The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-05-20 PACKET 08.A.REQUEST f7F ClTY COUNCIL ACTiON COUNGIL AGENDP, l�AEETlIVG ITEi� # /� DATE 5/20/98 ��0"�, PREF'ARE[3 BY Corn�unitv �eveiaprnenQ i4i�r Lindquis4 C?RIGlNATIIVG DEPARTIViEldT STAFF AUTHOR ��.��.F��» �a��¢��..�...�.�.a«��«.�Ra...�..��. COUNCEL ACTION REQUEST: Adopt a resolu4ion granting variances to allow an accessory structure fio be in front of the principal structure (Section 28-21(c)(3)) and allowing said accessory structure to have a height variance of 4 feet. The praperty is located at 8613 - 113th Street South. : � ' � • ' : � � � .• ' ADV�SORY COMMISSION ACTION: r� . �� • • ' ' • : ■' - . �' ' •` . ■'�•; . � , � ■ , , , � • • � •- ■ ..�- .� ►�� • ' ■' i • ■ *`• ` f2EVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ t�emo f�om John Burbank dated 5/15/98 N/A ACTUAL ANIOUNT APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMEIdDATEON: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMEtdDATlOfd: � OTFiER: 1} Staff Report and Exhibits 2) Excerpt from unapproved minu4es af April 27, 1998, Planning Commission i�Aeeting .� �.. �• Y. ..� �-I..�. `�1 / 1�'f '�'-E-� �ate R W R 6 W 9$ W-0t ffi 6 tr A A& R R R& it @ W& W@@ A 4 R O t O 8�F &@�!' N O 4 M 4 R@ W A&& cour�ci� ��T`c�� T��: ❑ ��p�aovE� ❑ ��i�a ❑ r��t��z F:IGROUPS�LANPdING\9898\CI7YCOUNVnce Variance Cover.doc U 1/��►� // TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John Burbank, Associate Planner DATE: May 15, 1998 RE: Accessory Structure Variances for 8163 -113th Street DISCUSSION The applicanYs proposal is to construct a detached accessory structure in front of the principal structure and have a maximum height of 18 feet on the structure. This request is similar to other variances granted in this area. The unique location of the property and the applicanYs attempt to have the architeetural design of the structure match the design of the house, ail warrant approvai of the variance applicatio� as recommended by the Planning Commission and detailed in the staff report. No other changes in the case have arisen since the Planning Commission review and the details of the case are covered in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. F:�GROUPSWLANNING\1998�CITYCOUNUnce Varianec.doc RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 8163 -113THSTREET SOUTH TO BE tN FRONT OF THE PRtNCIPALSTRUCTURE (SECTION 28-21(c)(3)) AND AI.LOWiNG SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO HAVE A HEIGHT VARIANCE OF 4 FEET. WHEREAS, Doreen Ince has filed a variance application for 8163 -113th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. The variances pertain to Section 28-21(c)(3), a provision that prohibits accessory buildings nearer to the front lot line than the principal building on the lot and Section 28-21(a)(2) requiring a maximum height of 14 feet for accessory structures. The property is legaily described as foilows: " Lot 7, except the Easterly 14 feet thereof, and Lot B that lies south of said Lot 7 and between the extension of the Westerly line of Lot 7 and the west line of the East 14 feet of Lot 7 in a southern direction, ail in House's island View, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota. Commonly described as 8163 - 113th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission conducted the public hearing on April 27"', 1998; and WHEREAS, no testimony was received in opposition to the variances; and WHEREAS, the Pianning Commission reviewed the criteria and findings estabiished by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance. A summary of this criteria is as follows: 1) It must be determined that there are unique conditions that apply to the structure or land in question that do not generaliy apply to other land or structures in the same district; 2) That granting a variance must not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but must be necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or di�culty from the Ciry's ordinance; and 3) Granting the variance must not impair health, safety, comfort or morals or in any respect, or be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Pian. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. Resolution No. 98-XXX Page 2 WHEREAS, the property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and consideration of a variance and other applications must meet the provisions addressed in Chapter 28, Articie VIi, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District of the City's Codes. Specifically, Section 28-81(b), Variances require the City to address the following items in making their decision: Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. 2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. 3. The prevention and control of water poilution, including sedimentation. 4. The location of the site with �espect to floodways, floodplains, slopes, and blufflines. 5. The erosion potential of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soii type, and vegetative cover. 6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. 7. Loeation of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. 8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. 9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medicai, and school services and facilities. 10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, recommended to the City Council that variances for the front yard and side yard setback requirements and height for the proposed accessory building at 8163 -113th Street South shali be granted based on the following: a. The slope behind the house prohibits reasonable placement of the accessory structure behind the principal structure. b. The septic system location in the rear of the house would interfere with the reasonable placement of the accessory structure behind the principal structure. Resolution No. 98-XXX Page 3 c. Side yard set back requirements prohibit the reasonable placement of the accessory structure along the east side of the principal structure. d. Mature oak trees prohibit placement of the reasonable placement of the accessory structure along the west side of the principal structure. e. The proposed structure does not exceed the front plane of the principai structure of the adjoining properties. The proposed structure is over 320 feet from the public roadway. g. The proposed structure should not be visibie from the river. Additional screening will be required. That the property is located within a river-oriented subdivision that is zoned "R-4", Low Density Residential District. Othet areas of the City zoned "R-4" do not contain river bluff lines. That piacement of residential structures within House's Isiand View and House's River Acres over the years were to take advantage of the views and river frontage. These amenities do not apply to other areas of the City zoned �� k. That Variances granted to other properties in the same neighborhood were found to have the same characteristics and rationale as described for this property. Placement of an accessory buiiding behind the Principai Structure would obstruct the river views from the homes. m. That the existence of older buiidings, critical area overlay district, and the number of similar variances previously granted in the Houses Island View and Houses River Acres subdivisions, the variances granted herein are not contrary to the intent of the Citys ordinances, and are cansistent with prior variances that have been granted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota concurs with the Planning Commission's findings that the variance application is hereby granted as follows: Resolution No. 98-XXX Page 4 A variance to Section 28-21(c)(3), a provision not allowing accessory buildings nearer to the front lot line than is the principal building on the lot and 2. A variance to Section 28-21(a)(2), a development standard requiring a maximum height of 14 feet for detached garages to be deviated by four feet, aliowing for a maximum height of 18 feet for the proposed accessory structure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approvai of these variances is subject to the foilowing conditions. 1. Erosion Control measures shall be required during Construction. 2. Six 6-foot tall evergreens shali be planted near the accessory structure, as per an approved landscaping plan. 3. Ail applicable electrical and building permits must be issued by the City before construction begins 4. The Accessory structure shall be constructed of e�erior materiais and colors that are consistent to the existing accessory structures on the site. 5. Access to the new accessory structure shall be from the existing. Passed Unanimously this 20"' day of May, 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk STAFF l2EPORT CASE: V 98-11 ITEM: 6.4 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 4/2?/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 5/20/98 APPLICATION APPLICANT: Doreen A. ince REQUEST: Approvai of a variance to construct a detached accessory structure in front of the principal structure and to exceed the maximum permitted height of fourteen feet by four feet. �� G LOCATION: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: SIZE: 8163 113�' Street South R-3, Singie Family Residential District NORTH: Single Family Residential (rural) EAST: Single Family Residential (rural) SOUTH: Raii road and Single Famity Residential WEST: Single Family Residential (rural) Land Area — Approximately 2 acres DENSITY: N/A • � � '• Approve, subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. � � . � . � � � F:\GROUPSU'LANNING\1998V'CREPOR'1�981 I -4-27-98•cvcdoc981 I-4-2b98•cvcdoc Planning Staff Report Case V98-11 April 27, 1998 •-•-• • To obtain a variance to construct a detached accessory structure in front of the principal structure on a lot less than five acres, and to exceed the maximum permitted height of fourteen feet by four feet as regulated in chapter 28 section 21. A copy of the Site Plan is attached as Exhibit A and a building elevation is included as Exhibit B. • '• � The applicant owns two lots of record. Parcel A abuts the public roadway and parcel B begins approximately 47 feet behind the house and encompasses the biuff and slope down to the raiiroad right of way. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS This property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District (Critica! Area) and sits on a bluff overlooking the River. There is a major railroad right-of- way and another property between the river and the appiicants' property. The grade change from the house to the principal structure is minimaf, and it and an abruptiy siopes off directly behind the house. A Topography detail depicting the existing and terrain is attached as Exhibit C. . , � � ., � Set Back Variance The following issues were identified in relation to the requested setback variance. The slope behind the house prohibits reasonable placement of the accessory structure behind the principal structure. • The septic system location in the rear of the house would interfere with the reasonable placement of the accessory structure behind the principai structure. Planning Report Case V98-11 April 27, 1998 Page 2 • Side yard set back requirements prohibit the reasonable placement of the accessory structure along the East side of the principal structure. . Mature oak trees prohibit placement of the reasonable placement of the accessory structure along the west side of the principal structure. • The proposed setback variance is similar to variances that have been granted in the past for similar unique circumstances this area.. • The proposed structure does not exceed the front plane of the principal structure of the adjoining properties. • The proposed structure is over 320 feet from the public roadway. • The proposed structure should not be visible from the river. . Additionai screening will be required. Height Variarsce The applicants' house is rather unique in design in that it utilizes a varying assortrnent of saltbox style roof pitches. The appiicant has indicated that she desires for the proposed structure to match the existing house style and needs a higher height ailowance to do so. The ordinance criteria states that an accessory structure requirements are tnat the "exterior color, design, and materials shall be similar to the principai structure. This stands to reason then that the proposal is an attempt to match existing design of the Principal Structure. Additionally the recent discussions by the Planning Commission indicate that the accessory Structure regulations will probably be changed in order to meet current construction roof pitch trends. A copy of the applicanYs responses to the reasoning for granting the Variances is attached as Exhibit D. Critical Area Criteria Additional variance criteria is required for properties located within the Critical Area. Review of this criteria did not show any additional impact to the area based upon the request. The National Park Service was contacted regarding the application due to the location within the Corridor. Based on the provided information they did not see any issues with the request. Accessory Building Architecture The proposed Accessory Structure will be stick frame construction and have an exterior finish and color that will match the Principal Structure. Planning Report Case V98-11 April 2'7, 1998 Page 3 Access An existing drive from 113"' Street will provide access to the proposed structure. Utilization of this existing drive would be in conformance with ordinance criteria. Grading & Drainage The overail drainage of surface water runoff will not change significantly due to the proposai, and erosion control measures will be required as a part of construction.. Landscaping Based on the discussion the Planning Commission has had recentiy about revised accessory structure standards, staff is recommending that the proposed structure be screened with a minimum of six six-foot tai! evergreens. This required landscaping would serve to soften or offset any visual impacts the proposed structure would have on the street or adjoining properties. Ufilities The Applicant shall coordinate and be responsible for and costs associated with the extension any required of private utilities to the proposed building sewer and water services are not needed for the structure. : •llLl �� • • Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated that the circumstances on this property are unique. Based on the information in this report, Staff recommends approval of a variance at 8163 113"' Street South to construct a detached accesspry s4ructure in front of the principal structure on a lot less than five acres, and to exceed the maximum permitted height of fourteen feet by four feet as regulated in chapter 28 section 21, subject to the foilowing stipulations: 1. Erosion Control measures shaii be required during Construction. 2. Six six-foot tall evergreens shall be pianted near the accessory structure, as per an approved landscaping plan. 3. Aii applicable electrical and building permits must be issued by the City before construction begins Planning Report Case V98-11 Apri127, 1998 Page 4 4. The Accessory structure shali be constructed of e�erior materials and colors that are consistent to the existing accessory structures on the site. 5. Access to the new accessory structure shall be from the existing. Prepared by: John M. Burbank Associate Planner Attachments Location Map Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Building elevations Exhibit C - Site topography Exhibit D- Ord. Criteria response Exhibit E- Accessory Building Elevations F:IGROUPSIPLM�NING\I9981PCREPORT�9811-427-98RPC.DOC �— l3U �' ��5'e�� C �- DMAtNF�r �Ct� �' / �. � 1-� \ � \\�� - — � �� - ]5 \\ �� _ � � W �'i , -• !'` = �p �-t' N� � �� ` � IL -� q g. 6 ,,._,��° �°�'a, T � o �� , � � �./ a ' � '7F ;.Z , h p+� , ` � o o.� �0 � � �S , � Q � �_ �° _: g2,b` �, - - - - �, s Y / � N �s163 � ,� � �� 5�-. M cn M \�� \��5► ��\ h �� • �•� � r _ � .�1.�� , - . �h1�\ ,� J � ` +; � s _` fy � .. , v ; j:� _. �; •, ,�... -� , �, ' � �.. -� � ;:-.._,.,, .. - W � '.�.� ,. _ W � � . .- a. _ , , � . W .. . �� . . ' . .. � -. - , : � ,� ` d _..^ � _ �� : _ a i -�, _ _ �,. � _ , � ` '_ ) \ ` � ._' � ` � � `J � : � ° ` ✓„� � = v^+ ... !. � f.'��'�� J�L�...�ha.. � � _ � ( ., � �3 :y j 4. J '�� ! � i� � t; � J c �, j; ,� ; � .� �: � � a ; � :� '. •9 �� \� � \ =a��1 ��..��'� �.�: ,� r i� �-.�1„�. � <� ' �:r. I �R .� � � ` � � '. Ci��t] � � �� '�'S�� ,�! � ��..:1 � �� _ «� �� 0 �� R:� ��. �' �� (f Z` . r ...., ' . �` , :...r � r�.... ..v '::,�'. ,�. ti.. .. ' _::i�.� ..��i::.._. w - 6o.'Y' i �. '� � �� e}M �C.�1 �eT�' UarOance: fl. List conditions that are unique. 1. Mature Oak Trees 2. Lot has a seuere slope from the front of existing home to the rear of the property line. 3. Riuer uiew blockage due to new structure 4. Existing Drain field 5. Garage roof tine complimenting home B. identify hardship ordifficulty 1 am applying for a uariance for a neu� unattached garage. The entire property behind my hame has a seuere slope. N newly constructed garage behind my house would require etttensiue fill and retaining walls. It would also disturb my septic drain field which runs behind my ettisting home. The new garage cannot be built attached or next to my eHisting home with out the remoual of two uery mature OakTrees. The trees prouide shade, beauty and ualue to my property, as well my neighbor's property. If the garage were constructed beside or behind my home it woufd destroy part of my neighbors and my riuer uieu�. In order to make my new garage as aesthetically pleasing tn all concerned 1 haue chosen a garage design that may eKCeed the 14 foot Iimit in my zone but will not exceed 18 feet. 1 want the garage to some what match the unique design of my house. �. � •, •, � � � .�. r. � � , i � . , , , �' , i i c. . i �' � � i • �. � � � r � � � . . � � � � . � i y' r. �, i i� C i r � • a • � �i � �• r � �..��• � i i i t I i i I � .�.�-+- --- - --•-. _ _ _ �. �_,_ r_... � _ _� _ � __ � �� _�—�! — — —_�-_ _ — _ _ ___ _ _ ; __, �__,__a __ __ _ _ � .J�_I � � � ,-_ ___ _' "_.._ __._ . ." _'_"�_. _�__'` __ _'.�_".__ � _�- ; � � _ ,__ �- ; -- , - �__ _- - -----_- __ _ � _ _ _ --�-_ � ._ � � i i _. , li +--- -�- - -- - - ,- - � - - , � ,� �---� - � - - f�� ; i � i -� -- -----!� ._ _ _�._ �� e., �� _ �-__ _ _ _ -- - - --�- --� - - - , � __,_ - --- - -- 4-- -- - _ __ _ __ .. � _ - - � ; � __ _- _.._l�. - - --�_ T _ _ _; _; r _ _� - � _ � _� _ i -f-- -- i I _�-� -- - --'- --�- ; �i;i � � ��i �, _. _�-- �_. _ ---_�____ �` ' ; _ ._._,._ ___ - - - - --' - �-'� i -� - - � .. _. � _ __��_-__�_�__�__�__�__ r___ _ ' I I - -�-- - ; , I .. i _ __ __� .._ ._ ...__,__._. - -- ��--. ..---� T� --� i � H I 1 � -_ __ __ _ __ _ - - _ _ __ __' ;---- --- - �- � �- - . - -- � - -- -- - - - -t- - - � _ _ - �� ! . � ■■ � � : �� . �� . ��.•■�� ,• � Excerpt from Unapproved Minutes of April 27, 1998, Pianning Commission Meeting s.a CASe vss-» Doreen ince has filed for a variance to construct a detached garage in front of her existing home. The residence is located at 8163 - 113th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approvai contingent on the conditions listed in the report. Auge opened fhe public hearing, noting that the applicant was not presenf. Boyden asked if the applicant approved of the conditions. Burbank answered that prior notification was sent out and he was surprised that she was not in attendance, but he has not heard back from her. No one spoke. Auge c/osed the public hearing. Rice made a motion to approve the application subject to the five conditions stipulated in the sfaff report. Foster seconded. 1. Erosion Contro! measures shall be required during Construction. 2. Six six-foot tal! evergreens shall be planfed near the accessory sfructure, as per an approved landscaping plan. 3. AIl applicable electrical and building permits must be issued by the City before construction begins. 4. The Accessory structure sha/! be constructed of earterio� materials and co%rs that are consistent to the existing accessory structures on the site. 5. Access to the new accessory structure sha/i be from the existing. Podoll stated that he had concerns about the requirements for the six 6-foot high coniferous trees. He stated that the bushes would be very expensive and he didn't believe that they would provide adequate screening. Burbank explained that the requirement was based on the Pianning Commission workshop discussion on having additional landscaping and setbacks for variances for accessory structures. Due to lack of criteria, he followed the recommendation from a previous application. Japs asked if the neighbors had been notified about the requested variance. Burbank answered that pubiic hearing notices were sent to all neighbors within 500 feet of the property, and he did not receive any phone calls or letters regarding it. The motion was adopted on an 8 to 1 vote (Podoll).