The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-04-15 PACKET 08.A. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 4/15/15 � � PREPARED BY: Community Development Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR **************************��******************** COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider approving a variance to allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue S. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION // ■ ■ ■� � � ■ PLANNING PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS PARKS AND RECREATION HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DATE 2/23/15 REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � MEMO/LETTER: Memo from John M. Burbank dated 4/7/15 � RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Excerpt from approved minutes of 2/23/15 Planning Commission meeting ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS � ; 1 � , �� r �� -- � - ity Administrator Date *************************�**********�**********:� COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Cottage � Grove � Pride and PtOSperity Meet TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, AICP DATE: April 7, 2015 RE: Myers Accessory Apartment Variance Proposal John and Sheryl Myers, along with additional property owners Jimmy and Glenda Morton, have applied for a variance to allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. 0 ��rra Location Map Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting on February 23, 2015. There was public testimony in favor of the application and none in opposition. An excerpt from the minutes of that meeting are attached. After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council conditionally approve a variance to allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Condition #13 as recommended by staff stated that the exterior elevation of the three exterior walls of the accessory structure adjacent to the accessory apartment shall include the following: • Wainscot consisting of block, brick, or stones • The color of the accessory structure shall be compatible with the principal structure or as approved by the Community Development Department • Horizontal siding • Window treatments similar in design to the principal structure • Shutters • Architectural treatments on the porch-support post bases Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 2 of 7 The Planning Commission's recommendation included a change to Condition #13 to not require three-sided architecture and for Staff to work with the Applicant before the City Council meeting to find an acceptable design. The Applicant discussed modifications to the structure's exterior with staff and provided an updated exterior elevation rendition. This topic is covered in more detail below in the architectural review section. Review Deadline The 60-day application review expires on March 28, however on March 11, 2015, the review period deadline for the application was extended by the City in writing to the Applicant until May 27, 2015. Background In 2014, Resolution No. 2014-103 denied the variance request for a second dwelling on the sub- ject property. The reasons for the denial are stated in the Resolution No. 2014-103, which is attached. During the previous review, the City's Technical Review Committee identified that based on City Code Title 11-9A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses, the Applicant would have the ability to have an accessory apartment that would allow for an additional living quarters as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal structure. The current code prohibits accessory apartments from being located in an accessory structure. Based on discussions with Planning staff, the Applicants have chosen to apply for a different variance that does not have as many hurdles or ramifications as were associated with the previous application. The current request, if approved, would allow for the planned detached accessory structure to contain an accessory apartment subject to certain conditions. Planning staff has suggested that one of the conditions of approval could limit the duration of the requested use, and the Applicants have agreed that would be an acceptable course of action. The previous planning case file established the planned detached accessory structure as meeting agricultural use specifications, thus allowing adequate size for a joint occupancy building. .' f / �;� 1 � , ^ {t 'l �� 1. � . . 7 ',1. . /•�� .'�� , �� d•f�� ... . '' � _� f i � �' �r ,� ✓ �{� � ' � - �. � � f . �, � . [�' % y,. f �� t'a� dF '� . i, i� .. '" ;� � . . � � � ; { b .c , � „� � � t•, ' f l'r � t q��,�iN` � Rt ».�i'� � r r i% � - �, � � � � . j „ . - ��e I ,. � � � - A .., : � ' � - : - �y `o° , c} : e! ,. . 1 � _ `i / '�� ° � ' � � � � Ss o� q ..' � il . _ �,� / d P °G � ��_��°�� .� a ( • r �� 'g` � i ti. :� .. � �..: ' j � �� S e /�a � �'C� c. �� . �. , � � � / =0a�' ` �C . :� - " ' ' _' -_ � - � "� � :�t , ' ,/ y], •' � �'� I . � � /?. "' .� . .� ffi . / t ' - _ , � � � . � ` j � / } t�� '4 E `�b P tfi�' __ . +, P� d• .. i ',��%.. �� ` T � �'"�� ' t�� ' . �� ' �`� ' �: � + . . � � ; !�� ti � ( �r � � 1 .�_ ;: 9r I ' - � • � { Yi+�'!" � ; E` � �, i # ►�� y r '-� �� '�1,�1�'� . n S � � } Y � �;� � } �� y . � �� I., ♦�� t��; ��•� � �� / / �. 9 � f� � � /l � ��j. , � � / e 7 \ , i ,g �'� $�'. � ( � �� i� � ti , �, ��' f� 'r i� �' � � ,�� 1 �4.� � u 5 � • �-: , � e>`� ♦ $ _ \`�; r I . . . . � ., �� , t ��' T i • � . . G ` .�1 � , . .. _ � . f . . (. , �.�* .... � � � .. � �_:._ .'�i Proposed Accessory Structure Location Detail Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Planning Considerations Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission must look to the zoning ordinance for guid- ance and direction. City Code Title 11-2-7: Variances, states that: A. Authority and Purpose: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this title. D. Consideration By Planning Commission; Recommendation: Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission, and for its recommendation to the city council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this title so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this title and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance, regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recom- mendation within sixty (60) days after the request is referred to it, unless the Applicant requests, in writing, that an extension of time for review be granted by the planning commission. The planning commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision 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. 7. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The Applicant's response to the ordinance criteria is attached. Legal Commentary The City Attorney was asked to review the question of processing the variance request based on a different section of the City Code. She concurred with the Planning staff's interpretation that the request for a variance to allow for an accessory apartment to be permitted in an accessory struc- ture was significantly different than requesting a separate principal structure on a single lot of record. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Accessory Apartment — Modifications and Additions During the previous review, the City's Building Official prepared a letter regarding options for ex- pansion of the current residence to allow for an attached accessory apartment. This document is attached. The Applicant still contends that these options are not feasible nor practical given the current layout of the interior of the principal structure. Construction — Code Requirements During the previous application, a copy of a code compliance requirement clarification list created by the City Building Official was provided to the Applicant. During the review for this application, the City Building Official and the Applicant's preferred builder discussed the requirements. Based on that conversation, it is anticipated that the required code compliances can be met with the proposed joint occupancy construction. The Building Official reaffirmed that a shared well as proposed could be feasible, but a new septic system would most likely be required for the additional residential dwelling unit. The Applicant concurred on the need for an additional septic system. New private septic systems require an alternative drain field location as part of the design and approval. Architectural Review The Planning Commission staff report included a staff recommendation (Condition #13) that the portions of the exterior adjacent to the accessory apartment include architectural treatments that are residential in nature. Staff continues forward with this recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended a change to Condition #13 to not require three-sided architecture but for staff to work with the Applicant between the Commission meeting and the City Council meeting. The Applicant provided a new architectural drawing of the exterior of the proposed detached ac- cessory structure. The latest rendition details a stone knee wall with materials similar to those used on the house and shutters around the windows adjacent to the accessory apartment. Accessory Structure Sketch — North and East Elevation Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 5 of 7 -; , ; � : : � + :. , � s =�-- _. .: + V...�.-,;;� -� - _...�= ` .� i ; ,� ,� - - :_ � � ;, , . �+ r � ��' .- -¢•�. �`� . � � r'�, . ' � ' . { , °�=: _ �'A ,��r ' .- - � � ",,,,�; -� � ; '' ? �>�:° a � �--� �1�� . � - `' ``; � y .�� y� , j _ { J � .�" , ri% � . ,� _'� . �� ` +� l ! . - ' I' . ' ��a� ', � 1 �.;�} - Knee Wall Stone Detail ,� :C -- Upon review of the latest rendition, Staff recommends removal of the porch support post located in front of the garage door on the front facade and adding additional treatments to the posts.The intent of the design recommendations is to bring a pedestrian scale to the entrance of the accessory apatrment for the future residents of the agricultural building. If it is going to be used as habitable space, then it should look like residential space. Design elements that achieve the pedestrian scale are decorative garage doors, stonework, porch column treatments, and decorative windows. Examples of the direction are shown below. �� , :� � __ _ _� ---- j � . . .. _._ "_._ - __ : f ' �_, :. ; .. � '_:�,1��. . �.. , !7 � Residential Design Example 1 �_ �.� �� Residential Design Example 2 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Reguired Development Fees Since the current request involves an accessory apartment that would be temporary in duration and not a new principal structure, no area charges or park dedication fees would be required with this application. Public Hearing Notice The public hearing notice for this application was properly published and mailed. Notices were mailed to 16 adjacent property owners on February 12, 2015, and was published in the South Washington County8ulletin on February 11, 2015. Summary • The previous variance request was for a second principal structure on a single lot of record. • The ordinance prohibits a second residential dwelling on single lots of record. • The previous variance request was for a second principal structure on a single lot of record and was denied by Resolution No. 2014-103, which included findings for denial. • The current variance request is based on a different section of the zoning code. • The ordinance allows for accessory apartments in principal structures. • The current request is for an accessory apartment in a detached accessory structure. • The Applicant has stated that principal structure expansion options to accommodate an accessory apartment are not conducive to their living situation. • Review of the current request has established favorable findings for granting a variance. • The payment of cash in lieu of land park dedication and area charges are not triggered by an accessory apartment. • The Applicants have stated that they are in agreement with the use being temporary in duration. Considerations if findings of fact for approval are determined: If findings of fact in favor of granting a variance are established, the following points should be considered: A. The Applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties related to the site which would warrant deviation from the ordinance criteria. B. The intent of the zoning code (Title 11) is not compromised by the request in that the property is 41.86 acres in size, is zoned R-1, Rural Residential, and accessory apartments are permit- ted within the R-1 zoning district. C. The request is not inconsistent with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as the property is guided and utilized as residential. D. The property is so sized and situated that the proposed use can be reasonably accommodated and not be out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. E. The previous public hearing minutes contains testimony from adjacent neighbors stating that the proposed use will not be a detriment to the adjacent neighborhood. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Myers Accessory Apartment Variance April 7, 2015 Page 7 of 7 F. The proposed use does not require an additional separate driveway on to Manning Avenue, which is a principal arterial roadway that has limited access requirements. G. The use will be required to be limited in duration and scope. H. Evidence has been provided that building and energy code construction requirements can be properly satisfied. I. All setback requirements related to habitable structures will be exceeded. J. The proposed use is unique to this property in that the size of the parcel and proximity of the use on the property mitigates negative impacts on adjacent properties, and the joint/dual own- ership of the property will allow each owner of the site a separate habitable living space. Recommendation That based on the established findings of fact, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conditionally approve a variance to allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. The conditions of approval are included in the draft resolution. Attachments: Exhibit A= Applicants response to the ordinance criteria Exhibit B= Memorandum from the Building Official dated October 27, 2014 Exhibit C= Planning Commission Minutes of the February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit D= Planning Commission Minutes of the September 22, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit E= Resolution No. 2014-103 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-XXX A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT AS PART OF A 5,760 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AT 10990 MANNING AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, John and Sheryl Myers and Jimmy and Glenda Morton applied for a variance to allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property legally described below: ALL THAT PT OF S1/2-SE1/4 LYING S OF N 351.05FT & W OF E 1913.OFT THEREOF AND THAT PART LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 693.77 FEET OF THE EAST 1913.0 FEET THEREOF EXCEPT THE NORTH 247.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 264 FEET OF THE EAST 412.5 FEET THEREOF SUBJ TO & TOG WITH EASE SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 027 RANGE 021 Commonly known as 10990 Manning Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on February 23, 2015; 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 and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (5-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 allow an accessory apartment as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property legally described above. Granting this variance is based upon the following findings of fact: A. The Applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties related to the site which would warrant deviation from the ordinance criteria. Resolution No. 2015-XXX Page 2 of 3 B. The intent of the zoning code (Title 11) is not compromised by the request in that the property is 41.86 acres in size, is zoned R-1, Rural Residential, and accessory apartments are permitted within the R-1 zoning district. C. The request is not inconsistent with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as the property is guided and utilized as residential. D. The property is so sized and situated that the proposed use can be reasonably accommodated and not be out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. E. The previous public hearing minutes contains testimony from adjacent neighbors stating that the proposed use will not be a detriment to the adjacent neighborhood. F. The proposed use does not require an additional separate driveway on to Manning Avenue, which is a principal arterial roadway that has limited access requirements. G. The use will be required to be limited in duration and scope. H. Evidence has been provided that building and energy code construction requirements can be properly satisfied. I. All setback requirements related to habitable structures will be exceeded. The proposed use is unique to this property in that the size of the parcel and proximity of the use on the property mitigates negative impacts on adjacent properties, and the joint/dual ownership of the property will allow each owner of the site a separate habitable living space. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the recommendation for approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: The Applicants secure all applicable building and electrical permits. 2. The septic system on the property shall be improved to meet all state and county onsite sewage treatment facility requirements. 3. The Applicant's shall provide an as-built certificate of survey identifying setbacks, septic and well locations, structure ground elevations and critical drainage swales identifying positive drainage from the habitable structure. 4. The Applicants shall obtain an accessory apartment license and schedule annual required inspections for the accessory apartment during the habitable occupation of the detached accessory structure. 5. No additional accessory apartments shall be permitted on the property during the habitable occupation of the detached accessory structure. 6. No additional single-family structures are allowed on the property without subdividing the property. Resolution No. 2015-XXX Page 3 of 3 7. As long as the detached accessory structure is occupied with an accessory apartment, it must have a separate postal address. The address shall be posted on the structure and at Manning Avenue for emergency service purposes. 8. There shall be no more than two habitable bedrooms and no more than four occupants allowed to reside in the accessory apartment. 9. The occupants of the accessory apartment shall be limited to relatives (by blood or marriage) to the existing single-family dwelling owners or should be the actual owners of the property. 10. Upon Condition #9 not being met, the Applicant shall have two years in which to remove the kitchen and habitable bedrooms from the space occupying the accessory apartment. 11. The property owners shall sign a deed restriction acknowledging the conditions of the approving resolution. 12. The Applicants shall enter into an agreement with the City authorizing access to the property to abate the accessory apartment if Conditions 9 and 10 are not met and to assess the property for the costs of any required abatement. 13. The exterior elevation shall include the following: • Wainscot consisting of block, brick, or stones on the front of the structure • The color of the accessory structure shall be compatible with the principal structure or as approved by the Community Development Department • Shutters • Architectural treatments on the porch-support post bases • Removal of the porch support in conflict with the garage Passed this 15th day of April 2015. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron Stransky, City Clerk � cotta e Community Development Department Planning Division Grove � 12800 Ravine Parkway South Telephone: 651-458-2827 �� ♦� Cotfage Grove, MN 55016 Fax: 651-458-2897 �—�� Www.cottaqe-qrove.org E-Mail: planninq(a�cottaqe-qrove.orq VARIANCE APPLICATION — RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA The Planning CommESSio and, Gi ;y Cou�n il�ay recorrimend �a va ir an� o�he�s�r c�a�pp.l,�i a�=o�`n of�fhe�zo ing ordin�anc�if� $tl�e:y fi d ha you ap i catfo �, eets he i dmg�s \ below.�ea`se prou�de.a DET�IL-�EymD res�onse�ll of he �o lowing. findings: - - . b : , � _ � � t..� �' � �� - '�� -s. a �? ��. .�,� z '" - - 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. Please circle: Ye No 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please circl : Ye No 3, The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. Please explain, � �� . �-�� s � l /� l �� j� �s �-� �s� �� - ��.�� J �¢� ��-� �� ,� �� l/ c;��s�6/_��.� c'� �� Ul��.� . ��, s� �� 1 �l « s�� ft�'�t' ��'cr��'�r 7 c� f'-C� �/1SF' �'a T� ��r�� y� ��i�.s�. ��S" �� /7`� � 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the land Please i�entify these circumstances. �V7� ��J 4''�G� / �'L K (A�C's7 G�I�s�C�'��I �V �lj� � �S C,-- ,yn ✓ � � �' � � /Y ( a l� C�� J' ��69�7 f7 1� ry'� I d1��Lli�C f/ �C'Ct'�S�G iy � 5, 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 clas�ifications. Please list the conditions that are uni ue. -�� , �� r . a �� r��vr� �,�; ,��'/ �� 2 ��-,-� ��_-� � ; / �l� ��(� / � . ; n ,�— � ��j ��v � /-� /�'l3' C`�{� �S/��1 �. -�'c�i� n�c't�t�� /f��'� f? ��-� �1/; �� G�/St� �� C�le��`"� / �C�� .��t ��c,:✓t 11t'�/� `T �/ � �; 6, The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Please circle:�Yes No 7. The granting of fhe variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injur:� -� to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Please circle; Yes No 8. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Please identify any potential impact the requested variance may have, � � � �� i J �" � `Econom c�hards'i�is�no��re arded�b the Courts�as a�reason f�or�'a �`roval� Nei hborhood�su�"� o osit o�` - - . ��-��.,�� °� �� p �� -�witho�any_--�,basi�s,,of-fa�ts�, s�no regarded�by the�C�ourts�as� � �� . F � / � , _ Appiicant Name: , Case #: ,�� Coftage - Grove � Pride and p�ospetity MeQt To: Honorable Mayor and Council From: Bob LaBrosse, Chief Building Official Date: October 27, 2014 Re: 1099d Manning Avenue Variance — Staff Direction On October 15, 2014, the City Council continued the variance request and directed City staff to meet with the applicant, Mr. John Myers at his home to revtew options for the construction of an accessory apartment and review the hardships that may exist on the property. On October 24, 2014, Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer, John Burbank, Senior Planner and I met with Mr. Myers, reviewed the location of his home relative to the existing septic tank and drain field, weil and utilities as well as the surrounding property characteristics. The options reviewed at the site meeting for expansion of the existing structure to accommodate an attached accessory apartment are as follows: Option #1 Expansion to the north side of the home adjacent to the master suite wouid be a feasible expansion area due to the min(mal remodeling required to the existing space. Currently the north side of the home is constructed as "look out" with a boulder retainfng wall that wouid need to be relocated to accommodate a 1500 square foot accessory apartment. Referencing the lower level layout, a small hallway would need to be constructed within the existing storage room for access to the accessory apartment. Lower level bedroom # 2 would lose a window, however the west facing window could be utilized as the "egress" window Option #2 Expansion to the west (rear) of the home would also be a feasible option but due to the location of both the master bedroom, located on the upper level north, north/west side of the home and lower level bedroom located in the North/West corner of the lower level, the addition will need to be constructed away from the existing building to assure that the existing bedrooms wouid be provided with code approved egress windows. Should this be considered a viable option, access to the accessory apartment addition would be from the existing upper levei sunroom. Option # 3 Expansion to the south side of the home would be a feasible location for the addition of a 1500 square foot accessory apartment. The apartment could be constructed as a two levei residence with access from the south side of the upper level sunroom/kitchen area. The construction chalienges are minimal and would require the removai/modification ofthe current gas and electrlcal service along with the existing bouider retaining wall and the import of some fill material. This would allow no interior Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder 10990 Manning Avenue Variance —Staff Direction October 27, 2014 Page 2 modification to the existing structure and due to the needs that Mr. Myer depicted on slte, this apartment location would provide the separation required to allow her parents the ability to live as a separate family unit and be close enough to accommodate the need as care givers. Option # 4 Existing Attached Garage Space Renovation There is approximately 744 square feet of existing garage space that could also be modified to accommodate an accessory apartment which would not affect any site utillty access and provide a considerable reduction in general construction costs. A minimum of 440 square foot of garage space is required per the City's Zoning Code, which has been accommodated with the existing detached 1800 square foot accessory garage currently on site. Recammendation Based on my review, the existing structure has many feasible options with minimal modifications to the existing interlor space, septic system, well, gas and electrical services. In my opinion based on all noted options whfch took into account on site factors, there appear to be minimal site hardships to support a variance. There are numerous options available to support the addition of a 1500 square foot accessory apartment constructed onto the existing residence. � • • - - •� . _ • .....�c •n.c�-r�.t� ?+ -y��•�:: ^++i�L""�'..�rrr_ h �. • . . -..w.�r'l�' � �,"� .__ .— �' a � .. _ . �_—I'�•a� I' S!'.a . — ' , ' • . .. .� 5'•+ �� • Ic.o a7' E • . . 'S�.o° • .. 2r Lr ' ^ p-• • _' �� . _ . �_�-° . . . °r� � O�Ci4N -- - . o a, °�`°°�. A � � 4 j� ° � a�r a:."9 �%; ' ' . i i ,� • ' .�. _ --- - - I rt_��z� � , -} --------� - � . I � :esf — `� " " � I -- -� x •u: «, ,. �+sx-sta. —{—;- � d � � �� . ��., n i � + C� � .�= � �j _ ' 2i � •O L.1Dl1��}YP.0 ��. , _ �� . . ___ a .� � _ ^.�o m � �a+rf , ^.eF'.�rar.�. � ��r��'-`,1,��r.uJ. a ;� . .__ „.� _ — . 3�'� • s% f 3� i .S �r a -- '�=�.-_ �M r � . .��_ i l� s ��'t�L�7M JIflF � • � � 3_ '� � -` t " ----•- • .. ... . _. _ , i ,�r � � :e �r i� ; i � µ' I i • h� on �Op e• �.�d �� w. ' h '� � . � O � ; � f ;� , - � �. � � , .. � - �P�r�o�.a � . . . � �,i� �+ �� e.s � � �� =Q � :w.ei.r .Fmr. :� ; -� y .%�� . - � . . . { I � . �.' T ,,,,,�� !� �'• 1� ' ' � S . 1 bINL �. 6l11 � , I ., � .� I .'� � �_ � Cf � q' gy .r� • * o . r F .cN �� i eo ' � ec � 3 r � °; ' • r! � ° . ��'_'� sxs aR... — � Y� n �---�....... I = ! . v - ��. _ �t � ��/dW.:MF .+ _ C.saw w.�* .� _ i � � { � • l.. ; •. r: vr�r�a� � �e* L g�� t '� _ _ -- •-� °, > � O. � s , P. � ry Nwu ' � 1 6 12 'a �� " r . . . � � � � '6�� . �"I'°i �� -. � �c 'ti n'�" r`�o� � � �c�. •�� d.Y • �, . . .�� c: � � 1 _�= 3 4, � :` • a� vAu.:u.i..• � � uwrcw. :! �. � o u� . I .,.,-,.. � art �' • Y } Y '•. Pet� . . � . � , r l: . ' i _ . � � . . _ .� . '� ., •^• — c� , ...._ o � , i �wc. r�re aa• . � �I . � � i ..' . � . D+�N : ,,1��i- • ' • � .. �w w��-cr.c� . -+-� -t'• d60. s:Ltca , � ( y 2'1x's n E,ort -r- ' .:�r,wF� f'=st" ("X d.e" , ?r�.L �,.�s I . p� �°'F°'�s I in r S r�.ir.�.� �� y � �� O � ` �3 :� b""w Np. � � `'^+R�T/6 � ! . �. oI ° �� . . � � . _ s i Z`'.� 4+IW >r Z :It .o � . . . . � _ . .... . � 3 �P.I�M�r L^u/:� 'I.Yl4R:76:'3y'�j�_'11"NTK WR.'+ ' q� T Nevfc R MT• - I I SaS� :rCk ,-�.� O q o 7 . �. r H �� , � ' � �Y'1�oµ Y � � 1 1 � --�' � I �.• 7C7� eR �. p '� �: f } � : ; �: . , Q � 'j'sltl'.S I � � f I'� �� —_ — _ _ 6Y�aa• �rJy� _ ._ � I : . ..Z. aM _. _. _..__ 24f tA3 I .. � k - • , --- ,. �L � , . � .. � .. . • 't�•i'ry PFC: �'.tt ,re�ier.� Nsr _ �I�G �qo: �1e� II .�•4 4 ` _. : ...1'�D _�:�, 4 � t a�9 3�� 7�4n �,� ?. S � . . . . �'�� -+ �� --�'�-± [t� . �:�e��.'Y(8R . �_ . .--. . a2'-e ` �� • 3y,� ' .M-•_. • �ll�.':, �' ' .. LL�•o7 p � 2•bn � ?:.u�B . �.�: ( Q I Mw+i.�-+�wi � . . � . 9 �S1^ p.pq�'t ' s � 13 � � iS�wh . � �i�: �t: ' � 1 i .a � f ��_ �. � �' ' , ' : ' _ ,�/ . " $..'Jf�M Z . � . / hle�i�*�,t 1, � . .14'•� �� r i; �t�� - • „3 �� • • : �.: �,� _ � � .� ' � � y F""`� , �s `o' � ' '"r'6� • , � ; T i '� -"" _ la'`�=. :.�,, ab . ' ��.L�- _ »� . �.1 '� �,R, ' a ' ' 't ' � - � _ � �. - � =. � � • . � �M . ,. � � � . , . . . - . . uer..: . +w. �nw = . . • . . b � � 1'�i' p,. '!�'4� . . • �. . � i- � #� . � _ _L;, �Flhistf: ee�itt��it'�F�ian' � . 1 ..�i '_ : so u• �. . rS .a -- � � �s� s —ji,�r�vy- � `-� , �. �t` ' ,��` -��,. � � � . � "��;� ; k . -:_.�.� ��, ,� �- •�,. ��_, �,. - � •, � .::�.��,_��,.�' , n� }, 2 '� �r : ��✓'�/'� - +'�L�(�� ''�S � •!�� d�� ' �i Y. � +� �� }�. �S�'Q� •, r ' � . �. ��` � ::�t� .i � ,� � � G _�+ r . ,g ...i � �-�. ly �. .:�f 9 .�..i^F � n . .i i �- �� .��-= y�� '�� . ri� .. � 1 � Y 1 '4C� r� *�' c. :' ' �'� w. FG'�S ' - f�! �. � ��:' , �' . t �� .'�.. ., , .:. ... � r_` � �•. ` �y� +^ \� � 1 �" ' 'f' � -. *. �r 7��lYKf �� - i . � , �,,, _ .,�, ��.''� s<' ��R��E,a - ..� : �� ;� ti ,..� , � '"- r°" ��'�i.� :� . / . .. f t � � � V'-' �� , � � ,r• . � 1�1,� � � � � a ti +�� :�...y� •�t':,� � h � .. �� i �'�^ � �.'.r ; � . ��CSp � k �a'u+ `� � M �irif � Y �� I .• ` f �{ � �I + � �) �'�,".� � � . � �� r' " ./� , . Yr 1�1 ;4 � .' '° 1 ' ��'s� � T ``� .. �' _ . ' .h�� • . J � /�:' �g �' "^��'��„ _+t� r � ��'�'�. .R� .� y� _ r � � _�. S.; t• � %'�� . �9` " �� _... _... . ��.�,'� � ` ��, .. _ ��`. �� '�.r��_ ��'� +�. �� "� - •t," y'�,�`�� y�' - - `-'- .y�, J�� ' 1 ^;�: �, � ' �":' . -� `',`.� �¢ ' �+ ' �s:�' �. ^� � �� 'r` �1+� � . ��' ,� ' " ''�',- /�:�� •''` '�'�''�� , �� , n ; � a� �i� _.�'�,��i',�'�.;1� � � `' � �- ;� .,�,,��. � � _ . �, � �; �"'�, .:--� �� . �;�' � � �^ v �` } I . . � ' i � < �V w t ' ��. :��'� M � : �.. .� _ .. K ,��.��Y i�. / ' 1" 1 . � _.jl;,_K Z � 4 �b • f � ,;' �� , ��-~�� ,i � +Q..�. +� ' � ` ��a� ��,: ff�- � .� �.�c�� r�,:�:1 t �.,fiti� . ~, � . _ > . . . `�`' � � �a,• '� t ��. 4 �� S 1 ` \ � : � . 4: � + • . - � �f� � � tr� � ~ � '. l . � ' � L � �- C• 1 , - �. ��,� � �� E;�� '�'��!`�+' � '��: . � ; , 1 ��5;.. �� ; .�' f � ,� � i Y � � � V .� ,. . L � '� . ., . �. � _ , � � w � � . . .f.,.. � � ~ Yl - � � �� {, yt �, •� * I � K, � r� f ; i � � r s "� ' ' � : , �-.""+ti ,��!�'� �, =� �.. � I . :!� ' ' 1 � • '� � �h�y'Y�� -, 1~ ~ Yr �. . � ! f �� .... �'�.��:'�! ^:. x � � � M I � , ' . ' r �'.. � � : � 1 � y , r . . „t � i � y . y?( , � , �;� �'� � � � �� R r ' �. 'i � � µ .�t'�t3. - 'a�'� '�� :�/1: � J j�,' �. � � . � • � a , 1�. '�t i , ti.. " ' J � . �.?2. s �.�.. � �� :�+� ,�,�+ : _. �, ' .. .Ia. ' y�� y ;� , �.1.t ��I � %'r'r '` �� ; . ' . •' �'�1•''�i si.F»..+� ��,M;, r �`'� �_ • � �� , �. �,.. � '•js,Y�� 'r` � .� ' � e,. - - � }�. . I , � � y�� f +�L �� .J� G � f � �'! ' 4� T _ :�b .�a'..n+�t. �� . ~ � �.�,,:��xy� v ;., y �y��' "7w 4 1:��11nI� � f•r` :��*' • Y ' . �. ' { , ��; � � .. �.r ` . tr ��,� '�„ `' • +d •• ,f • r� - i► , r � - t .� *?�j � � . l" , hY..; ��Y• �' � �a� �� -��' ' �a�-� a �..�°'Y� '�ri' `+.�. � r � _ � �► �f �17�. " •{ �0�3 � � � t��'"'.�T � * �:" 3" �• P.+=a F'`!�� r� -�. � _ '.� f �, '°�ii" �r �' r �r y1GJ��^.. �!-�� -��'�:. '._ ��+� t ._ ..s�� 4 ��+'� r . +1 ! �� ' . i:��yY }/� - s � i � C r - � �.��,� . � ,�` f � ' � S� 4 �. }('^ w .� �..� � /, ,.►� �'C!' ��r' �.' �e� ♦ "�'",�'� "' ' -•- �- �"•� � -�� .,;� .��' �, � • . t � ti�` _ 77�� . . �.� . � . ,r '� • �^ � i r �� ` 6' '' � :a � � =,- •`T"�"�'.G� �� ,v ��• ` � t �� '��-� �� 4.�fsC��. �.r1� � - � .�,�� ^j' ��` �� +�� ,' �� _ yr�.� , � �;�Y l� t. _ '�� i►r� �^. ` '�•_ �' � � i � ;�f' �. . ' fi. � '� ,� � f}•! +✓�.c�rq� �� , _ "' �� "� � ``�� 'k. ,Tti � , ` .� y .75 . `: _ ,y i' ,y �' .� � r �• I�,.: � ^ �, _. 1 '� � y. �� • ., _ �+� .* ' �, + f . ` �• �, � • � � -� , � ^ ��K�.MG.�t,'' 1 • + � . _. � � ! �, �P , ,�Jj , t �z °" .,�� ! � ,�} . � � y�\�rU'' ' � � � �+�^ � �--��`-'�'-�- - .� ----�".�-` . •3 r a � '� ��/ : . • � - � ' ..t.� il 4 Wsl'. � • .wL.i:.s�� ` . 1_= _ � - .�.�.,�, ,, '�~` " � �-�� = `` �=�� _ �� ` �' � - { � �� --� � �`.�� _ �,,. � `�''''� � -``\� �� = .-�,.-',�� x . ''"i ` �`��`� ` - ��`` .°- - '-�' '� �' , - ��`�� \�� _` �'"� ^� .�_---;,-'` , ,. _ . :Cr . �� `� \ .,,,. �/ _ � , `�- .� .�� ` � �-�'' 1 � +..i.;,,, , v'�;� ��`�� .� i'' � 1 / � ` _. ; � _- _ `.�,.. _ . - �-,.``\` ` ` -�` ,,,.�^�''.'�' - . . ``� � : � � _�� /` ' ` �� '� � _ . • � ��, t / r � ` - _ / , -- "'�.`-• �:�� ` � I. � ° .` ""'� ''- ^ � , � l � `' . , . , _ �.�'-' � -�;- _ � _ _ �, / !j � � f � = T � _ � �.�;�, • --- I '' ±\� `', /�r � � ;� , �� , - � ; ` ` ..:` `,`�� R,. % � f - ---^n "�`_- ; .L� ! "�� ` i/ ✓ � � T - _� -� -- �� \\ -- �, _.' � _ ��.-� ! . � � \ , �/" � I :' I � ` ��'�^�..�` �,q=�f6+ � � ~ �r� -�" _ �` '� -w � � '^� _ _ - .-.., � � { _ � r ��' � � ; � � , � �� -� ,�j `i ` �_�� ='; J �� _ �� 1 � .� - r / � . ; , _ �� I''_ � "�" ' � _ � I - �! - y I -_�� r l ti � � . . . � _ `�:_� .-_._ .! . � , i � "' j ' - -�_ �_- �; +� '�' � � � � : ! _ _� I' - _ �� 't�.-"'s�t �; ^" � ` �� ! � r f I --, -i,.�.� � '_ � �!-� - -, -�'--�, � i � �"""` - 1 : :� ,n--. �.,.-� k � � � i_,..__ _ --- --� - , `�" � �-. _--.< � i � --,�-�. _ �._...�_ :----., . � ='� � , ,-�- � :..:�, � : : ,_ - � _ .. „�.,.. - - , . .-�--�----�� , . . __. �� . . �� _ _.. .._, , ...t...__ � .. -- - - -- � , _. -- - • - -r*--�--_.__. ._ � . '� _ - ---_ > . ' � ,��'..� ;" i - �: j '�.._ _ _� . _ � �_ �.T�; I � � �';��' (� � � .i�. � � - � --::�_ ti +�' � ' . i ' �: .. ... � : , .�— .�_^"""�--�� d � 'r ^1 �"t 1 � ' ` ' ' �.-,��.,.��^-----�-..�.. `�^��. i ' � � r " 4 i I "' � �� - ' `f �,��e ��^ 1 ^ ' � �� _ � t • . �_�-'�•.'�""-�+- ��' .. � � _ , '' _ � ; !�` - � , �� y � _ , 1 . . � _ ... . �:,- �.,... , . ." ^---}I •�1 `""�" �_. �'�' t � r � � '_ �� . �,�...--_^'�'^.'+'`.�.^��"'^�: .-,.�� . . 1 � ; �. � - � � h �"-^f �y�"4.�._��„ 9. . R"'� �, {.�. fL i . ') � ^^" ..-. "^--�. . . ' f � `f. �� ! i `�' J�1�. ,: ��; 1 �- �^ ' t '��• � / J l 4 �-� i . }' �i . �-.. - `� ' . ". . '' 1�,1� � ,-!. � _ . ^`, _ � ' .. ' _ � i � .` � .. ' 1 . ��:' I ` �� _ �.. ' � . • .. - . ..: � 4 � -'� � �I r � a r Y. � ��...+. ' . _ pr'�tf,rr , tii YI� M J i� �_ � '+ � �� • y ��.�a1 ,��; � Z .;� •� �. -•- • • - -. . _ . . �: t �� , � ']r . . `. � 17 � j - 1 � , � \ � �A�� s � �� F . � ' `r 3� "' y C' �tF� , �` � '� ` � t' ~ '�l �'' 'r .�y' f ��, �' 1 .A'P ,� 'y . • �«�':� ~"!i � 1 [ 4' � C � �� _ � ` � �_ ,�. ..'� � .�; '„' .rY' �_'�... •i 4 � ` -',� � �y,�'�� '• : �� .' � � 7G � ' ' - • � a .� . _ y ^ . v � � � � `� �L. � `;�� 1 ; .. ' c. ` ..Y �) '".��k`�,�� . �- a ''�ld� r„�iv 6Z .,p,'C'., q r. . .r ��;_� ,` e,i�!• ` � '.i � _.,k•. ��}•y � �"'� � '��`'.. , .. - ��. �r - � �v. � �` .'' � ' �'�" r � °�� -1•��_ . 7 ' �1� .. �` �r T ,'�� !c � i � `` �A�t.v ` u..: ��"` '�' `'��. -.�P�� M . � - '' �y � . . `��, i �„ i� . � w �• . . �.�'..�a, - � ..' • a '� �;; 9 �E'`r... :�� s�i ��[�'S � ' • ;n� ' � ; ti �V��, � .:w�:'� • � 7` �0@ �� `.�-•� �� r y�s,�� ' , '�` ✓ �� , ,ry� • •�•�� ;�`` n � 1 t�` �,�� t��. 1 \"� .� y,� ,. �� ,�- • E "` ; - _ �±� �� >; ' � 'r �h, ' .-,'' =r.� . ��,` ��:.1� - = --i ` ` h �i.. `� �� . �. �.e,`'+ a 2 � � ! i�� `t?�(". � ±1 � s� �-: • � � 4 :.': ,-. �w �..� � 2� � ° 1 � , a• � _ ,� ", �� f i ..�,�`,��;,�� 1 '� �- „► �,,�... � � �;� • ` '�4aq,. +�� a e ' �. ' �' �.' . � 7, , y ', f _ , � � ��F • � �T' - ...-- ''y • � � • � . �'' ' 9 �.� ;�W. � ��• � �, 1 . �__ . ��{.,.. �t ` s � � �. ' ; d� �' � . 1 S'r-.. "��: w : .� ; . 44� , �:: �' ='� � ` ��-t� . t ;:�. ~~ �. � , ,z 1. � �_ � .�,�� ;,c �-,,: r � � � ��; w �aie � �� . I _'- ,. • � � �. . .. . . �.��+Y � L i� - � ' � �� . SA .. C��':. ��'. ��1�iRni�IwYt:• _. y � � ? ��:1i• .�.. ' �� T � � ��F /Y+ W 4 1; ~ � �.. _ ' - ' - �``�` ss -`. � - �. � -. , r �-'''',+ �:;�,"�'- �� " , —__ ti ° .�� _� � ��: tn. . � �, � `�1� �• . " _ - ,�_� �F . . �'?^ � � � - � _ � �% . . � • „ , 'O? SR. � � . . - . . , 'r . � � t I_ , , ;_,.�.. � � I� - '� N <. r � .. � � � - . ' . - ,� r .. '��:�. ._ � � " � � ' _ � '�;` o-.. - n -o�. . ' ..` - . _ _ . . � , ' • � ' I . - - .. . , . • ' '�;� t _ a ' , : ' • -.� '� ; *,�,�� -� � � � i . s � ; - .,+� � a � Y � , • �� ' . __ . I~ � � x 'P` � .!c � .'t: � ! _.�,"�.. '. ... i . �'_ �W _'� u�k. - . . , , r , , � , . ��' 1 �„s• . i� . , ' . •'� A . .. ,� � . � i '� •- •- . .. � y - ..+ r r.. , , � . � . . ' . a Y +� r � � . _ � .. � '� . � . . . ' -. / � . � ti;,1 . .�".y ; ' •r �"� � �, 1- � + . ..- � 4 �} �p J ,� � �J:/ � �..! f r • � t +► 1'' .r'.,_a,- � S '.;�,� - .' .- il -:;�.. tf�..:C - � I ,:.�;, ..,r' 4 +� ,. . 4 1.,�� . � �e�� i �,,, ., - ' • � . " ' { �. �` � `� �� r'�i .+ d''"� � ..-�. • ' . . . . �:.� �' . �..' �• �r � � � . `. ' , _ `,• � ' , i _ ;jx:-*�••'r`_i�% j %y�' �-�'�.� _ . - _ p.. " .. r � ` � i: , �,a. :a . ..s t �Cr : . _ , .<'' ,�.�: " :!:+... / "a''� - . . - � - ' ' � ^ ' . _- • �' � � - r�+' -. - - �'��' •`.+�,. . �. �_ _ _ . � � . . � ' '.. � ' _ �. �.. . • . J .� . � . . . , • . . `` � `-�w� `��. ` . � _ .�P� �w� �. ' - ' �. . . . . . - " ' , ' ' . . �. .' ' ^" . __ • . , 1 � � � .. � � �, � `� ' .. , .'�y. �"'w+S � � .. . . . . •.� - `.�' _ '. _ I ' _+1' � EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 23, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.1 Myers Accessory Apartment — Case V2015-005 John and Sheryl Myers have applied for a variance to allow an accessory apartment in an accessory structure at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, stated that when he met with City staff, there was discussion about architectural treatments and one recommendation was putting a lower wain- scoting along the front to match what is on the current house. Based on this report, staff is now recommending that the exterior elevation of all three exterior walls adjacent to the acces- sory apartment include wainscoting of block and brick. He did not agree to horizontal siding and asked that if the Commission approves this application that they eliminate that require- ment. He explained that this is a large rural property and this structure will not be visible from the road or any of the neighboring houses. He agrees that they want to make it look nicer than a pole barn, which is why they are going to put rock on the front side and add a porch roof and architectural treatments to the posts, but putting rock all the way around a 5,760 square foot building will be very expensive. The colors of the new structure will match the house. He noted that most houses in Cottage Grove only have architectural upgrades on the front side. He stated that the accessory apartment will be a temporary use and will revert to non-living uses when the family use is done. He does not believe that they can make horizontal siding match the vertical siding. He noted that vertical siding will make this building look like any other rural building. He stated that they are in agreement with the rest of the recommendations. Johnson asked why the architectural requirements were put in. Burbank responded the intent was to add additional residential flair to the accessory apartment. The staff report summary noted that there could be components of horizontal siding so perhaps it could just be the front banding or some architectural details. Staff has not seen the drawings of the proposed build- ing, which is why these requirements were added. When this application goes to the City Council, those drawing should be available and then the architectural details could be addressed in more detail. The Council will have the ultimate say on that recommendation. Rostad opened the public hearing. Kevin McGrath, 11000 Manning Avenue South, stated that they support this proposal from a land use and family standpoint. As to the design elements, they can be worked out. He be- lieves that making this structure look like a 5,700 square foot house will make it not fit in with the area. He does not believe it will have any impact on the neighborhood. Bill Royce, 10823 Lehigh Road South, highly recommended that they do not have them put on horizontal siding; it would make his barn look out of place. This structure will not be visible from any neighboring properties or the road. He believes this should just be a plain structural rural building. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Accessory Apartment — Case V2015-005 February 23, 2015 Page 2 of 2 No one spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain stated that he thinks this is a good step to help with the homeowner's intended use. He does not see a strong need to make the entire building look like a house. He stated that this could be worked out between staff and the applicant prior to the City Council meeting. Rostad added that it does not look like the stonework does not wrap around the existing house, so wrapping it around the accessory structure seems to be excessive. He also agrees that while there will be an accessory apartment in an accessory structure, the look and feel of the accessory structure is still agricultural, and vertical siding is typically used on a structure of that size. After the accessory apartment is no longer used as an apartment, it would blend in better with vertical siding. Burbank clarified that the requirements for the residential type materials are only for the por- tions of the structure abutting the accessory apartment, not around the entire structure. Imdieke commended the City and the applicant for finding common ground on this proposal. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the variance, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with a change to condition #13 to not require three-sided architecture but to work with the applicant between now and the City Council meeting. Rediske seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5-to-0 vote). EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2014, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.3 Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 John and Sheryl Myers have applied for a variance to allow a second residential unit as part of a 5,760 square foot accessory structure on residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings of fact stipulated in the staff report. Graff asked how much of the 5,760 square feet would be the residence. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, responded that the residential portion would be approximately 1,500 square feet. He provided background information on why they are requesting this variance, explaining that two daughters require constant care, and his wife's mother is a personal care assistant who helps with their daily activities. He stated that he initially approached staff in the spring about what they believe is a permitted use. He referenced City Code Title 11-9A-3(9) that a separate living quarters for domestic servants employed on the premises is a permitted use. Staff interpreted that it was not meant to be a separate structure but attached to the principal structure, which is why they applied for the variance. They do not want to subdivide the parcel and build a house on it or add onto their existing house due to market value issues. The proposed option provides on-site living space in an accessory structure, and as needs change, they can repurpose the living space into shop space and the property would still have market value. Rostad asked if the property was subdivided, would both parcels require 180 feet of public frontage. Burbank responded yes. Rostad asked if there is enough frontage. Burbank re- sponded on a previous application, a public right-of-way was stubbed in. Also, recently the City approved a variance on 70th Street that had reduced public frontage. Johnson asked why this proposal is against the ordinance. Burbank responded that the Tech- nical Review Committee identified that they had the opportunity to construct an addition for an accessory apartment or to subdivide the property. Graff asked if language could be added to require the living space be converted to shop space when it was no longer needed. Burbank responded that conditions of approval are added for variances. Reese asked about the materials for the structure and if there would be footings or would it be a slab on grade. Myers responded that the main building structure will be a post frame con- struction with a cement floor and a floating slab. Burbank responded that footings would be required if they were to attach it to the principal structure. Reese asked if the building official was consulted to see if that was appropriate for a residence. Burbank responded that the applicant is proposing a habitable residential portion meeting city building codes for occu- pancy. Myers stated that they would build it to meet the applicable building codes. Rostad opened the public hearing. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Kevin McGrath, 11000 Manning Avenue South, stated that they are the closest neighbors to the Myers and support the application. This is a rural area and they appreciate this multi- generation approach, which fits with our farming heritage. Farms usually have accessory living structures for farm hands and multi-generational families, but none of them look as nice as what is proposed. While the review group's approach may be technically correct, based on the specific facts and circumstances with this family and parcel of land, the proposed structure would have a low impact on neighboring properties. Bill Royce, 10823 Lehigh Road South, believes the applicants' intentions are very admirable. He stated the structure could be considered a bunk house for farm workers. He supports this application wholeheartedly. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that he has no problem with this request for residential space in an accessory structure. This is both a practical and economical solution to their needs for work space as well as a way for them to take care of their family's health and welfare needs. He stated that in the past there was a proposal for a residential subdivision on this property, which all the neighbors opposed. He is not aware of any adjoining owners op- posed to this proposal. It will not adversely affect the neighbors' property values. In most cases the adjoining property owners cannot see the building site because of topography and vege- tation. He believes that owners of a 40-plus acre site should be able to do what they want with their property as long as it does not infringe on the neighbors and meets the proper zoning. This idea of accessory apartments is not a new concept and we have them in Cottage Grove. He does not believe having a living quarters in a separate building on a large rural property is big issue. He noted that there are other properties with additional residential dwelling including a remodeled chicken coop and a corn crib. He would encourage the Commission and Council to approve this request. Louise Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that in this economy we should encour- age residents to care for their own families in the most economical way possible. She noted that she and her husband have spent many years as volunteer agriculture advisors to a 10,000 acre farm in Russia. Their Russian visitors were impressed that everything in America is designed to make life easier for citizens. She would like to keep it that way. Let's make this project easier for the Myers' family. No one e/se spoke. Rostad closed the public hearing. Brittain stated that while he commends the applicant for what they are trying to do, the Plan- ning Commission's responsibilities are to adhere to the zoning policies of the community as they are written. There are times that we can deviate from the ordinances with variances if there are findings of fact; however, we also need to be cognizant of how the property may potentially be used in the future. While he empathizes and commends what the applicants are trying to do, there are other alternatives within current ordinances, including an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure or a lot split. Imdieke asked about the ordinance language regarding a structure for hired help, as the pro- posed occupants of the structure were hired through a care provider. She asked for more information on the interpretation on that code. Burbank responded that one of the points of Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 7 discussion was if it fell under a caretaker residence. The Technical Review Committee deter- mined that a caretaker's residence was not a separate building, but would be in an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure. The only options are to construct an accessory apartment or apply for the variance. Imdieke asked if there are other parcels in Cottage Grove that have that separate buildings for hired help. Burbank responded that the only caretaker residence he knows of is on the Acorn Mini-Storage property but that is guided and zoned differently. She�ards Woods, which is owned by the Dodge Nature Center, has a caretaker's residence on the property but that was there prior to the zoning ordinance. The converted chicken house at Hope Glen Farm is part of a Historic Places Conditional Use Permit, and the converted corn crib is used for short-term stays, not long-term habitation. Those are the ones that staff is aware of. Those structures were created under different circumstances. He noted that there are accessory apartments and rental units throughout the city. Johnson asked if all the provisions listed in the ordinance criteria need to fit in order for a variance to be granted. Burbank responded that there needs to be reasonable findings to grant a variance. The Technical Review Committee did not feel they could establish adequate find- ings. Johnson asked if the septic system would need to be upgraded for the new building with living quarters. Burbank stated that in the summary section of the staff report it was identified that if a variance were to be granted, they would need to ensure that the current septic system would support any additional residential use. Johnson asked what the negatives would be to allow a second residential dwelling; the Commission just approved a variance for a pool, which is an amenity, but are being advised to deny this variance that he believes is for a good pur- pose. Burbank explained that each variance request is looked at on its own merit. The Tech- nical Review Committee noted that there is the ability to have an accessory apartment attached to the principal structure, which would not require a variance, or to subdivide the property. There are standard zoning procedures for creating additional residential units within the community available to the property. From a zoning perspective, there needs to be con- sistency in how these requests are addressed. There are also concerns about how future owners would use the habitable space. Reese stated that his only concern was the type of structure and removing the grove of trees for it. He understands why they do not want to add onto the house. He would rather see the applicant and staff try to work on options and come back next month with more data and details. Graf asked if in the R-1 zoning district we allow only one residential dwelling per zoned parcel. Burbank responded yes. Graf stated that the way to add a residential dwelling is through sub- dividing. That option would provide a similar outcome; the only difference is that they would own an additional lot. Graf made a motion based on the recommendation in the staff report that the variance be denied. Brittain seconded. Johnson asked if Cottage Grove allows slab on grade construction and if a pole barn requires frost footings. Burbank responded slab on grade construction is allowed and pole structures don't require frost footing foundations. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Myers stated that subdividing the lot brings the same issues that adding onto their existing house would be, which is that the size of the house could be unmarketable. Graff stated that she sympathizes with the applicants and explained that she faced a similar situation trying to find a home that fit their needs. They remodeled their home, which may make it hard to market in the future. While she understands the applicants' concerns, the Commission needs to protect the greater good. This would set a precedent. She also ex- pressed concern about future use of the property if it is sold. She would also like more time for research on this application. Myers stated that they would agree to adding conditions listing what the structure can be used for. Rostad stated that he would vote to approve the variance because he believes the applicant is trying to put up a structure in harmony with the area. The accessory structure would not be detrimental to the public, neighbors, or property values. If they are willing to meet the septic requirements and building code requirements, he would be in favor of granting the variance. Johnson asked about the size of the living area. Myers responded 1,500 square feet would be the maximum size. Johnson asked how many square feet they have currently in the house. Myers responded about 3,200 square feet. Johnson asked if they are absolutely sure that a 4,500 to 4,700 square foot house would make the property unmarketable. Myers responded that they have no intention of selling any time soon and plan to retire there but as their children move out, the house would be too large. They would reconfigure the living space in the acces- sory into shop space when it is no longer needed. Rediske stated she is concerned about safety implications of a pole barn on a flat slab. Myers stated that this type of structure is getting more prevalent and can be engineered to comply with all building codes. Graff stated that she would prefer to table the application to get more information on these types of structures and to do research on if there are other properties with a second residential structure. Levitt stated that even if the application were tabled or continued, the underlying question remains that there would be two separate residences on one property. As indicated, the only ones in Cottage Grove (Dodge Nature Center and Hope Glen Farm) are of a historic nature and have conditional use permits. There have also been indications from the applicant regard- ing storage rental. Commercial uses are not permitted on this property. The City needs to be very cautious about these types of situations. The underlying issue before the Commission is if two separate residential living quarters are going to be allowed on one parcel. Imdieke asked if they were to subdivide, could this accessory structure be a stand-alone struc- ture on that parcel. Burbank responded that accessory structures are not permitted to be built prior to a principal structure, unless it had a residential component to it. There are some ex- ceptions for agricultural buildings on a lot of record with agricultural use prior to a principal structure. Imdieke asked if the applicant could build the same structure on a subdivided portion of his parcel. Burbank responded if it had a residential component to it and the storage garage would be limited to 1,000 square feet. Imdieke stated that could be a compromise. This appli- cation could be denied and they could come back with a subdivision application. Burbank Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 7 stated that a minor subdivision would require minimum public frontage, public right-of-way access, percolation for a septic system, minimum building code requirements related to hab- itable structures, and limits on attached garage size. Myers stated that if they subdivided, the structure would need to be along the public frontage instead of close to the house or a public road coming in to their property would need to be created. Imdieke asked if it would be possible for the city to work with the applicant on variances to some of those requirements for a subdi- vision. Burbank responded yes. Reese stated that a couple months ago, the Planning Commission approved an accessory structure apartment. Levitt responded that was part of Hope Glen Farm's Historic Places Con- ditional Use Permit. They have an accessory apartment detached from the principal structure and there will be a tree house suite and a corn crib, which is an ADA-accessible lodging option. None are permanent residences, other than the principal structure. Reese asked if those would have been approved with the HPCUP. Levitt responded that it would not have met zoning requirements. Wehrle stated that he thinks the proposal makes sense for their situation and would support approving the variance. Graf also agrees that what the applicant proposes probably does no harm to anyone; unfortu- nately the code requires one residential dwelling per residential lot. There are other options, including subdivision, purchasing another home in the community, or adding onto the principal structure. He does not want to approve two residential units on one residential lot, because it would set a precedence. Brittain stated that as a zoning body, we are bound to follow the rules, and if we don't like the rules than we change the rules. We do grant variances from time to time. As a zoning body we need to look at the rules, but if we cannot find applicable findings of fact, we cannot rec- ommend approval no matter how much we would like to do something else. Myers asked if the variance could be requested based on 11-9A-3(9) that allows for separate living quarters for domestic servants. Staff's interpretation was that was not meant to be a separate structure. Brittain responded that the intention is not to be a separate physical struc- ture. Rostad believes that the Technical Review Committee got that wrong and he thinks his- torically living quarters for workers on a property have been detached from the principal structure. There would be legitimate findings to allow a separate living structure. Johnson asked how other cities compare as far as two residences on one lot; he has seen guest houses on properties in other cities within the Twin Cities. Burbank responded that staff did not explore that as part of this review. Imdieke stated that the zoning board has to follow the City Code. She believes that the inter- pretation from the Technical Review was wrong and that in agricultural areas there are sepa- rate living quarters for farm workers. Graf stated that the property is not zoned agricultural, it is zoned rural residential. Burbank responded that they meet the definition of an agricultural use per our zoning code. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Motion to deny failed on a 2-to-7 vote (Ayes: Graf, Brittain) (Nays: Graff, Imdieke, Johnson, Rediske, Reese, Rostad, Wehrle), Reese made a motion to table the application so the staff and applicant can look at other options and to get more details on the proposed structure including the materials and placement of the structure. Brittain seconded. Brittain expressed concerns about how close the structure would be to the current residence and private drives versus public drives. Johnson asked if there is an opportunity for Commissioners to provide an opinion as to whether this property can be used for hired hands or domestic help. Burbank responded that request for was not advertised so he would have to check into the procedure related to action taken on something that was not advertised. If an additional public hearing was required to deal with a different section of the code, it could be advertised prior to the City Council meeting. Levitt clarified that the motion should be a continuance instead of tabling and so the verbiage in the motion would need to be changed. McCool responded that Johnson's interpretation if a second residence could be on the prop- erty if the applicant was to challenge or disagree with that interpretation, there is an application process that includes a public hearing. If this was continued, background information could be provided to the Planning Commission next month, including more detail on how that was in- terpreted, what the ordinance states, and the City Attorney's opinion. Johnson asked if this application needs to be denied first and then the applicant would reapply for another variance regarding housing for domestic help. McCool responded that if this application was denied, the applicant would have the option to appeal the City's interpretation of whether or not a second residence can be on the same parcel of land. The Planning Commission would hold the public hearing and make a decision on that application. Graf asked if the City has ever interpreted accessory apartments to be a separate building in the past. Burbank responded that there was a request for a detached accessory structure with a mother-in-law's apartment on property on Lamar Avenue. The City's interpretation was the same as this, and the property owner did not proceed any further. Graf noted that is a prece- dent to guide the Commission in this matter. Rediske asked how the mother is paid. Myers responded through the state. Rediske asked if she is paid by the state, does that allow her to be considered a hired hand. Burbank responded that she meets the definition of being hired but it is not a separate caretaker's residence. Reese amended his motion to continue the application instead of tabling the applica- tion. Brittain seconded. Rostad stated that he does not feel that it needs to be continued. We are looking for a variance for a second residential structure, and he does not need to see the materials list and the layout. He would assume staff would take care of that part of it and get the building up to code. Excerpt from Approved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Second Residence — Case V2014-029 September 22, 2014 Page 7 of 7 Motion failed on a 5-to-4 vote (Nay: Graf, Imdieke, Wehrle, Rostad, Grafi� (Aye: Johnson, Rediske, Brittain, Reese). Wehrle made a motion to approve the variance to allow a second residential unit. Imdieke seconded. Graff commented that if this motion is approved, she wants to emphasize to the homeowners that they have set a precedent where the City staff's recommendation and this Planning Com- mission's recommendation are different, and urges them to have answers to the concerns expressed at this meeting when the application goes to the City Council for final determination. She also asked them to work with the City to resolve some of those issues. Motion passed on a 6-to-3 vote (Ayes: Graff, lmdieke, Rediske, Reese, Rostad, Wehrle) (Nays: Graf, Johnson, Brittain). RESOLUTION NO. 2014-103 A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT AS PART OF A 5,760 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AT �10990 MANNING AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, John and Sheryl Myers applied for a variance to allow a second residential unit as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory strucfure on residentially zoned property legally described as: ALL THAT PT OF S1/2-SE114 LYING S OF N 351.05FT & W OF E 1913.OFT THEREOF AND THAT PART LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 693.77 FEET OF THE EAST 1913.0 FEET THEREOF EXCEPT THE NORTH 247,5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 264 FEET OF THE EAST 412.5 FEET THEREOF SUBJ TO & TOG WITH EASE SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 027 RANGE 021 Commonly known as 10990 Manning Avenue 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, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the variance application request, was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Planning staff recommended denial of the variance application to the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hefd a public hearing on September 22, 2014; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony fram the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the planning staff repor� and the ordinance criteria found in Title 11-2-7, and considered the public hearing testimony; and WHEREAS, after a lengthy discussion and several failed motions, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-to-3, recommended that the City Council approve the variance to allow a second residential unit as part of a 5,760 square foofi detached accessory structure on residentially zoned property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval for the requested variance did not include findings of fact as required by City ordinance and State Statute; and WHEREAS, fhe City Council reviewed the variance application at their meeting on October 95, 2014, and voted unanimously to continue discussion at their meeting on November 5, 2094, to provide time for staff and the applicant to meet on site to consider options and Resolution No. 2014-103 Page 2 of 2 alternatives to the granting of a variance and to allow the City Attorney to provide clarification and interpretation to ordinance language questions raised at the Council meeting; and WHEREAS, staff and the applicant met on site on October 24, 2014, to discuss options and alternatives. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby denies the variance fio allow a second detached single family residential unit as part of 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoning property, legally described above. Denial of the variance is based upon the following findings of fact: A. The reguested variance is not caused by a distinction or exceptional situation that relates specifically to the property. B. The circumstances surrounding the variance request are solely due to the property owner's family situation and are not unique to the property. C. The property owner has other options to allow for additional residential housing opportunities on the property including the establishment of an accessory aparfinent in the principal dwelling and minor subdivision. D. The inability to obtain affirmative responses to all of the Ordinance criteria established in Title 11-2-7 when considering the variance request necessitates that the Council must deny the variance request. Specifically: 1) The variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; 2} The variance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 3) The circumstances are not unique to the property; 4) The circumstances are created by the property owner. Passed this 5th day of November, 2014. � . yron B ' ey, ayor Attest: �� Caron M. Stransky, City Gerk