Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-16 PACKET 04.F.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 6/16/10 PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider approving a variance to reduce the required 35 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 19 feet to bring into conformance an existing three - season porch on the deck at 9014 Jasmine Court South. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving the rear yard setback variance at 9017 Jasmine Court South. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 6/10/10 ® RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Excerpt from 5/24/10 Planning Commission Minutes ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS t City Administrator Date a" COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: MAPPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER /�, �ZpI6 - C�7,5- DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ® PLANNING 5/24/10 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 6/10/10 ® RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Excerpt from 5/24/10 Planning Commission Minutes ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS t City Administrator Date a" COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: MAPPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER /�, �ZpI6 - C�7,5- CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: June 10, 2010 RE: Huesmann Variance — Rear Yard Setback srs Mike and JoKay Huesmann have applied for a variance to reduce the required 35 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 19 feet to bring into conformance an existing three - season porch on their deck. The property is located at 9014 Jasmine Court South. —�I 90TH ST 5 L w n,_ LU WOODRIDGE PARK )sed Huesmann Variance Rear Yard Setback 9094 Jasmine Court Location Map The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed variance application at their meeting on May 24, 2010. No public testimony was received at that meeting. Copies of statements by seven abutting property owners acknowledging that they have viewed an aerial photo showing the location of Huesmann's three - season porch and do not object to its construction were given to the Commission. The Commission expressed concerns that the property owner started construction without a building permit and supported the requirement that the building permit fee be doubled. The building permit fee for this project will be $407.72. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Huesmann Rear Yard Setback Variance June 10, 2010 Page 2 of 6 The Commission unanimously recommended approval (7 -to -0 vote) of Huesmann's rear yard setback variance application allowing construction of the three - season porch to be completed. An excerpt from the Planning Commission's unapproved minutes is attached. Ordinance Requirements The property is zoned R -3, Single Family Residential. The minimum rear yard setback is 35 feet for principal structures and ten feet for accessory structures. City ordinance allows decks with- out walls or roof to be eight feet from the rear property line. The applicant had a deck on the rear of the house. On this deck, a three - season porch was constructed. The deck is about six feet above the ground and 19 feet from the rear property line. The new three- season porch is considered to be part of the principal structure and should have met the 35 -foot minimum rear yard setback requirement. • . ,. Property Characteristics The applicant's property is located on a cul -de -sac street. The property has the following exist- ing accessory structures: • A 20 -foot by 50 -foot accessory structure on the northeast side of the house. This building was built in 2006. • A 13.5 -foot by 13.5 -foot accessory structure in the southwest corner of the lot. This 182 square foot building exceeds the 160 square foot size limitation if two accessory struc- tures are located on the property. The property owner stated that this structure existed at the time they purchased this property. A double -car garage is attached on the front side of the home. The gravel surface in front of the larger accessory building is proposed to be replaced with a concrete surface. An aerial photo of the property is shown below. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Huesmann Rear Yard Setback Variance June 10, 2010 Page 3 of 6 The three - season porch has not been finished, but is being built on an existing deck that was constructed in 2000. The property owner started constructing a three - season porch on this existing deck. A row of evergreen trees and a privacy fence exists along the rear property line. Rear Yard The principal structure is centrally located on the irregularly shaped lot. The two -car attached garage is on the front of the house which placed the living portion of the structure closer to the rear lot line. This unique building footprint provided more yard space along each side yard as compared to other neighboring properties. The diagram below shows the applicant's property boundaries and general layout of structures on the property. Three - season Porch The exterior siding for the almost completed three - season porch will match the exterior of the existing house. Building elevations for the three - season porch are shown below: Proposed Three - Season Porch Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Huesmann Rear Yard Setback Variance June 10, 2010 Page 4 of 6 I 6<r4 P.nf TossrS 07, fr A ' 5109 G�*" yp ;m 3.p Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Huesmann Rear Yard Setback Variance June 10, 2010 Page 5 of 6 West Elevation Public Hearing Notices Public hearing notices were mailed on May 12, 2010 to 66 property owners that are within 500 feet of the property. Neighborhood Response Seven neighboring property owners have signed a statement acknowledging that they have viewed an aerial photo showing the location of Huesmann's proposed three - season porch and have no objections to its construction. The location of the seven property owners not objecting to the proposed variance are shown below, and a copy of their statements is attached. LEGEND A& LI l Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Huesmann Rear Yard Setback Variance June 10, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion There are two options available to the City Council for disposition of this request: Deny the request. Without a variance, it will be necessary for the applicant to remove the three season porch. Approve the request. If the variance is approved, the applicant may finish the three season porch. That the City Council grant a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback requirement from 35 feet to 19 feet for the three- season porch. The recommendation granting this variance is based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the attached draft resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX fl 1 .' I :a m oi l IN • WHEREAS, Mike and JoKay Huesman applied for a variance to reduce the required 35- foot minimum rear yard setback to 19 feet to bring into conformance an existing three - season porch on their deck, on property legally described as: Lot 1, Block 7, Ridgewood 1st Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. Commonly known as 9017 Jasmine Court South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2010; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report which detailed specific information about the property and the variance application was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony. The applicant attended the public hearing. No other public testimony was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the criteria and findings established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance. A summary of this criteria is as follows: 1) It must be determined that there are unique conditions that apply to the structure or land in question that do not generally apply to other land or structures in the same district; 2) That granting a variance must not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but must be nec- essary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty from the City's ordinance; and 3) Granting the variance must not impair health, safety, comfort, or morals or in any respect, or be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (7 -0 vote) recommended to the City Council that the variance be granted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a variance to reduce the required 35 -foot minimum rear yard setback to 19 feet to bring into conformance an existing three - season porch on their deck located on the property legally described above. Granting of this variance is based upon the following findings of fact: A. The principal structure is centrally located on the irregularly- shaped lot. Resolution No. 2010 -XXX Page 2 of 2 B. There is an existing elevated deck in the proposed location of the addition. The existing three - season porch is on top of the existing deck. C. The height of the three - season porch is less than the 1,000 square foot accessory structure that is 11 feet from the rear lot line as compared to the proposed 19 -foot setback for the three - season porch. D. The two -car attached garage is on the front of the house, which generally provides more open space along both side yards as compared to the adjoining properties. E. The existing three - season porch will not adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands. F. The existing three season porch will make the home more efficient and livable and increase the property's market value. G. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the congestion of the public streets, will not endanger the public's safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the recommendation for approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The exterior materials and color for the 18 -foot by 18 -foot three season porch must be similar to the principal structure. 2. The property owner must obtain a building permit from the City and pay twice the building permit fee amount because most of the construction was completed without a building permit. Passed this 16th day of June 2010. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron Stransky, City Clerk 6.3 Huesman Porch Variance — Case V10 -011 Mike and JoKay Huesman have applied for a variance to allow a three- season porch on an existing deck to be closer to the rear property line than the required 35 feet at 9014 Jasmine Court South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Poncin asked if there is a limitation on the percent of the yard that can filled with structures. McCool responded that there is a limitation in some zoning districts; this property is located in the R -3 zoning district, which has a 50 percent building coverage limitation. Other zoning districts may have a limitation on impervious surface coverage. Poncin asked if the appli- cants have less than 50 percent. McCool responded yes. Linse asked what the building permit fee would be. McCool responded that because they started construction without a building permit, the fee would be doubled. In this case a very rough estimate would be a couple hundred dollars times two. Linse asked if there would be any repercussions for the contractor. McCool responded it would be the double building permit fee. He stated that the Building Department has inspected the work that has been done so far; for the most part it is compliant with all building code requirements. Rambacher stated that his concern is setting a precedent for granting approval after work has started without the proper permits. He asked how the City became aware of this project. McCool replied that the city received an inquiry from a neighboring property owner. He re- ported that the applicant provided letters from all adjoining property owners stating that they did not object to construction of the three - season porch. Poncin asked the applicant why they did not get a building permit. Gordon Nesvig, 7501 80th Street South, stated that he is an attorney helping the Huesman's with this process. He ex- plained that they had a permit for the deck but did not realize that it was critical that before they went any farther they would have to apply for the additional permit for the porch. They intended to get the permit before they finished the project. They did stop construction as soon as this came about. He stated that the staff report was complete and accurate. Rostad asked if the other structures on the property were properly permitted. McCool re- sponded that the 20 -foot by 50 -foot building was constructed in 2006 and a building permit was obtained before it was constructed. There is no record on the 13 -foot by 13 -foot shed, but the property owner explained that building existed when they purchased the property. Rostad asked if there would be a precedent set by doubling the permit fee. McCool re- sponded that is typical for projects that are started without a permit, per city ordinance. 11 1 =11141i Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes Huesman Porch Variance — Case V10 -011 May 24, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Linse made a motion to recommend approval of the variance application, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed below. Brittain seconded. Findings of Fact A. The principal structure is centrally located on the irregularly- shaped lot. B. There is an existing elevated deck in the proposed location of the addition. The ex- isting three - season porch is on top of the existing deck. C. The height of the three - season porch is less than the 1,000 square foot accessory structure that is 11 feet from the rear lot line as compared to the proposed 19 -foot setback for the three - season porch. D. The two -car attached garage is on the front of the house, which generally provides more open space along both side yards as compared to the adjoining properties. E. The existing three - season porch will not adversely impact the view of adjoining neighbors of any parks, open space, or wetlands. F. The existing three season porch will make the home more efficient and livable and increase the property's market value. G. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adja- cent properties, will not increase the congestion of the public streets, will not en- danger the public's safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. Conditions of Approval 1. The exterior materials and color for the 18 -foot by 18 -foot three season porch must be similar to the principal structure. 2. The property owner must obtain a building permit from the City and pay twice the building permit fee amount because most of the construction was completed with- out a building permit. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote).