HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-16 PACKET 04.F. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM #
DATE 7/16/14 � �
PREPARED BY: Community Development Jennifer Levitt
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
*************�*******�**�:�**********************
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
1. Consider approving a variance to reduce the 10-foot minimum rear yard setback for an
existing accessory structure at 8900 Greenway Avenue to be 8.5 feet from the rear lot line
and allow the same existing accessory structure to encroach on an existing ten-foot wide
drainage and utility easement.
2. Consider approving a variance allowing an existing five-foot tall residential fence located in
the front yard of 8900 Greenway Avenue 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the variance to the rear setback requirements and allowing
the shed to encroach on a drainage and utility easement.
2. Adopt the resolution approving the fence height variance.
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION
// ' •
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED
6/23/14 ❑ � ❑
� MEMO/LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 7/9/14
� RESOLUTION: Draft - Shed setback and encroachment
Draft - Fence height
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
� OTHER: Excerpt from unapproved minutes of 6/23/14 Planning Commission meeting
ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
,
�W_
City Administrator
I t
�. -
�****�*******�**********�*********************�*
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
Cottage
J Grove
� Pride ana PrOSperity Meet
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner
DATE: July 9, 2014
RE: Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
Proposal
Ron and Joan Kobilka, 8900 Greenway Avenue South, are requesting variances to the following
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 ex-
isting 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
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 2 of 7
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
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission held a public meeting on June 23, 2014, for the Kobilka's variance
application to reduce the 10-foot minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure to 3.5
feet from the rear lot line (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C)) and to allow an existing accessory
structure to encroach on an existing ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement (Title 11, Chap-
ter 3, Section 3(E)) and 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.
Brian Kobilka (son of Ron and Joan Kobilka) stated that his parents have lived at this property
for 50 plus years and the shed has existed on the property for 24 years. It was not until recently
that the shed was found to be approximately 13 inches on the 10-foot wide drainage and utility
easement. Brian Kobilka stated that they obtained a building permit before the structure was
constructed and the fence was constructed to match the existing trellis design that was originally
constructed in the year 2000.
The Planning Commission noted that the shed only encroaches 13-inches onto the easement
and that the property owner reported that the existing structure does not cause adverse impacts
to existing drainage patterns for adjoining properties. With the exception of testimony from the
applicant's son, there was no oral testimony for or against the variance application. A letter from
Jeff and Sylvia Harris, 8905 Greenway Avenue, dated May 28, 2014, was received and placed
on file. The Harris' objected to the City granting a variance to reduce a 10-foot minimum rear
yard setback and easement encroachment if a building permit had not been issued. A copy of
Harris' letter is attached.
The Planning Staff Report for the Kobilka's variance application for the fence and accessory
structure's rear yard setback included two options for each of the two variances for the Planning
Commission's consideration. The two options were recommendations denying or approving the
Kobilka's fence height and accessory structure's minimum rear yard setback. Findings of facts
were listed for each denial recommendation and findings of facts and conditions of approval for
each variance.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue of property owners not obtaining building permits
before constructing structures and the ramifications that illegal structures have if ordinance
regulations are later found non-compliant. A Commissioner stated that building p�rmits ar� r�-
quired before construction to ensure variance applications are not sought after it is found not all
ordinance requirements are met. The Planning Commission also stated that variances are eval-
uated on a case by case basis depending on findings of facts.
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 3 of 7
The Planning Commission made two recommendations, one for the fence variance and one for
the accessory structure setback requirements. The Planning Commission recommended (7-to-1
vote) that the City Council grant a variance to allow the five-foot fence height in the front yard at
8900 Greenway Avenue. The Planning Commission member voting nay stated that no hardship
existed and granting variances "after the fact" must stop.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended (8-to-0 vote) that the City Council grant a
variance to the ten-foot minimum rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures and to
allow an existing accessory structure to encroach on an existing ten-foot wide drainage and util-
ity easement on property located at 8900 Greenway Avenue.
Both recommendations were based on findings of facts and subject to the conditions docu-
mented in the planning staff report. An excerpt from the Planning Commission's unapproved
minutes from their June 23, 2014 meeting and the draft resolution with conditions recommended
by the Commission are enclosed.
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 I
in front of house.
30 inch maximum fence height
and 50 % transparency
BLVD.
I i
�� STREET
15 FT. 15 FT. � � `e
Six foot maximum fence height between \
front plane of house to rear lot line.
Front Property Line
Fence Regulation Illustration
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 4 of 7
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.
5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to
the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to
other property 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-
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 5 of 7
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.
:�: - T
�±� � 3
,�=.� �
.t. ; ,:
e ,�:
� � ���_ = ��'
�� ����� i �� � � $�
� � • . . ��'� �Y 7l7.
� - _ I � ._. �` - . .��,.P, �..
�. �, - � � 1 �
7 �
�j � �� � �~i' � � ,� � t
I'" �• �� .
' � `'�� - �
���� - .._w.._...�
�
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 variance
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 par-
tition, structure, wall or gate erected and located along the boundary, or within the required
yard." A photo of the new fence is shown below.
.. ` _ _
,�r�+,,,,; `- ,i �. �� _ �
f � ' �� ".
���`"�-�` a�..� �T _ '__ _ � _ -...f
Existing Fence — South Property Line
�;;� T � ��,
; ' ' . � � � � �,_ _ -, -, p: �
•,,; � ' � ; ' �--��-�� 5�
�{e � �' �.; !� , , �, ,
'h�ii��_,,;•:, :, .�za; .I
��"�� 1'; -..; � I
� 1
;'�� � : �,;�;; � �:
�� ��� � � .� �{.�
a� �� �, �
�������
�:_ „N F��
\ �� �
New Fence — North Property Line
Kobilka's Rear Property Line — Looking North
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 6 of 7
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.
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.
irc
,; ZO �11
: ! 1.'. 7
� � � ; . - �q /ss.�� �
. � /.' � ; � � --
1 N
� u�7 � ti', d �^ � � � �d
--- c � � < <�,.� 4 � ,3s.�
'�>� a � � �.
�?'� � �� � J k� � � �,� �7
( ��.:� � � � � �,� i.�s.cc
� •
� n° ��' $ 1 /o ��«a' � �� /G
�
� i3�.�7 `� i�ts. , d y ° �40.�
i , ^
► � i i� U �
� v. /L u:. // � g �_, a i
V tl�l tl@S
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 re-
quire 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.
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder
Kobilka Variance — Minimum Rear Yard and Encroachment and Fence Height
July 9, 2014
Page 7 of 7
The Kobilka's included eight letters/messages from Cottage Grove residents supporting their
fence variance request. A copy of each letter is attached. On June 23, a letter from Jeff and
Sylvia Harris, 8905 Greenway Avenue, dated May 28, 2014, was received and placed on file.
They objected to the City granting a variance allowing a structure to encroach on a 10-foot wide
drainage and utility easement, except if City approval was granted at the time a building permit
was issued but never inspected for setbacks. The Harris' letter was placed on file and a copy is
attached.
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.
Recommendation
That the City Council accepts the Planning Commission's recommendations for each of the
following City Ordinance requirements:
1. Adopt a resolution granting a reduction of a 10-foot minimum rear yard setback for an
existing accessory structure at 8900 Greenway Avenue to be 8.5 feet from the rear lot
line (Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3(C)) and allow the same existing accessory structure to
encroach on an existing ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement (Title 11, Chapter 3,
Section 3(E)).
2. Adopt a resolution granting a variance allowing an existing five-foot tall residential fence
located in the front yard of 8900 Greenway Avenue 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
(City Code Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 5(B)).
These recommendations are based on findings of facts and subject to the conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission. A draft resolution was prepared for each variance and the
findings of facts and conditions of approval were incorporated in both attached resolutions.
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
Addendum
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
� � 1'� ���
G���
Joan & Ron Kobilka
8900 Greenway Ave S
651-459-4400
ronkob(cr�,usfamily.iiet
.................................................................................................................
............................................ . � .................................................... ....................
....................�...... Y��.......:�..:�::�,,....... .................................
.........���....... .{:�.......... .��.�.:�:�:�:.-:.... �:. ......
� .... �..
� ,� -
..............1.:� :.........��1,�:�..............�..s�.,�.:.........�.').D:�..........�'.�.�,..............
' ��
..... ....�� . ....... ............. -��:�-.-:..�...............................................
..........................................................................................................
.................��.-::.......1.5...........c .'...� ..�:. �....... .... ......�c.. ............
....y.l.� �...:�... .........���-�::t:e-..........«�:::�.r..�.�{'. �,. ......��....��............
.........�� . ...................�..t :�..�...........�%...��:.e��::.........:�.................
........s��� ............... .�l.r�r. .�........,�'...:�: ;�:�..........................................
�
.................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
...................................... .............:. ................................ . ............
.......... ........... ........................ ..... ..��.... ........ ...... .... �.�...�. .�...1... ..... �
.. .
..............................................:��. .ss..�...:..... .:.�: �..��... ��
��
.................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................
...........................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
....................................................................................... ................ . ...............
......................................................................................................
............................................................... :.......................................
.....................................................................................................
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
�,�°��/���� _
� �- �
Roger and My a Peterson
1 � � � r ► `�
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 mainta.ining the landscape
keeping it neat and attractive.
Please grant their request for a variance.
Thank you,
; ��
f`� � L,�-'�°e�"'t'�
Annette Mullen /� �'�9 _ �J �' S �
l
2� C�UP1l �Y�S �.•
� �
.CJ�JiC 5`r� �i� �!'l.dl�i9s1��°"
„�IIc �'t%�c,i8-.�� u.1�ri'�"" ft�i,�'t � ,.�0'� �x
CC,�� 10�" /�E�G`�/Yl� d".Q%�'� Ge.�f ��'f
°.���-.�'�I� ,�,✓� i�`.�,��,� ; �"e�
`T �s-dd� 7''�'� l ,Q�t�f-�"7
,t�iCy o.ii✓Z�-.SS C9 i.�r..� fr�el� 7`"/�i/.�✓�r-.� �
� .�� �' ,+�I�9 .���I.��d.� �r�.�' - �"X �'.�
�'1 Po,��'it�.r�J � �'tf� � a
5d f��1� �—� ��'a�re►. .� ,�v1,�l,
i 4� �"/��"��Z /�'.t�l�/��j—�s9�'c� .�
�°'CJ _ 7"�E" ,n
�i��..*W o/��✓� 1��A� 1ddC�� s� /�
o�� ./! ; ��y.2� C�c� j-�
�✓�` ,�!lrt6� �/dA�1 �4'C-tc�A�.�
�°r" �'.t'��� l�'�' C�9,�l1�
�a ����: �rc� �rrc-; �� ��.�
d� �'�'� L �JNC'�- �� �.s�/ ..+. ,Q�"L, i e"V � `�ff�"
7°"/,��i/i S�'lJ� �" r.tJ[% f�.c� c�l�Ci? �"�/' t_ t�J�"
t! �
U.c? ,
�
�
FI���
��
7` /��1/>0 `�f �r'V
.c1 a �C_ �74t7 t��l.
�� i.� �cJ � �r� r�V
.� .E�C�M'�- ..5��
�,:
�
, ��
Page 1 of 1
Ron and Joan Kobiika
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 loan 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 1 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 roblem fences,
along Hinton for one! 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
5/29/201 �
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. lt in no way hinders the view and only adds to the beauty of the
yar•d. I think a variance should be approved to allow the fence to remain.
Gary and Claudia Glass
�
� ���--
6546 90�` St so
Cottage Grove
May 28, 2014
City of Cottage Grove
Fence at 8900 Greenway Ave S
We live at 8905 Greenway,�ve 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.
Sincerel
e�---�
�
—, ,
Jeff & Sy(via Harris
�
� 4 \
.�..� � , _ � .
: ' a �
Ci�y af CQttage Crave
Pl�nning Commission
A variance to atlow a existing lean-to 8884 Greenway Ave S
A variance �Co allow a SX16 acGessQry structure, a� 89�0 Greenway Ave S
t feel if the City af Cottage Grove has a 14 foot drainage and utiiity easement on
both praperties, no stru�ture shouid be on the e�sement if the struc�ure wou(d
hamper the drainage or utilifiy easement.
if th� owners at 8884 and 89d� did not get a buildir�g p�rmifi the variance shouid
rtot be given.
The variance should be giver� �►efore any building. (Not afterj
!f building permits were given to property ovu�ners, and no follow up/ sign o�f, this
is a probiem vuith the City of Cottage Grove, as ifi has be�n years on each
praperty.
Sincerely,
4 C'� ��i•---
�
leff & Syl�ia Harri�
S�Q5 Greenway Ave S
����i�J�D
JUN 1 9 2014
CITY 0� CQ7TAGE GRO�
�'� n 1�
h i� V rvo l 813 8
1�
� Burc.DrwG pERM«
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
FEES: � 3�.110
Permit Fee
State Surcharge '
Metro SAC Charge
Other
TOTAL � 30.50
Site Address 890� Greenway Avz.
Owner Ronald Kobilka
Generai Contractor same
Estimated Cost �500. 00
INSPECTfONS:
Structure._
Foundation.�
�irewalis.�
Waterproofing
Final
Comments _
!N CONSIDERATION OF The Statements and representations made by the Applicant
Ronald NCobilka
whose address is 8 gD 0 Greenway Ave. in his
� Ronald Kobilka
made a part hereof, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TQ
asownerto construct storage shed
application is hereby
building described as follows:
Kind of construction ;5ize of building lot ,
Front or width in feet B _; Side or length in feet � 6 ; Neight in feet ,
Number of stories ; Sq. Fc. � 28 ; Rear Set Back ; Front Set Back ,
Left Side Set Bac
LOT 9
; Right Side Set Back ; upon ihat tract of land described as follows:
BLOCK 6 PLAT OR ADDITION Thompson Grove 4th Add.
Assessors Plat Number ; 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-
traciors, agents, workmen and employees, shaii comply in all respects with ordinances of the eity Cottage Grove, Minnesota,
and alI conditions as required by the City Councit; that it does not cover the use of public property, such as streets, sidewaiks,
ete., fior which speciai permits must be secured; and that it does not cover Electricai, Plum6ing and Heating for which speciai
permits must be secured.
COND1710NS:
Given under the hand of the Clerk of said City and its corporate seal and attest by its inspector this � Oth
day of, Ai iauGt , 19�Q.
This permit shall be good for one year from date ot issuance.
AT7EST: S. J. Tradup
Cler t
Everett A. Anderson/st - �� /�-% �� %-� f���
.l�
tnspector or wner)
m
: • ,;:;;;,.;
;�`"' ��sr�s���:
_i . xY
i2���-�,+'�zk� ?��{i
a. Z.�V r�
L:i� ).. J' `.'-.',.'�i.j.>�;]+�',.•';g
. y
:-'/.
. . i:l
_.iii� :,�; �
. `�j
6� ;?
i3 ; ; t � �::��+;^:e:�:�
.. -i
:'7
. �..1
9
C
�
�DO �r2� u� ���
, �
y r�'�, �l a� --a �, u ,� l� , ��qo
,�
. ' 1 �
• • • • � • ..
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
8-FOOT BY 16-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE 8 FEET 11 INCHES
FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TO ENCROACH 13 INCHES ON THE
EXISTING 10-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
AT 8900 GREENWAY AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, Ronald and Joan Kobilka applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-
3-3C to allow an existing 8-foot by 16-foot accessory structure to be 8 feet, 11 inches
from the rear property line when the minimum setback is 10 feet, and to City Code Title
11-3-3E to allow the structure to encroach 13 inches on the existing 10-foot wide drainage
and utility easement, on property legally described below.
Lot 9, Block 6, Thompson's Grove 4th Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington
County, State of Minnesota.
Commonly known as 8900 Greenway Avenue South, Cottage Grove,
Washington County, State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on
June 23, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a planning staff report which detailed specific information about the
property and the variance application was prepared and presented; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance criteria and findings
of facts established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance; and
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 public hearing was open for public testimony. The applicant
attended the public hearing. Written testimony was received and entered into the public
record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (8-to-0 vote) recommended to
the City Council that the variance be granted based on the findings of fact and subject to
the conditions listed in the Planning Staff Report.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a variance to City Code Title 11-
3-3C to allow an existing 8-foot by 16-foot accessory structure to be 8 feet, 11 inches
from the rear property line when the minimum setback is 10 feet, and to Gity �ode Title
Resolution No. 2014-XXX
Page 2 of 2
11-3-3E to allow the structure to encroach 13 inches on the existing 10-foot wide drainage
and utility easement, on property legally described above. Granting this variance is based
upon 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the recommendation for approval of the variance is
subject to the following conditions:
The property owner agrees to relocate the accessory structure if it is deter-
mined 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, maintenance, repair, or installation of public or private
utility services necessary within the dedicated easement.
3. Constructing an addition or modifying the existing non-conforming acces-
sory structure must not increase the amount of encroachment on the drain-
age and utility easement. General maintenance (e.g. painting, re-siding and
re-roofing) is permitted.
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.
Passed this 16th day of July 2014.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Caron Siransky, �ity �lerk
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XXX
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING FIVE-FOOT
TALL RESIDENTIAL FENCE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD OF 8900
GREENWAY AVENUE SOUTH TO EXCEED THE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS
LIMITING RESIDENTIAL FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD
WHEREAS, Ronald and Joan Kobilka applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-
3-5(B) to allow an existing five-foot tall residential fence located in the front yard to exceed
the ordinance regulations limiting residential fence height in the front yard to a maximum
of 30 inches above grade within 15 feet of the front property line and four feet in height
from the 15 foot front yard setback to the front plane of the house, on property legally
described below.
Lot 9, Block 6, Thompson's Grove 4th Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington
County, State of Minnesota.
Commonly known as 8900 Greenway Avenue South, Cottage Grove,
Washington County, State of Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on
June 23, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a planning staff report which detailed specific information about the
property and the variance application was prepared and presented; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance criteria and findings
of facts established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance; and
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 public hearing was open for public testimony. The applicant
attended the public hearing. Written testimony was received and entered into the public
record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 7-to-1 vote recommended to the City
Council that the variance be granted based on the findings of fact and subject to the
conditions listed in the Planning Staff Report.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a variance to City Code Title 11-
3-5(B) to allow an existing five-foot tall residential fence located in the front yard to exceed
the ordinance regulations limiting residentiai fence height in the front yard to a maximum
Resolution No. 2014-XXX
Page 2 of 2
of 30 inches above grade within 15 feet of the front property line and four feet in height
from the 15 foot front yard setback to the front plane of the house, on property legally
described above. Granting this variance is based upon 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.
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the recommendation for approval of the variance is
subject to the following conditions:
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.
Passed this 16th day of July 2014.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Caron Stransky, City Clerk
EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES FROM THE
JUNE 23, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
6.4 Kobilka Fence and Shed Variance — Case V2014-015
Ronald and Joan Kobilka, 8900 Greenway Avenue South, have applied for a variance to
allow and existing 8-foot by 16-foot accessory structure to be approximately 8.5 feet from
the rear property line when the minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet and allow the acces-
sory structure to encroach on a utility and drainage easement and allow a fence five feet
in height along the north side property line that is in the front yard when the maximum
height is 30 inches for that segment 15 feet from the front property line and four feet from
the 15 foot front line setback to the front plane of the house.
McCool summarized the staff report and asked that the Planning Commission make a rec-
ommendation for either approval or denial for both variance applications based on their
discussions and any testimony received on these applications. He noted that eight letters
supporting the variances and two letters opposing the variances were received. The support-
ing letters were included in the staff report. Copies of the two letters objecting to the shed
encroachment in the easement were distributed to the Planning Commission.
Brian Kobilka, 8372 Beacon Road, Woodbury, stated that the applicants are his parents who
reside at 8900 Greenway Avenue South. He stated that they have lived there for 50 years
and got a building permit for the shed. Due to issues with the neighbor's shed it was noticed
that this shed was within the drainage and utility easement by about 13 inches. There is a
gutter system on the shed. As it relates to the fence, his parents thought they were in com-
pliance as the new fence on the north matches the existing fence on the south that was
compliant when it was constructed. They were not aware of the 30-inch height limitation and
built the north portion to match the existing fence on the south side of the property. It is a
trellis fence, which is part of the theme of their garden. Many neighbors have told them that
they like the fence.
Graff asked if the fence impedes their neighbor's site lines from their driveway. McCool re-
plied that the neighbor was in attendance but left after his application was approved. Kobilka
explained it is more than just the aesthetics of the fence, but also protects the shrubbery and
plantings in the area and preventing a child from possibly falling into the egress window well
on the other side of the fence.
Johnson stated that while he does not see a problem with the fence, he is concerned about
people violating the ordinance and then asking for a variance after the fact.
Brittain stated that half of the fence was constructed in 2000. He does not see this was an
intent to circumvent the ordinances but to have symmetry between the north and south
fences. When the southerly fence was built it was in compliance with the ordinances at that
time. He noted that there is a condition that if the fence needed to be rebuilt it would have to
comply with curreni ordinance regulations. Brittain said if the fence variance is denied, the
property owner would only have to remove or lower the fence on the north side because the
south fence is a legal nonconforming use. He also noted that it is not a privacy fence; it is a
Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes
Kobilka Shed and Fence Variances — V2014-015
June 23, 2014
Page 2 of 2
trellis and the proposed conditions of approval include ensuring that plant materials not get
overgrown and become a safety issue.
Rostad stated that one of the challenges is that the fence on the south property line was built
to code at that time.
Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke, Rostad closed the public hearing.
Rediske made a motion to approve the fence variance based on the findings of fact
and subject to the conditions in the staff report. Imdieke seconded.
Graff stated that the fence and garden are beautiful and agrees with approving this variance.
She would like to make sure that the City remains vigilant to construction activities to ensure
they are in compliance with ordinances instead of asking for a variance after the fact.
Motion passed on a 7-to-1 vote (Johnson).
Johnson stated that he doesn't think the fence should be removed and his main reason for
opposing the variance is that he wanted to be on record that it has to stop where people build
something and then ask for variance approval.
Graf made a motion to approve the shed setback and easement encroachment vari-
ance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff
repori; Rediske seconded.
Graff wanted to be on record that this one is different than the previous shed variance appli-
cation as it seems that the setbacks were not measured correctly.
Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote).