Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-27 MINUTESCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission July 27, 2009 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 – 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on July 27, 2009, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Messick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He presented to former Commissioner Reese a plaque expressing appreciation for his years of service on the Planning Commission. Roll Call Members Present: Michael Linse, Steve Messick, Tracy Poncin, Ryan Rambacher, Jim Rostad, David Thiede Members Absent: Obid Hofland, Brian Pearson, Chris Willhite Staff Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Approval of Agenda Thiede made a motion to approve the agenda. Linse seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved (6-to-0 vote). Open Forum Messick asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair’s Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Messick explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory ca- pacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should come to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Public Hearings and Application Reviews 6.1 Moss Driveway Setback Variance – Case No. V09-016 Shawn and Shannon Moss have applied for a variance to the required six-foot side yard setback to allow a driveway to be located one foot from the side property line at 7716 Ingle Court South. Blin summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Linse asked if the shape of the lot could be an unusual circumstance. Blin responded that it is a wedge-shaped cul-de-sac lot, which is narrower at the front than the back. Linse asked if there are alternatives to the variance. Blin responded that according to the survey, there is 15.2 feet to the side property line which would allow an approximate 9-foot addition to the driveway that would meet the current required 6-foot side yard setback. Rostad asked what type of equipment they would be backing into the proposed garage. Shawn Moss, 7716 Ingle Court South, responded that snowmobile trailers and possibly a larger camper. He explained that there is a two-foot overhang off the garage that reduces access on that side of the property. He stated that he spoke with his neighbors in the cul-de- sac and they all signed a petition in favor of the variance application. Rambacher asked if the camper would be parked in the garage instead of the driveway. Moss stated that he wants his property to be presentable, which is the reason he is building the larger garage. Thiede asked about the chain link fence. Moss responded that the fence was put in before they purchased the home. He indicated the location of the fence on the survey. Thiede then asked about the neighbor’s tree. Moss stated that he would trim any part of the tree that overhangs his property line to allow for any clearance issues. Rambacher asked about keeping the grade consistent with the existing driveway. Moss stated that would prevent cracking and breaking. Thiede asked if gravel could be used to extend the driveway closer to the property instead of concrete. McCool responded that the ordinance does allow for up to two feet of gravel for landscaping but that part of the gravel cannot be used as part of the driveway. Linse asked how often Moss would be backing vehicles into the garage. Moss responded maybe three to four times a year. He is also planning to use it daily to park his personal vehicles in the detached garage. Blin stated that this is an unusually shaped lot, it is not rectangular but pie shaped. The other factor that should be considered is that the house is located further to the east side of the lot and has a larger than typical setback from the west lot line. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Linse asked if the property owners on both sides of his property supported the variance application. Moss responded yes, noting that everyone in the cul-de-sac signed the petition. Messick opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse asked if staff could provide examples of such instances that would demonstrate a hardship or difficulty. Blin explained the variance process. Linse stated that he would support this variance based on the seven ordinance criteria listed. He noted that the pie shape of the lot is a difficulty. Given the frequency that the driveway will be used, he thinks that is a clear difficulty. He also stated that the majority of the driveway would be two feet from the property line, which meets the pre-2000 ordinance requirements Rostad asked why the ordinance was changed to the six-foot setback. McCool responded that the driveway setback is the same as the setback requirements for accessory structures. A number of years ago, the Nuisance Ordinance Task Force reviewed the city’s nuisance ordinances and recommended changing the setbacks due to the number of complaints received about large vehicles being parked in the side yards of properties, some of which were as big as a structure. Poncin stated that she agrees with the previous comments but she is struggling with granting this variance. The current homeowner is stating that he won’t park a camper on the driveway but the next homeowner could. She also feels that a foot is too close to adjacent properties and is not sure that there is really a hardship. Thiede stated that based on the aerial photo it appears that the neighbor’s house is pretty tight on the west side of the lot. He asked how far the driveway would be from that house and what rooms are on that side. Moss responded that he is just asking for the variance for that front corner of the existing garage where it narrows and behind there it widens out considerably. The property owner’s living room is in that front corner. Thiede asked if there was a neighborhood association. Moss responded no. Messick asked when the home was built. Moss responded in the mid 1970s. Thiede asked if a condition could be added to prohibit parking on the driveway addition for an extended period of time. Blin responded yes. Messick stated that a hardship could be due to when the home was built noting that most of the new driveway would meet the ordinance requirements from 2000. Another hardship would be that the house is closer to that right side property line. He stated that there needs to be a balance between the desire of property owners to use their property while not reducing the values of their neighbors. Poncin stated that as far as lot sizes go, newer neighborhoods have smaller lot sizes than this one. She is worried about setting a precedent. Messick stated that is a valid point but he thinks the difference for him is that these new developments were built after these regulations were in place. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Thiede asked about limiting the area on the driveway where vehicles could be parked. Blin responded that if that is the intent of the Commission staff can draft that language. Rostad noted that the proposed driveway would not even meet the pre-2000 setback requirements and wanted to change the setback to two feet instead of one. He also stated that one of his concerns is setting precedence. Thiede stated that in consideration of precedence there are probably other homes in that area that would then have probably a two-foot setback if they did things prior to 2000 so he supports allowing a two-foot setback. Moss stated he could work with that. Thiede made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application with a revision so that the setback is two feet at its narrowest point and have a restriction that nothing can be parked in an area ten feet back and ten feet forward for a period no greater than 24 hours. Messick asked if Thiede wanted to set the language or direct staff to come up with it. Poncin asked if that type of condition is enforceable. Blin responded that the variance is recorded against the property so that presumably the buyer would be aware of that. In terms of enforcement, it would not be apparent but we could look it up if we get a complaint. There was discussion about where vehicles could park and it determined that staff should specify the area that for parking and to establish a time period to allow parking. Thiede amended his motion to change the minimum variance from one foot to two feet so it corresponds with the pre-2000 requirements and to allow staff to specify the area that needs to be free from vehicle parking and establish the minimum time that a vehicle can be in that area. Rambacher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). Discussion Items 7.1 Discussion on Outdoor Wood Burning Facilities Ordinance McCool summarized his report to the Commission on whether the city codes regarding wood burning facilities should be amended. He asked for direction from the Commission on whether or not the city should regulate or prohibit wood burning facilities. Discussion centered on existing and proposed wood burning facilities in the city, whether there have been complaints, allowing them in rural residential and agricultural areas on larger lots, what constitutes a nuisance, mitigating those nuisances, health hazards, and fire hazards. It was the consensus of the Commission to have staff prepare a draft ordinance on outdoor wood burning facilities for discussion at the next meeting. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 2009 Rostad made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2009, meeting. Motion seconded by Linse. The motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2009 Page 5 of 5 Reports 9.1 Recap of June and July City Council Meetings Blin reported on City Council actions from their meetings on June 3, June 17, July 1, and July 15, 2009, noting that the Council approved all the items that the Planning Commission recomended. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None. 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Thiede asked if there was anything new to report on the Home Depot building. Blin responded no. Thiede asked about vacancy rates in the city. Blin responded that next month staff will present a report to the Commission, which is being completed for the Economic Development Authority. He noted that the city is showing a little bit of progress from where we were a year ago. Messick asked if that report could include vacant residential properties. Blin responded yes. Linse asked if residents should report vacant homes to the city. Blin responded to call the city with the address, noting that vacant properties are monitored. Adjournment Thiede made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9-to-0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.