Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-23 PACKET 06.4.STAFF REPORT CASE: V14015 ITEM: 6.4 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 6/23/14 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 7/16/14 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ronald and Joan Kobilka REQUEST: A variance to allow an existing 8 -foot by 16 -foot accessory structure to be approximately five feet from the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet and to allow a fence five feet in height along the north side property line when the maximum height is 30 inches. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDED LAND USE 8900 Greenway Avenue South R -3, Single Family Residential Residential LAND USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES:' CURRENT GUIDED NORTH: Residential Residential EAST: Residential Residential SOUTH: Residential Residential WEST: Residential Residential SIZE: N/A DENSITY: NIA RECOMMENDATION Based on testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation of either approval or denial. Grove COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING DIVISION %ere Page and,, °sveriW nee[ Planning Staff Contact: John McCool, Senior Planner, 651- 458 -2874, imccoolta'�,cottage- g rove. org Application Accepted:_ 5/30/14 60 -Day Review Deadline: 7/29/14 Citv of Cottage Grove Planning Division • 12800 Ravine Parkway South • Cottage Grove, MN 55016 : Planning Staff Report Ron and Joan Kobilka Variance Requests Planning Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Proposal Ron and Joan Kobilka, 8900 Greenway Avenue South, are requesting variances to the follow- ing ordinance requirements: 1. Reduce the 10 -foot minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure to 8.5 feet from the rear lot line and to allow an existing accessory structure to encroach on an existing ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement. 2. Allow an existing five -foot tall residential fence located in the front yard to exceed the ordinance regulations limiting residential fences in the front yard to be a maximum 30 inches above grade within 15 feet of the front property line and four feet in height to the front plane of the house. A copy of their letter dated May 29, 2014 is attached. Location Map Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Review Process Application Received: May 30, 2014 Acceptance of Completed Application: May 30, 2014 Tentative City Council Date: July 16, 2014 60 -Day Review Deadline: July 29, 2014 Ordinance Requirements The existing accessory structure is non - compliant with two City ordinance regulations. The first regulation is the ten -foot minimum rear yard setback (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C )) and the second is the prohibition of any structure to encroach on or over any easement of record (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(E)). The fence ordinance was amended on November 19, 2008 (Ordinance No. 849). Included in this adopted ordinance amendment are regulations pertaining to the finished side of a fence, maintenance, setback from public walkways, barb -wire, front yard fencing, chain -link fence rails and support pole spacing, clear view triangle, and maximum wood plank widths. City Code Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 5(B) limits the height of a fence in the first 15 feet from the front property line to 30 inches and not less than 50 percent transparent and 4 feet in height from the 15 -foot measurement from the front property line to the front plane of the house. An illustration showing fence height limitations in the front yard is shown below. Four foot maximum fence height in front of house. 30 Inch maximum fence height and 50 % transparency Six foot maximum fence height between front plane of house to rear lot line. 15 I Front Propertv Line I Fence Regulation Illustration The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provi- sion 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. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. Planning Staff Report —Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 3 of 9 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the par- cel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other prop- erty within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Planning Considerations Property Characteristics The Kobilka's property has a 75 -foot averaged lot width and a 135.31 foot averaged lot depth for a 10,149 square foot lot area. A detached garage is located southwest of the existing house. An 8 -foot by 16 foot accessory structure is behind the garage. A fence exists along the north, south, and west property boundary lines. An aerial photo of their property is shown below: 2013 Aerial Photo The 8 -foot by 16 foot shed was constructed in 1990. The site plan depicting the location of this shed proposed the building to be 10 feet from the rear lot line and 18 feet from the south prop- erty line. The rear yard setback for this structure is found to be approximately 8.5 feet from the rear lot line. Attached is a copy of the 1990 building permit and site plan for the shed. The photo below shows the area between the shed and rear property line. Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 4 of 9 The Kobilkas initially filed a variance application for their new fence located along the north (side yard) property line, between the front plane of their house and front property line. The var- iance pertains to the height of this fence in front of the house. This fence has a "trellis" design, but is deemed to be a fence as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. The fence definition reads: "Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected and located along the boundary, or within the required yard." A photo of the new fence is shown below. New X14 � \p � 1F r/ 11 T �K• iA Jk���R "�W;; !nce — North Property Line 1 , Y fj W \. I The Kobilkas stated that they replaced the fence along their south property line in 2000. City code regulations for fences in the front yard were adopted in 2000. For this reason, the existing fence along the south property line and extending into the front yard is legally non - conforming. Kobilka's Rear Property Line — Looking North Existing Fence — South Property Line Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 5 of 9 They explained that their new fence along the north property line was constructed to match their existing fence along their south property line. Drainage and Utility Easement This property is within the Thompson Grove 4th Addition. This subdivision plat was recorded in 1958, and houses in this general area were generally constructed in 1958 -59. At the time of platting this subdivision, the plat included a drainage and utility easement ten feet in width. This is common along rear property boundary lines for each lot. An excerpt from the Thompson Grove 4th Addition plat showing drainage and utility easements on residential lots abutting Kobilka's property is shown below. 20 'I �! 7 Utilities All the public utilities exist and provide adequate service to this property and all other residential properties in this neighborhood. An overhead utility line exists along the rear property line. The drainage swale along the rear property line exists and conveys stormwater during heavy rainfalls. No public utility needs to be relocated or modified to accommodate the applicant's requested variances. If a variance is granted for the shed to remain at its current location, a condition of approval will require the property owners to move the shed in the event it prevents or limits full use of the utility and drainage easement. Public Hearing Notices A public hearing notice was mailed to 90 property owners who are within 500 feet of the appli- cant's property. These notices were mailed on June 11, 2014. The public hearing notice was also published in the June 11, 2014, edition of the South Washington County Bulletin. The Kobilka's have included eight letters /messages from Cottage Grove residents supporting their fence variance request. A copy of each letter is attached. 1 7 � 1 /7 1 /D r9l.77 /,IS. 1n /L Utilities All the public utilities exist and provide adequate service to this property and all other residential properties in this neighborhood. An overhead utility line exists along the rear property line. The drainage swale along the rear property line exists and conveys stormwater during heavy rainfalls. No public utility needs to be relocated or modified to accommodate the applicant's requested variances. If a variance is granted for the shed to remain at its current location, a condition of approval will require the property owners to move the shed in the event it prevents or limits full use of the utility and drainage easement. Public Hearing Notices A public hearing notice was mailed to 90 property owners who are within 500 feet of the appli- cant's property. These notices were mailed on June 11, 2014. The public hearing notice was also published in the June 11, 2014, edition of the South Washington County Bulletin. The Kobilka's have included eight letters /messages from Cottage Grove residents supporting their fence variance request. A copy of each letter is attached. Planning Staff Report —Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 6 of 9 City Department Review Representatives from various City Departments reviewed the Kobilkas' variance requests. They did not provide any formal comments, but generally agreed that the type of fence in the Kobilkas front yard did not appear to obstruct any motorist's view while backing into the street. No comments or recommendations were received from other advisory commissions. Conclusion There are two options available to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for both variance requests. The following options were prepared for each variance for your consideration: Fence Height Variance: Recommendation for Denial. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of a variance to City Code regulations limiting fence height to 30 inches for the first 15 feet from the front property line and four feet in height to the front plane of the house (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 5(B)). This variance application only applies to the fence along the north property line in front of the house at 8900 Greenway Avenue and not the older fence along the south property line. The fence along the south property line was constructed in 2000 and ap- pears to have complied with ordinance regulations prior to the ordinance amendments in 2008. The property would still have reasonable use in the absence of the variance, a fence compliant with the ordinance requirements could still be constructed, and there are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request. If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the fence height variance along the north property line, the following findings of facts may be considered: A. The property currently has a reasonable use and there are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request. B. A fence compliant with the current ordinance regulations could be constructed. KU Recommendation for Approval. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a variance to City Code regulations to allow the existing five -foot tall fence in the front yard at 8900 Greenway Avenue to exceed the fence height of 30 inches for the first 15 feet from the front property line and four feet to the front plane of the house (Title 11, Chap- ter 3, Section 5(B)). This variance application only applies to the fence along the north property line in front of the house and not the older fence along the south property line. Granting a variance allowing the existing five -foot tall fence to exceed the maximum fence height requirements in the front yard is based on the following findings of fact: A. The existing fence along the north property line is a trellis design that does not obscure visibility for either abutting property owner. Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 7 of 9 B. The building materials, design, and color of the existing fence along the north property line and in the front yard are similar to the existing fence along the south property line that was constructed in 2000. Granting a variance to allow the existing five -foot tall fence along the north property line in the front yard of 8900 Greenway Avenue is subject to the following conditions: 1. The exterior materials and color scheme of the fence must maintain a minimum of 50 percent transparency. 2. Plant species growing on the existing fence is permitted, but not so much foliage on the fence that the 50 percent transparent requirement is not complied with. This does not apply to the fence behind the front plane of the house. 3. If the fence is completely replaced in the future, City ordinance requirements for fences must be complied with. Accessory Structure Rear Yard Setback and Easement Encroachment Variances: Recommendation for Denial. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of a variance to City Code regulations requiring a ten -foot minimum rear yard setback for the 8 foot by 16 foot accessory structure (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C ) and its encroach- ment on a ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement along the property's rear lot line (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(E)). If the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of this ten -foot minimum rear yard setback for the accessory structure and encroachment on the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement, the following findings of fact may be considered: A. The property currently has a. reasonable use and there are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request. B. The site plan drawing that accompanied the building permit application issued on August 10, 1990 was approved based on a compliant rear yard setback. C. The structure's encroachment on the drainage and utility easement might limit or restrict accessibility within the drainage and utility easement for future maintenance, construc- tion, repair and /or access to existing or future public and /or private utility services. D. The existing structure must be moved off the existing drainage and utility easement. The property owner is required to contact the Building Inspections Division once the structure has been relocated for inspection of the relocated structure and verification that the minimum setback requirements are complied with. E. The structure may potentially be damaged if stormwater drainage within the ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement is encumbered by the structure. Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 8 of 9 F. The variance request does not meet ordinance requirements and variance criteria and is inconsistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations. G. There are no unique circumstances to the property and the misplaced accessory struc- ture was created by the landowner. H. The conditions upon which the variances are requested are not unique to just this parcel of land and could generally be sought by other properties within the same zoning classi- fication. I. The drainage and utility easement existed before the applicant purchased the property. X0 Recommendation for Approval. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a variance to allow the existing 8 -foot by 16 -foot accessory structure to remain in its current location at 8900 Greenway Avenue South. Granting a variance allowing the existing 8foot by 16 -foot accessory structure to be 8 feet, 11 inches from the rear property boundary line and encroach 13 inches on the existing ten -foot wide drainage and utility ease- ment is based on the following findings of fact: A. The existing structure has existed at this location since August 1990 and apparently has not caused any surface stormwater drainage problems for abutting properties. B. The variances do not adversely impact development goals and policies documented in the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. C. The requested setback and easement encroachment variances continues a reasonable use on the property. Granting a variance to allow the . existing 8 -foot by 16 -foot accessory structure at 8900 Greenway Avenue South to remain at its current location and encroach on a drainage and utili- ty easement is subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner agrees to relocate the accessory structure if it is determined that its existence on the drainage and utility easement prevents or limits full use of the utility and drainage easement. 2. The property owner agrees to hold the City harmless of any damages the non - compliant structure may sustain from stormwater drainage and /or any future construction, mainte- nance, repair, or installation of public or private utility services necessary within the dedicated easement. 3. Constructing an addition or modifying the existing non- conforming accessory structure must not increase the amount of encroachment on the drainage and utility easement. General maintenance (e.g. painting, re- siding and re- roofing) is permitted. Planning Staff Report — Case No. V2014 -015 June 23, 2014 Page 9 of 9 4. If the non - conforming accessory structure is removed from the site, all future accessory structures must conform to all development standards required by City Code regulations. Recommendation Based on testimony and discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Com- mission can modify any of the draft recommendations, finding of facts, and /or conditions of approval. It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommendation for each of the following two variance applications: 1. Reduce the ten -foot minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure to 8.5 feet from the rear lot line and allow an existing accessory structure to encroach on an exist- ing ten -foot wide drainage and utility easement. 2. Allow an existing five -foot tall residential fence located in the front yard to exceed the ordinance regulations limiting residential fences in the front yard to be a maximum 30 inches above grade within 15 feet of the front property line and four feet in height to the front plane of the house. Prepared by: John McCool, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Applicant's Letter dated May 29, 2014 Letters /messages Supporting Application Building Permit and Site Plan, August 1990 May 29, 20014 Dear Council Member & Planning Commission, We are applying for a residential variance to the fence ordinances. First off let me say that we have lived in Cottage Grove for 50 years. And in that time we have always got permits and follow the rules and regulation as set out by this city. I now have to ask for a variance because of a complaint about our fence which really surprised us. Through the years our yard and fence lines have changed for various reasons. In back we had a row of lilac and they became overgrown and we took them out and put up our first section of a lattice fence. We had a vegetable garden. In 1991 we were hit by straight line winds and lost several trees, so put garden in their places. In 1996 our daughter was murdered and as a way of dealing with that grief got into more gardening. In 2000 we replaced the fence on the south side as it was falling apart and quite an eye sore. The property had changed hands several time's We also had put in a matching fence on the north side up to the back of the house. We decided to finish the fence into the front yard last fall. So we matched our fence to the one on the south side, not realizing the code has changed. Now we are talking 50 years and we are now in out middle 70's and it is harder to do the work. Old Arthur liked to visit us. So we would have to get someone to make the fence up to code, it would not match the south side and in my opinion would not look as nice as it does now. It is a nice addition and looks great as a back drop for the garden. The fence does not restrict air movement, light or more importantly site lines. Several people stop as they walk or bike by and say how nice it looks and how they enjoy the garden. Thank you for looking into this matter. I am enclosing pictures and a few letters from neighbors with there opinions I just found out we are not within code with our shed. We took out a building permit when we built the shed and do not know why the inspector did not catch the error or how we got off by 13 inches? At the time there was a large lilac hedge in back of the shed? Anyhow we are now in need of a variance for the shed. It was built in 1990 to replace a metal prefab that got rusty. If we have to move the shed we will have to hire someone to move or rebuild. Which will cost a fair amount and cause a big headache I don't even know if it is possible to move, might have to rebuild? Thank you for looking into this matter and again am sorry this is causing such a headache to everyone. Sincerely n 1 B Joan & Ron Kobilka 8900 Greenway Ave S 651 -459 -4400 ronkob@usfamiIv.net '~ ~.� ............................................... May 29, 2014 Re: Kobilka Variance Council and Commission Members We are writing to support the residential fence variance for the Kobilka residence at 8900 Greenway. The Kobilka's constructed a trellis fence last year that matches the existing fence built in the year 2000. This fence is a backdrop to their front garden. They had pine trees as a back drop to their garden, but lost one of the pine trees and replaced it with a fence that matched on the south side of the yard. The fence is a trellis fence and does not restrict light or air and does not interfere with the sight line of the street or driveways. The Kobilka's who are in their mid 70's have been good neighbors in our community, not only do they keep up their yard, share their produce and flowers to the community, but they work at their church garden. Joan is a Washington County Master Gardener, member of the Washington County Horticulture Society, and past member of Pineridge Garden Club. All of these organizations require volunteer time in promoting gardening, planting and caring for community gardens. These organization also promote wise use of water and the preservation of our natural resources. Joan was also instrumental in organizing and promoting the Garden Tour Fundraiser for the Youth Service Bureau. The Kobilka's are good neighbors and citizens in our city, they would not willingly violate an ordinance, but after paying to put up the cedar trellis fence it would be a hardship for them to pay again to lower the fence nor would it then it be a nice visual back drop for their garden or the neighborhood. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND REVIEW THE TRELLIS FENCE AT 8900 GREENWAY AND SEE FOR YOUR SELVES THAT THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT RESTRICK LIGHT, AIR OR INTERFERE WITH SIGHT LINES. Thank you for your consideration and time. Sincerely yours 411121�4y Roger and My a Peterson o i I l ' `� May 29, 2014 Cottage Grove City Planners & City Council I am writing this concerning a variance requested by Ron & Joan Kobilka for a fence on their property at their home on Greenway Avenue. As a friend of theirs I want to state that I have been at their home many times and do not see a problem with their fence. It does not hinder backing out of the drive, nor is it unattractive. Ron and Joan take pride in their yard and are constantly maintaining the landscape keeping it neat and attractive. Please grant their request for a variance. Thank you, Annette Mullen $2(I hum A-vCs Ri. ,OEAre 61,e d1Z 4V44A4 l✓c rNOVG// i t16ee- o59i e4 n/t :aJ r0 rNE NE /G N.3o PNUOo A)e l/E ACCOME 4.V4 eOW ✓Ei'S, lJv�vKt E .FE e,,4- 1VC/. 70 NA ✓E // % NE ke 011IC - 4 7'/�E�i Crd04 7-a Du.Q ,OAd6- /1>E.�S An/o /o4.t/ .4G .S / - 1 1VGS dVCe 600p TN /i✓G 5 TD CAT Ae 6W oV6e GA del SCE Ale) ,ee,4Jdn/ deoe 7WOR To IAVC ra 7 A IOA/ A THE JE,V E rNE 1 L a SO NA,eD ro ,Ci /LiJ. zr MAKES A 4,e Ar Td 7 ,E �'T� 1 QELJE /� A ✓.4L uC /AV T HE LDNG tic %✓ L QeLiEVE >N /S acJ,sN,,V TN£/ 514E 07' 7 Aed,aE 127 I-WC 50 .OdN'r see /7- Wdtl A,5rer r f/ e , G.s, d .� AN alA . f AM 7 rN/ ,✓ ro ev s, ac 2A� / /./" A,�nv u oEC, s/ T o.a Page 1 of 1 Ron and Joan Kobilka From: " Salie Stange" <s.hange @hotmail.com> To: "Joannie Kolbilka" <ronkob @usfamily.net> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:46 AM To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of Ron and Joan Kobilka at 8900 Greenway Ave.S., in Cottage Grove. The issue is their fence on their property. The fence is beautiful! Absolutely not an eyesore! Nor does it present any kind of problem such as blocking any ones view. My husband and I would be happy to see a fence like that in our yard ourselves, it's so nice. If you want to talk about any fences that should be repaired or removed all together, take a ride around Cottage Grove, talk about some problem fences, along Hinton for onel If the Kobilka's need to redo their fence because of some neighbors dislike, then there should be a lot of other fences taken care of. It would be pretty sad if because a neighbor doesn't care for anything anyone does, that they could have such pull. I say go and take a look at this fence and you will see for yourselves how nice it is. Salie Stange 8169 83rd. St.S. Cottage Grove, MN. 55016 5/29/2014 May 28,2014 This letter is in regard to the fence located at 8900 Greenway Ave, Cottage Grove. I find the fence adds to the appeal of the garden and the property. It in no way hinders the view and only adds to the beauty of the yard. I think a variance should be approved to allow the fence to remain. Gary and Claudia Glass J�� 6546 90 St so Cottage Grove May 28, 2014 City of Cottage Grove Fence at 8900 Greenway Ave S We live at 8905 Greenway Ave South, we feel the fence at 8900 Greenway Ave South, is quality built and adds to the landscaping of the flower Garden that Joan and Ron Kobilka have worked so hard on over the years on their property. Although the fence may not be to city code, we do not feel it poses any danger to the public, or neighboring properties. P Jeff & Sylvia Harris - o City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission A variance to allow a existing lean -to 8884 Greenway Ave S A variance to allow a 8X16 accessory structure, at 8900 Greenway Ave S I feel if the City of Cottage Grove has a 10 foot drainage and utility easement on both properties, no structure should be on the easement if the structure would hamper the drainage or utility easement. If the owners at 8884 and 8900 did not get a building permit the variance should not be given. The variance should be given before any building. (Not after) If building permits were given to property owners, and no follow up/ sign off, this is a problem with the City of Cottage Grove, as it has been years on each property. 8905 Greenway Ave S =EE P J � NO 18138 'A : - BUILDING PERMIT COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA FEES: $ 30.00 Permit Fee State Surcharge bu Metro SAC Charge Other $ 30.50 Site Address 8900 Greenway Ave. Owner Ronald Kobilke General Contractor same Estimated Cost $500.00 INSPECTFONS: Footings Firewalls Final Comments IN CONSIDERATION OF The Statements and representations made by the Applicant Ronald Kobilka whose address is 8900 Greenway Ave. in his made a part hereof, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Ronald Kobilka as owner to Kind of construction Front or width in feet 8 Number of stories Left Side Set Back LOT 9 BL01 Assessors Plat Number construct storage shed —;Side or length in feet 16 Sq. Ft. 128 ; Rear Set Right Side Set is hereby building described as follows: of building Height in feet , Front Set upon that tract of land described as follows: 6 PLAT OR ADDITION Thompson Grave 4th Ad ; which tract is of the size and area specified in said application. This permit Is granted upon the express conditions that said owner or the person to whom It Is granted, and his con- tractors, agents, workmen and employees, shall comply in all respects with ordinances of the city Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and all conditions as required by the City Council; that it does not cover the use of public property, such as streets, sidewalks, etc., for which special permits must be secured; and that it does not cover Electrical, Plumbing and Heating for which special permits must be secured. Given under the hand of the Clerk of said City and its corporate seal and attest by its Inspector this 10th day of AI oust , 19_9.f1. This permit shall be good for one year from date of issuance. ATTEST: Everett A. Anderson /st Inspector S. J. Tradup ' Cler q /if orVwner) �OMV'%- Nam poo 6rw�� Avaw-.. iifg, Pim - A�v4t Id 1 /1f 2 /110