Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-22 PACKET 08.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission August 25, 2014 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, August 25, 2014, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Rostad called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Kimberly Graff, Lise' Rediske, Chris Reese, Jim Rostad, Randall Wehrle Members Absent: Adam Graf, Jody Imdieke, Wayne Johnson Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director /City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Emily Schmitz, Code Enforcement Officer Approval of Agenda Brittain made a motion to approve the agenda. Graff seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Rostad 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 Rostad explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity 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 go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 Variance for Extra Driveway — Case V2014 -025 Daniel Tatro has applied for a variance to allow a second driveway on the property located at 11701 Leeward Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 2 of 5 McCool summarized the staff report and asked that the Planning Commission make a recom- mendation for either approval or denial based on their discussions and testimony received on this variance application. Dan Tatro, 11701 Leeward Avenue South, explained that he was planning on adding on to the driveway along the south side of the existing house and garage structure to access the existing detached garage but there is a 20 -foot setback requirement. He originally applied for a vari- ance for that driveway addition, but the neighbors to the south opposed it, so he rescinded that application and is now requesting the second driveway. He stated that there is no way to access the garage because of the septic and well locations. He noted that there are other properties in the area with two driveways and does not believe it would detract from the neigh- borhood. He noted that they have an accessory apartment in their downstairs where his par- ents live. He is also proposing in the future to build a new detached garage structure to store vehicles and other items. Rostad opened the public hearing. Trish Thompson, 11733 Leeward Avenue South, stated that they are the neighbors located directly to the south of the Tatro property. She read her letter that was included in the Planning Commission packet expressing her opposition to the proposed variance application. Sam Tripp, 11775 Lehigh Avenue South, stated that he can see the Tatro's shed from his front yard. He pointed out that no one in the neighborhood has two driveways in the front yard; some of larger lots have one driveway in their front yard and a smaller dirt access around the corner that goes into a shed. He stated that if the variance was approved there would be the existing 25 -foot driveway and 40 feet further there would be a 30 -foot driveway. The entire character of the neighborhood would be changed. He noted that there are options, including adding onto the rear of existing attached garage to make a tandem garage that could house four vehicles. He believes there are reasonable alternatives that should be considered before the whole front yard is concrete. Jim Noreen, 11671 Leeward Avenue South, stated that he lives north of the Tatro's property and has a good relationship with them. He expressed concern about the evolution of the du- plex environment four years ago and wondered how that passed and why they were not informed of the application. It seems like the duplex process could cause a loss of green space and environmental integrity. He opposes the variance because there could be a change in property values and in the community environment. Jim Seeger, 11566 Leeward Avenue South, stated that when this development was laid out in the 1960s it was only for single - family dwellings. He believes if another driveway is allowed in the front, there will be more vehicles cluttered all over the front yard. He stated that he is a building inspector for the City of St. Paul and they don't allow parking in front yards. He stated that it is feasible to add onto the back of the garage, which would help with parking. Wayne Thompson, 11733 Leeward Avenue South, stated that previous owner, who built the garage in the backyard, stored vehicles and motorcycles in it and didn't have a problem getting access to it. He stated that Tatro believes his septic system affects his ability to get to that Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 3 of 5 garage, but that is an older septic system that is about eight feet below ground; he would probably not have to drive over it to get to the second garage. Kelly Meier, 11611 Leeward Avenue South, stated that she supported the neighbors' concerns about the impact this would have on the neighborhood. No one else spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Graff asked for clarification on the difference between a duplex and an accessory apartment. McCool explained that City ordinance allows for accessory apartments in all the residential zoning districts, so any single - family home could receive an accessory apartment license. That structure will have only one utility service. An apartment or duplex would be two separate units with two furnaces, air conditioners, two services for utilities, two services for water and sanitary sewer; they would be separate units but attached together. Graff asked if an accessory apart- ment can be turned into a duplex. McCool responded that would require a lot split with a zero lot line and would need to go to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Wehrle asked if this house is an accessory apartment or a duplex. McCool responded it is a single - family dwelling with an accessory apartment. Reese asked if it is common for an accessory apartment to have its own address number. McCool responded that it is one of the requirements in the City ordinances; the reason is that any public safety responders would know that there is an accessory apartment in that home in case of an emergency. Graff asked if there are specific guidelines for parking with accessory apartments. McCool responded that the ordinance requires two spaces for each dwelling unit. The City Code allows for parking inside a garage plus parking up to four vehicles outside. In this particular case, the two -car attached garage and the driveway area in the front provides adequate off - street parking on the site. Rostad asked if the attached garage is 22 feet from the side property line. McCool responded yes. He stated that originally the property owner had proposed extending the driveway along the south side of the house to get back to the rear garage, but could not because of the re- quired 20 -foot side yard setback. Rostad asked if that requirement is based on zoning. McCool responded the R -2 zoning district requires a 20 -foot side yard setback. The R -2 district consist of acreage parcels; the setback for properties with urban densities is six feet. Reese asked if the goal is to get back to the existing garage or to have parking up front. McCool stated that Tatro withdrew his application to do construct the driveway addition on the south side of the attached garage and he is now proposing to construct a new driveway area to the northwest of the house. He plans to build another detached garage in the future. Rostad asked if a variance was required when the existing detached garage was built. McCool responded it was built in 1985 and there should have been a variance but there is no record of one or why it was allowed to be built that close to the property lines. The R -2 district requires a 50 -foot rear yard setback and a 20 -foot side yard setback. Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Brittain is concerned that this would set a precedent. The ordinance only allows for one curb cut, and he does not see any extenuating circumstances to allow another driveway. Additional considerations include increasing impervious surface and more runoff. He does not see any unique circumstances that cause a practical difficulty to allow this variance. Burbank clarified that the ordinance for accessory apartments requires the homeowner to live in the residence. Brittain made a motion to deny the variance application based on the findings of fact listed below. Reese seconded. A. There are no practical difficulties that support the applicant's request and the exist- ing driveway connection provides adequate residential access. B. There are no unique circumstances to the property that supports the variance. The existence of the existing driveway provides adequate access for this residential use since 1985 without the need for another driveway. C. The applicant failed to provide sufficient findings that support a need for a second driveway. Their variance request is not unique for this parcel of land and could generally be sought by other properties within the same R -2 District zoning classi- fication. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Discussion Items None Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2014 Graff made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2014, Planning Commis- sion meeting. Wehrle seconded. Motion passed unanimously (6 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of August City Council Meetings Levitt reported that at the August 13, conditional use permit to transfer two subdivision creating two parcels nortl• use permit for grading activities on th cavating. She noted that many of th house on August 20 and hopes that budget were answered. 2014, City Council meeting, the Council approved the development rights from a parcel of land and a minor of 100th Street at Lehigh Avenue and the conditional Bailey Nurseries property applied for by Rumpca Ex- Planning Commissioners attended the budget open any questions they had about the proposed levy and 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2014 Page 5 of 5 None 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked when the roundabout project at Military Road and Radio Drive would be com- pleted. Levitt responded late fall, depending on the weather. Rostad asked if they are opening the north -south portion before they open the entire intersection. Levitt stated that they had the opportunity to construct the roundabout half at time but because construction started late in the season, it was determined that the work would be completed faster if the whole roundabout was constructed. Reese asked why it is being built as a single -lane roundabout even though there is talk that Hinton Avenue /Radio Drive will become a four -lane road. Levitt responded that because the City of Woodbury has not yet platted the area between the Military Road and the Bielenburg sports complex, the necessary right -of -way hasn't been acquired for a four - lane section. The roundabout can be expanded to two lanes in the future. Reese asked if the school district was upset that the intersection was closed right before school started. Levitt responded that school buses are used to detours and construction and they will be able to address that. Rediske stated she received a letter regarding the traffic signal at 70th Street and Meadow Grass Avenue and asked about the status of construction. Levitt responded that the City Coun- cil awarded the bid for the project at their meeting on August 20 and the preconstruction meeting with the contractor is scheduled for August 27; at that time the City will receive the proposed schedule and will send notification to the same residents about the schedule and if there will be any road closures. Rediske asked if the traffic would be detoured through the Pine Summit subdivision. Levitt responded that only Meadow Grass Avenue at 70th Street would be closed and traffic from Pine Summit will be encouraged to use 65th Street. Adjournment Brittain made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Reese seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (6 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. to the sign ordinance workshop.