driveway on Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood Addition, generally located at 860 West Moore Lake Drive. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to open the public hearing UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:34 P.M. Mr. Bolin stated the petitioners are requesting a variance to be exempt from installing a hard - surface driveway as required by City Code and Council resolution that has declared all gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. Mr. Bolin stated the subject property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 1958. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding properties. The petitioners' summary of hardship statement is the "the main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway, I believe our property is unique to this respect, and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also have personal concern about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard -surface driveway in the appearance of our property. " APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolin stated that in 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring all gravel driveways a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as causing erosion and contaminating soil with oil and other vehicle fluids. Gravel driveways cause a large amount of gravel in City storm sewers and retention ponds. The petitioners are requesting a variance to be exempt from the City Code requirement.for hard -surface parking and from the City's public nuisance ordinance which previously stated that all gravel driveways in the City are a public nuisance. Mr. Bolin stated that when gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners a five-year deadline (December 31, 2002), which means all gravel driveways within the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by December 31, 2002. Mr. Bolin stated that although the Metcalfs' drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petitioners. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel drive. A rock gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains, forcing the water to run off, and carrying some of the rock gravel soil and materials with it; thereby causing erosion and getting into City storm sewers and catch basins. Mr. Bolin stated that during the winter months, the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening; therefore, there is no effect from the amount of water running off the driveway. The ponding shown in the photos provided is a result of the curb line of West Moore Lake Drive in front of the petitioners' home facing to the north and is heavily shaded from the existing trees. This type of exposure does not allow the snow to melt along the edges of the street; thereby hindering the free flow of snow melt into the storm .sewer system. Mr. Bolin stated one driveway option would be a grouted flagstone driveway, similar to the petitioners' existing walk and stoop. This would allow the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their property while still meeting the City's pavement requirements. Mr. Bolin stated that granting this request would be very unfair to 435 property owners who have complied and paved their driveways since 1997. Granting this variance would set a precedent and entitle this same variance to the few other property owners who have failed to comply. It would also, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the City Code unenforceable. City staff recommends denial of this variance request as the City Council deems all gravel driveways a public nuisance. Ms. Jackson asked if the ordinance specifies concrete or asphalt or just hard surface. Mr. Bolin answered "hard surface." Mr. Kuechle asked whether the City has any other areas where there are a lot of exemptions; for example, length of grass. His inquiry was made in relation to the long prairie grass that people have for natural lawns. Mr. Bolin replied, no. Mr. Zinter stated he was uncertain on the non -inclining definition. Are there other driveways that have that same condition? APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 3 Mr. Bolin stated that 476 drives were identified in 1996. Most driveways are fairly level and when paving, you can direct the surface water any way you wish. You can make the water run off on both sides or build the driveway up on one side to make the water run away from the home. The petitioner, Ms. Constance Metcalf, pointed out again the flatness of their driveway and stated it is not a hazard for runoff carrying the rock because, as seen in the photo, the rock is not carried away and it is very, very flat. She also pointed out in the photo how the design is very natural. Ms. Metcalf stated she also wanted to appeal being in the "11 to hour" of the ordinance as they had not received the first letter from the City regarding the requirement. The first they heard of_ Jr this requirement was when a salesman came to their door a few years ago. Ms. Metcalf wanted to make a point in terms of water runoff, stating she remembered back in the first days when everyone was very conscious of the environment, there was publicity about the open parking lot for bricks being porous and allowing water to soak into the earth, rather than the problems they have now with all the concrete and blacktop causing the water to rush down to the Mississippi River. She feels in that respect their driveway is a good thing. Ms. Metcalf stating the suggestion of Mr. Bolin to use flagstone was a good idea but she is afraid of the cost. Regarding the collection of water at the end of the driveway, she stated they do need to fill that in some. Mr. Zinter asked Ms. Metcalf if they have had to periodically add rocks to the driveway over the years. Ms. Metcalf replied that it is remarkable the way the driveway maintains itself and that only a couple of times have they had to add rock. Mr. Metcalf mentioned the statement about erosion in the first paragraph of the ordinance. He stated their driveway does not have any erosion problems. It is paved with crest red river road and, with its jagged edges, it packs into a hard surface. He states there is a very small hole from the house to the street, just a few inches, caused when the street was put in 15-20 years ago. The street was too high, and there is only about six inches of elevation from the front road back to the sidewalk. He stated a light rain mostly soaks into the driveway, and a heavy rain runs out the back of the carport into Moore Lake. Mr. Metcalf stated he and his wife are retired and living on a fixed income and do not welcome this unnecessary requirement. Ms. Jackson inquired as to whether there is a product that could be laid over something like crushed red rock to seal it and glue it down. Mr. Bolin stated he knew of an aggregate mix that is used and the red rock is actually mixed in with the concrete. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Zinter, to close the hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:51 P.M. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 9, 2002 PAGE 4 Dr. Vos stated that a requirement for a variance is a hardship, and he did not see anything in this request that shows a hardship. He states he would vote against the appeal. Mr. Jones agreed. Mr. Jackson stated she believed this is a very important, viable ordinance, and it would be very difficult for the City to start measuring different levels on every driveway and try to have an exception based on decor. She understood that black asphalt may not look as good in the petitioners' situation, but, hopefully, the petitioners can find another option that would maintain the look of their driveway. She commented on how the Commission must be fair to everybody. Mr. Zinter stated that in the winter, it must be hard not to pick up some of that gravel with a shovel or a snowblower, and having it end up on the driveway, on the sidewalk, or on the street. He, too, would vote for denial of the variance. Mr. Kuechle stated he looked at the property, and there is no doubt the petitioners have done a good job of maintaining it. He did not think the small water retention is really a big issue and thinks the argument can be made the water runoff to the street in their situation is minimal. However, he also is not able to come up with a clear hardship, and there are alternatives if they do not choose to use concrete or bituminous surface. They could use flagstone which is of course a little more expensive. The concern he has is setting a precedent. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Jones, to recommend denial of variance request, VAR #02-17, by Robert and Constance Metcalf. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KUECHLE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kuechle stated this will go to City Council on October 28. Ms. Metcalf asked what the term "hardship" meant, and Mr. Kuechle provided an example. 2. ANDERSON: Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of a Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 23.5 fe to allow the construction of a garage and porch on Lot 20, Block 1, River Edge Addition, nerally located at 132 River Edge Way. MOTION by Ms. Jackson, seconded by Dr. Vos,�o open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAII MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioners are requesting a v attached garage with a porch connected off the back of The existing home will be connected to the proposed gz KUECHLE DECLARED THE AT 8:01 P.M. :e to allow the construction of an residence at 132 River Edge Way. in a pie -shaped addition. Ms. Stromberg stated that in 1989 and 1995, variances were anted for this property to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 21 feet to allow the constr tion of an attached garage with a porch off the back of the home. The structure was never const cted and, therefore, the variances have become void. The property is zoned R-1, Single F Ily. The Robert Lewis Stevenson Elementary School is located directly to the south of the operty. The existing City of Fridley Land Use Application VAR #02-17 October 9, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INFORMATION Applicant: Constance & Robert Metcalf 860 West Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Requested Action: Variance to exempt property owner from installing code required hard surface driveway. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Location: 860 West Moore Lake Drive Size: App. 11,050 sq. ft. .25 acres Existing Land Use: Single family home. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: N: Single Family, R-1 E: Single Family, R-1 S: Moore Lake W: Single Family, R-1 Comprehensive Plan Conformance: Consistent with Plan Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Sec. 205.07.06.A.(2) requires all vehicles to be parked on a hard surface. Sec. 110.02 has declared all gravel drives to be a public nuisance in the City of Fridley. Zoning History: 1956 - Lot is platted. 1958 - Home is built. Legal Description of Property: Lot 3, Block 1, Shorewood 2nd Add. Public Utilities: Home is connected. Transportation: W. Moore Lake Drive provides access to site. Physical Characteristics: Typical suburban landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROJECT Petitioner is seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes, which have declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. I believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. " — Constance & Robert Metcalf SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS City Staff recommends denial, as the City Council deemed ALL gravel driveways to be a public nuisance in 1997. - Granting of this variance would be precedent setting CITY COUNCIL ACTION/ 60 DAY DATE CC -10/28/02 (Existing Drive) Staff Report Prepared by: Paul Bolin, Stacy Stromberg, & Jon Haukaas AR #02-17 REQUEST Constance & Robert Metcalf, owners of 860 West Moore Lake Drive, are seeking to be exempt from installing a hard surface drive as required by City Codes & Council resolution that has declared gravel driveways to be a public nuisance. SUMMARY OF HARDSHIP "The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. I believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also am personally concerned about the aesthetic impact of a concrete or hard surface driveway on the appearance of our property. " — Constance & Robert Metcalf ANALYSIS The property is located on the north shore of West Moore Lake. The lot is somewhat rectangular shaped, with the home facing West Moore Lake Drive. The existing home and carport were built in 1958. The petitioner is seeking a variance to be exempt from City Code requirements for hardsurface drive and parking. The petitioner is also seeking an exemption from the City's Public Nuisance Ordinance which states that gravel driveways are a public nuisance. In 1997, the City Council adopted an ordinance declaring gravel driveways a public nuisance. They were declared a public nuisance for a number of reasons, such as: they can cause erosion, contaminate soil with oil and other vehicle fluids, and deposit gravel in the City's storm sewers and detention ponds. When gravel driveways were declared a public nuisance, the City Council gave property owners five years to have their gravel driveways paved. The five year deadline is quickly approaching, which means all gravel driveways in the City of Fridley must be paved with approved concrete or asphalt by December 31, 2002. Though the Metcalf s drive may be aesthetically pleasing to them, it is a public nuisance, as evidenced by the photographs provided by the petitioners (attached). Photo number two clearly shows rutting of the wheelpaths as the driveway intersects with the city sidewalk. There is also visual evidence of gravel being eroded onto that sidewalk from the driveway traffic and rain. Only light rains or contaminants such as slow dripping oil or antifreeze can infiltrate on a rock or gravel driveway. A rock/gravel driveway is effectively impervious under heavier rains forcing the water to run off and carry some of the rock/gravel/soil materials with it, hence erosion. During the winter months, the ground is frozen and no infiltration is happening. Therefore the change to a paved driveway will not have any effect on the amount of water ponding at the end of the driveway (Photo #6 & 7). This is merely the result of the curbline of West Moore Lake Drive in front of the property being north facing and heavily shaded from the existing trees. This type of exposure does not allow the sun to melt the snow along the edges of the street, therefore hindering the free flow of snow melt to the storm sewer system. A grouted flagstone driveway similar to the walk and stoop pictured in Photo number 4 could be an acceptable alternative allowing the Metcalfs to achieve the natural aesthetic look they are trying to maintain for their property. Granting of this request would be very unfair to the 435 property owners who have complied and paved their drives since 1997. Granting of this variance would be precedent setting and entitle the few other property owners, who have failed to comply, to the same variance. Granting of this request would, in essence, render the unpaved drive portion of the public nuisance section of the Code unenforceable. For all of the reasons mentioned in this report, staff strongly recommends denial of this variance request. RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommends denial as the City Council deemed all gravel drives a public nuisance in 1997. r � i S V 1, I C^ i Ij I I IT,4- -_ - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTICI I am requesting a variance for my driveway surfacing.. The main emphasis of my appeal is the flat, non -inclining nature of our driveway. 1 believe our property is unique in this respect and therefore qualifies for a variance. I also am personally concerned about the esthetic impact of a concrete or hard -surface driveway on the appearance of our property. I will first respond to the Rationale for Hardsurface Driveways paper which we received from the city. I list them and explain our position on these items as follows: 1. "Promotes visual appeal and neat appearance of single family properties." Our home was designed with natural materials in mind; therfore the nonpaintable cypress siding, the unpainted concrete blocks, the flagstone sidewalk. We planned the non -concrete driveway for its softer, non-commercial look. The surface, by the way, is not "gravel' but crushed Red River Rock. It was chosen to match the trim on the house. The rock is small with sharp edges. It packs together and forms a hard-wearing surface. 2. "Restricts vehicles to one area of the lot instead of allowing there to be scattered across the yard." Our driveway is clearly marked with bricks along each side. There is no outside parking outside the driveway. 3. "Eliminates the nuisance of gravel being sprayed on neighboring yardsand avoids unsightly ruts and ditches. There is no spraying or unsightly ruts or ditches. The only movement of this rock is when some catches on the snow shovel and gets sent onto our hwm in the winter! 4. "Eliminates problems created by blowing dust." The rock is well settled in the driveway; there is no blowing dust. 5. "Protects soil from contamination due to oil and other vehicles fluids." It would sort to me that it's better for the small amouits of fluids pombly laced from vehicles to go into the soil rather than have them all wmshed collectively tiively into the Mississippi River. 6. "Serves to amintain property values by promoting a more attractive ance." I will contest with anyone that our house and driveway are less attractive than any concrete drive in the city and especially those that have been paved out over half the front yard to accommodate two or more vehicles. 7. "Reduce maintenance costs incurred when ruts are `evened out' or gravel is replaced. - Our maintenance costs are very low. I can remember only one refill of the rocks on the driveway and that was only'! a truckload. Cement drivamys can crack, reams ohm o4 WU & can dup on the edges. 8. "Promotes parking requirements consistent with that of other zonkV districts."" I do not understand this statement 9. Prevents sail and gravel from eroding onto the street and being deposited into the City's storm sewers and detention ponds." Our lot is six inches above street level. There is virtually no erosion of our dnvwmy rucks into the street because of the lack of incline. No gravel or soil erodes from our driveway into the street. I am including several photos with this appeal. There are duplicates if you need to distribute thern. PHOTO 1: You will notice we have natural wood siding. You will notice we preserved the trees by building a rock wall around them. The walkway alongside the driveway is laid flagstone. It is at the same level as the driveway. Should we be forced to hardsurface the driveway, we would have to elevate it above the level of the stone walkway in order to get water run off. PHOTO 2 shows the street end of our driveway. Obviously the water is not running off carrying rocks with it. PHOTO 3 shows clearly how level our driveway is with the sidewalk. PHOTO 4 shows our flagstone walk level with the driveway and the 3' elevated stoop or entrance to the front door. Neither allow any elevation for water run off. PHOTO 5 is another view of the walkway edging the stone driveway. I want also to point out Mat in the winter and spring when the snow and ice begin to melt on the curb we have a rather large pooling of water at Me end of our dnvevoy because the water does not run off along the frozen gutters. I'm sure if me had a hard surface, morewater io1d accumulate because of <. + we j have a bWw pool W dnveway albeit flat is the high point in the block fbr the water run-off eastward to the sewer, PHOTOS 6 and 7 show this effect to some degree. I remember .7 -•.S 'pis ±,., <io _. of . :. `:, time we builtft house, questioned fne•# !'welevation, but the city engkvw said it was OK. x^ ? op.: you wfli acimowhx1ge rather unique presented by ft placement of our driveway. We have a real elevation problem probably stenwriing from Ow We the house was built Forcho us to hard surfam out dnveway Will, I'm convinced, emwerbate the present nxH* problem and frorri my pokA of view debact !a"3 ft naturat and :k 'les tdf:=a lti Note: The information provided by this program has been compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tawaps, surveys, and other public records and data. It is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not intended to be used as one. Users of this data are hereby notified that the Information sources mentioned above should be consulted for verification of the information. CitySight 6i�J LQ SnapShot Variance Request #02-17 860 West Moore Lake Drive Map Legend: LABEL STREET NAME LABEL WATER LABELS ------ CITY LIMITS ------------ QUARTER SECTIONS — — — STREET CENTERLINE WATER D PARCELS Selected Parcels (1) N A Map Scale: l" = 298' Map Date: September 26, 2002 om" Data Date: December 2000 Note: The information provided by this program has been compiled from recorded deeds, plats, tawaps, surveys, and other public records and data. It is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not intended to be used as one. Users of this data are hereby notified that the Information sources mentioned above should be consulted for verification of the information. UiYOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (763) 571-3450 - FAX (763) 571-1287 September 6, 2002 Constance and Robert Metcalf 860 W. Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Metcalf. Per Minnesota Statute 15.99, local government units are required to notify land use applicants within 10 days if their land use applications are complete. Based on the City's application schedule, we officially received an application for a variance on September 6, 2002. This letter serves to inform you that your variance application is complete. Your Variance application hearing and discussion will take place at the City of Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting on October 9, 2002 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University Avenue. Final action on your variance request will be taken by the City of Fridley City Council at 7:30 P.M. on October 28, 2002. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the process, please feel free to contact me at 572-3599. Sincerely, Paul Bolin Planning Coordinator PB C-02-110 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE FRIDLEY, MN 55432 (612) 571-3450 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: Residential Commercial/Industrial .Signs PROPERTY INFORMATION:.- site plan required for submittal, see attached Address: 8610 w. Moore Lake Dr.. Fridley NST Property Identification Number: Certificate of Title #17400. Legal Description: Lot 3 Block Tract/Addition ShOrmwd 2rd Addition Current Zoning: R 1 Square footage/acreage: Reason for Variance: Driveway does not conform to Definition of Public Nuisanc Have you operated a business in a city which required a business license? Yes No xx If Yes, which city? If Yes, what type of business? Was that license ever denied or revoked? Yes No .rrrw.n.r.rwr�.�rw.�rtir�...vn.�.w.ti1rr�r�rw.wr.r.r�rrrwr�rnr..wrwr�r.r-r.rw.�r.►.�rvw.�r..w..r.rw.�...rvti�r.r�.rr.rwr.rr.r�r�.�r�r FEE OWNER INFORMATION (as it appears on the property title) (Contract purchasers: Fee owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME: Constance and Robert E. Metcalf ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: 763-571-3596 SIGNATURE/DATE: NIVV^IVV.VIVA/.VA/.VV VVV.VIVYV.VEVA/V.VVVIV.VVV/VAIVMNA/IV.VIVIVVIVV.VIVVA/AIVVA/IVIVV.VAIMIIVVA/.V.VVV//V PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: same as above ADDRESS: DAYTIME PHONE: SIGNATURE/DATE: Section of City Code: Chapter 110 FEES Fee: $100.00 for commercial, industrial, or signs: Fee: $60.00 for residential properties: xx Receipt #: Received By: ' 6 Application Number:A Scheduled Appeals Commission Date: noj . R, a- Scheduled City Council Date: 10 Day Application Complete Notification Date: 60 Day Date: `, City of. Fridley Land Use Application Process Application Dat 60 Day Window S Submit Complete Application and Materials 60 Day Agency Action Law e Appeals Commission Meeti St Recommendation to Council 21-40 Days! Application Complete I 10 Day Notice Public Hearings: Variance Vacations Lot Splits Plats Rezonings Zoning Amendments Wetland Replacements Comprehensive Plan Special Use Permits City Council Decision Approval or Denial 50-60 Days Approved, Action Taken Letter Tabled, 60 More Days � Denied Public Hearings: Rezonings Zoning Amendments s• CU RR RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 0 6221 CAROL DR 901 W MOORE LAKE DR FRI Y, N FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT TEFF CORY C & NADINE M 6211 CAROL DR 881 W MOORE LAKE DR 6201 CAROL DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 871 W MOORE LAKE DR 6251 CAROL DR 861 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6200 CAROL DR 880 W MOORE LAKE DR 900 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 916 W MOORE LAKE DR 851 W MOORE LAKE DR 6190 CAROL DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 841 W MOORE LAKE DR 870 W MOORE LAKE DR 831 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 6241 CAROL DR 6180 CAROL DR 860 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRE T SIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 0 850 W MOORE LK DR 6170 CAROL DR FRIDLEY N FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT 6000 W MOORE LAKE DR CURRENT RESIDENT 840 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 830 W MOORE LAKE DR FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 820 W MOORE LAKE DR 6231 CAROL DR 6220 ABLE ST FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 FRIDLEY, MN 55432