The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-09-02 PACKET 08.D.�EQt1�S� OF CI'�( COUF7CIL P,CTION COUNCIL A��tJC3A PdIEETING ITEPJ@ # DATE 9/2l98 . f} ° PREPARED BY: Communi4y Development 6Cirer Lindquist CREGE6�°A � EtJG CE�'AF�.T�EN� STF.FF nJT�-iOP. 4.a.A�aa.a��.�e..a�s6e�.a.ee��etr�.a....�«�.�d.�. � • � - ��,� Deny varsance to Section 28-73(c)(1) of the Mississippi i2iver Corridor Critical Area Overlay District to reduce the 100-foot structure setback from a bBuffiine requirement of the city's zoning ordinance to construct a garage at 11931 Lofton Avenue South. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTBON ►�� • . � = � •' . �"' . �. . . � � � . ■ e • � •- ■ ...�� i�• � . •: REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � idIEVVi01LET'fER:1 } I�Aemo from Kim Lindquist dated 8/27l98 2} Letter from Paul Runze dated 8/24i98 3) Letter from Corrine Thompson, Assistant City Attorney, dated S/24/98 4} Letter from MN Department of Natural Resources dated 8i24/98 � ❑ ❑ ❑ � . • � - � _ •�� ..' • rr � . • �• s ; • - -.. . . -. . ..s. -. r, � . � - . . . . ' i • '` � i ," � � �1� �ity Adrrainistra4or �at� ��.��a»&84��&.=��s��&tr�.ffi�s.��a��¢�e��.��:� cca€��i� �,c��a� ra��c��: ❑ ��a�� ❑ ��i�� (� c�r�� ,.. , •-� � TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Kim �indquist, Community Development Director DATE: August 27, 1998 RE: Variance Application for Garage at 11931 Lofton Avenue South INTRODUCTION The Planning staff issued a building permit for a detached garage at 11931 Lofton Avenue South in error, as the building dces not comply with the bluff setback requirements of the Criticai Area ordinance. The ordinance requires a 100-foot setback and the garage is approxi- mately 10 feet from the biufF. The issue was brought to the City's attention by a neighbor, and upon investigation, the staff confirmed the error and issued a stop work order. The stop work order was issued after the cement slab had already been installed. The applicant has applied for a variance from the bluff setback standards to permit completion of the garage. DtSCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed this i#em at their August 24, 1998, meeting. Staff is trying to expedite a decision for the applicant since the project has already been started. During the Commission meeting, several members discussed the difficulty in supporting the variance due to the large variance requested. Additionally, there are concerns about erosion into the ravine and the tree removal, which would have been necessary for the garage construction. Com- mission members also discussed the size of the structure and questioned the availability of placing the garage elsewhere on the site without the need of variance. The appiicant submitted a prepared statement that outlined why he chose this location for the garage and explained that no river views would be compromised. He indicated a willingness to comply with the four suggested stipulations of approvai found within the staff report. During the public hearing, Mr. Del Nelson, 11801 Lockridge Avenue, spoke against the vari- ance request. He felt the garage was too close to the bluff and that granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the i�tent of the Mississippi River regulations and would set a bad precedent. Mayor and City Councii Variance Appiication for Garage at 11931 Lofton Avenue South August 27, 1998 Page 2 At the meeting, two letters were distributed and are found within the Council packet. The first letter is from the Assistant City Attomey, Corrine Thompson, explaining that in general, the City would be immune from any tort tiability associated with negligently issuing the building permit. The second letter was from the DNR explaining that they had not reviewed the variance re- quest and asking that the Commission table the item to wait for their review. Previously, the City had been forwarding planning application information to the Nationai Park Service oniy when it invoived MNRRA standards. Recentiy, the DNR has also requested that items be directly forwarded to them also. Review and comment from both agencies is advisory, to aid in the Citys deliberation of the application. Ali pertinent information has been faued to both agen- cies and staff is hopeful that we will receive some response prior to the City Council meeting. Ultimately, the Commission voted to approve the variance on a 5-3 vote. Variance approval was based upon the difficulty in siting a detached garage on the premises due to the existence of two ravines and the low visibility of the proposed location. The variance was conditioned upon the four suggested conditions of approval. The motion also indicated that the City might have some responsibility to approve the variance since the building permit had been errone- ously approved and some construction work accomplished. In light of the City Attorney's letter and the criteria for granting of a variance, planning staff has not inciuded this finding of fact within the draft resolution of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to recommend denial of the variance; however, the Planning Commission, on a 5-to-3 vote, recommends approval of the variance request. If the Council wouid like to approve the variance, the attached resoiution should be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 28-73(cj(1) OF THE MtSSISSIPPi RIVER CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT TO REDUCE THE 100-FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FRt)M A BLUFFLINE REQUIREMENT OF THE CiTY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AT 11931 LOFTON AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, Paul and Paula Runze have filed a variance appiication to reduce the 100- foot structure setback requirement to construct a garage on their property. The variance pertains to Section 28-73(c)(1) of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overiay District of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 18, Block 1; Countrywood Addition, Washington County, Minnesota. Commonly known as 11931 Lofton Avenue Soutn; Cottage Grove, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed building a 1,472 square foot garage zero-feet from the bluffline; 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 Planning Commission conducted a pubiic hearing on August 24, 1998; and WHEREAS, public testimony was received in opposition to the variance; and WHEREAS, the City inadvertently issued a building permit for the construction of 1,472 square foot accessory structure after finding that the 100-foot structure setback requirement from a bluffline as required in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area was not compiied Re�uwuun iv�. ao-nnn Page 2 with. The City issued a"Stop Work" tag and the landowner was instructed to either apply for a variance or comply with the setback requirements. The landowner chose to apply for the variance because the concrete foundation had already been poured and believed there is not other location on the site that would acc;ommada4e th� censfruction af this accessory structure; and WHEREAS, Pianning staff recommended denial of the variance appiication based on the City's ordinance criteria, lack of sufficient findings and the possibility of other placement and construction options for the accessory structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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 generally 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 difficuity from the City'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 Plan. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 to 3, recommended to the City Council that a variance to reduce the 100-foot structure setback from a bluffiine requirement to construct a garage to within 10-feet from bluffiine shall be granted based upon findings of facts listed below. 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 requested variance to Section 28-73( c)(1) to enable the applicant to continue construction of a 1,472 square foot accessory structure zero-feet from the bluffline is hereby granted for the following reasons: The Iocation of the proposed accessory structure is remote from the Mississippi River. Therefore does not adverseiy impact the preservation of the scenic and recreational resources of the Mississippi River corridor, especially in regard to the view from and use of the river. z. There are Mro natural ravines on both sides of the lot, thus limiting the buildable area on the lot. The provisions of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District were considered and it was determined that the proposed accessory structure will not adversely impact any of the criteria listed in Section 28-81(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. KesoWSOn No. 98-XXX Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. A new building permit application is submitted to the Community Development Department showing the location of the accessory building in relationship of its proximity with the bluffline and the grade elevations along the bluffline adjoining the proposed accessory structure to ensure slope stability. 2. An erosion controi pian be submitted and approved by the City. 3. The approved erosion control measures be completed prior to the scheduling the first buiiding inspection. 4. Rain gutters be installed on the east and south sides of the accessory structure so as to divert and prevent direct runoff a�ong the blufFiine edge. Passed Unanimously this 2nd day of September, 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk FIGROUPS�PLANNINGN998\RESOLUTIUtunze V9634-sept2.doc D ��S��C',�I�;, �. AI� � � �� I 1431 Lofron Avenue South Hastings, MN 55033 August 24, 1998 The Honorable Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission Members, and Planning Division City of Cottage Grove 7516-80th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Re: Variance Request for 11931 Lofton Avenue South Dear Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission Members, and Planning Staff: I am submitting this letter in support of my variance application. As indicated in the planning report, I submitted a building permit application to construct an accessory building in compliance with the City's code requirements conceming size and height. There is no change in the request concerning what I originally requested to conshuct. The issue that is before the Planning Commission relates to the location of the accessory building. VJhen I looked the options to construct the building, I did consider different loeations. For instance, to the north and east of the house (the front of the lot} there is a rough, steep, and wooded azea. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to eonstruct in that area. This area is sloped enough that I have never walked that part of the property since purchasing it. Also, locating the building on or neaz ihe ravine was not appropriate because of the topography. Secondly, locatin� the building to the north would require a variance because the accessory building wouid be constructed in front of my house. In considering locations, I felt I had two options. One option is to locate the building south of the house which would have been the closest to the river side of the property. There was not room to construct the building in that ]oeation, and that was closer to the river. The second op6on is to locate the building east of the property on the south end of the lot. This is the location I selected as it was away from the river and was not in front of the house, thereby avoiding the need for the varianee for eonstructing in front of the house. Pa�e 2 August 24, 1998 The location I selected is heavily wooded and totally screened from the adjoining property owner, and they do not have any objection to the construction of the building. In designing the building, ] wanted the roof line to match the house which has a 12/2 2 pitch. However, the height of the garage would have violated the City's code. I, therefore, had it redesigned to have a 12/12 pitch on the sides of the roof and a flat top to remain within the height restrictions of the City's code. If the variance is approved, I am willing to provide the necessary erosion control, including construction of a retaining wall if that is needed. I am also wiiling to instali gutters on the structure as suggested by the planning report. The pucpose of the Critical Area is to preserve the scenic and recreational resources of the river, including the view to and from the river. The garage I desire to build will not be visible from the river, nor impair anyone's view to the river contrary to the intent of the Critical Area Comdor. I will see that erosion does not occur and will install the necessary controls. The planning repoct, on page 4, lists 10 criteria from the zoning code. Items 1 through 4 will be met by constructing the building in the proposed location, and complying with the erosion control, and installing the gutters. Items 4 throu�h 10 are not impacted, nor is their intent defeated by the construction. Given the constraints on the lot that any other location would require a variance, there is no impact to susounding property owners, nor is the intent of the ordinance defeated by the approval of the vaziance, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend approvat of the variance to the City Council with the conditions suggested in the planning report. Ve trui s, 1/ Pa i,B��ze� / �Cent�ed3r . . ,.�.�_... C, x'av�� 470 Pillsbury� Grntcr 7�0 Souch S��rh Scncc M�r.nnpo6. M11V 554U2 (612) 33i.`130n ;dcp6oac tG 1 ).) 3 � tl {ax <•nvail: a�n<r?kcnncdy-p.�.cn-<or� 1 �� Cr � � �� )'�_ _= � auc 2 4 ,s� I ��i L ✓% 1 CbRRJ�'E H. TFiOMSOti Aftorney d{ Law fb72) 337.9217 c[homson Cc�kcnnedy-gra��en.com August 24. 1998 �Y FAX ANU MAtL Kim Lindquict City of Cottage Gro�c 7516 - 8(7th 5treet South Cottagc Gro�e_ MN 55016-3195 RE• Buildixg Permit Issue DeaC Kim: You asked fnr advice concerning the City'c potential� iiability for mi�takenly issuing a buitding pernut. As I understand the facts, the City received and approved an applicatinn for a building permit from MY. Paul Runac. LaEcr, fhe City detcrmined that the appeova] violaced applicable setback requirements. and it informed Mr. Ruriae that he would need to obtain a v�iance. The Planning Comrnission is Scheduled to consider the variartce at a meeting tonight Mr. Runze has indicated that he has incuned costs duc to the dal�y, and that h� intends to hoid the City responsible fbr thnce cocts. Jn genetal, tities are immune from rort liability for negligent aets in connection with the issuance of building pemlits. The courts hav� qo�nded this conclusinn ott two altemate theorics. Under one theory, the actians of employees in issuing perrttits are consideted to involve the exercise of discretion, far which they are cntitled to immunity. In the altemative, if the land u�e authoriaed in the buitding permit is cleazly illegal, so that no discretipn w�s invofved. then the ptoperty owner still cannot recover damages, because the owher is chazged with knowledge of applicable laws and is decmed to have incurred expenses xt his oWYf risk. There is only one, narrow, exception to this general rulc. tn a case invpl�ing the City of Minne�pblis, the Minnetota 5upreme Court held that the property owner could seek dama�es from the City for � huilding pertnit that wgs erroncously issued and later revoked. In that case. the court held that the property owner could not be ch�rged with knowledge of the applicable laws. because the permit had becn revokefl based on ari unwritten city policy that interpreted the city�s ordinafice. It's also worth noting that, it� the Minne�polis case, the property owner had CAH-1d9Pd6 CT � 55• 1 29d-d EG/10�d 974-! OIBBl6E219 N3�VK9 �8 AD3NN3u-woa� wcrop_cp pg_yZ-gn� �, K.im Lindquist Augnst 24, 1998 Page 2 i�„ AUG 2 4 19�8 �� s demolished an exictittg building with considerab)e value, in .*eliance an the buiiding permit. i{ is likely that that fact playgd a s+gnificant role in the couft's de�ision. It� any event, the instant Situation doec not involvc the application of an unwriften city policy. Tt�e property owner is �harged with knowledge of the appt�cable ordinances, and wryuld be precluded f}om seeking damages ffam the City. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely. ��J"t� �I' �/��,�, Corrine H. Thomson �,� 29d-d ¢�/EO d 995-i OIEB1EE219 N3nV�J R A03NN3�'-yoaj wdpp:g� ?g-yZ-�n� Auousi 24, 1998 Minnesota Depart�nent of Natural Resources 5UO i.alayettn R��d St_ Paul, Mlnnasnix SSIi�-4O_ Phonr, p97-24011fax 295->939 H•maiL , anJy.fcchtQdurstate.m�.us City of Cottage Grove Planniug Co�ncnission c/o John McCool 75I6 80th St. South Cottage Grove, Nlv 5�016 lleu Pla�ming Com,mission ivlembers: Via fax and by U C� L� C�� C',�I1�,; Al� 2 41998 �i � i �i RE;Case V98-34, Paul & Pau1a Runze, 11931 LoRon Ave. S., Mississippi River C�n�idor Cntic2l P,rea Dis� ict Withzn the Iasti hour today, I received firom a third pazty a copy of the Pluming Coimnissioz� Aoenda for Acgust 24 which lists this blufflu�e setbaek va�iancs application. The site is witliin t}ae Mississippi River Critica) Area Corridor Disrrict and the Mississippi National Rivez� and Recreation ��1rea (r�.NRRq)_ As H+e've discussed with �1ie City's Zonir�g Staff, Minnesota Rules and Executive Ordc,r �9-19 require that at least 3Q days before taking aetion on the applicatiou, the loca.l unit of gov�rnment shall noti:y DNJ3 of any application witi�in the Gritical Area Corzidor fo: which a public I�earing or discretioaap� action is rcqu'ued. 1 I�ave ol�ecked U�jt�t ou: DNR Waters Region Vl Office and �u�th thc Na':ional Pazk Se_vice, and none oi us bave received a copy of the varia�ice applioatio,n, site plan, and a�ccomnanying materials_ Wc would ask ti:st� this case be tabled tonight witi] we receive the mateXials and have the opportun:ty to review and commcnt to r'ae local un;t of goverrsnen: in accordtu�ee with state law. Altbough we do not know partieulars aboit*, t^:c aoplicatioz�, the Critical Area program has s�ong concerns about protection oP biuffs greater thazi 18% and development on siopes 12 - 18%, ensuring blu�fs and scenic overlooks remain in tl�eir natural state, and minimization of interference with views of atzd from the river, as ��-e11 as runofl; site alteration, erosion and sedimentatiot�, and ��egetatlon.. Since 1996, fhe Depaztment o: Namra` Resources, in �artt�erskip witk� the National Park S�rvicc ard Meh�opolitan Council, has wocked with local units of government Co reinvi�orace the Critical Area progra�n a�:d requiremenls wl�icl� have been in place over 20 yeus. It is itnportant that we are able to review a�i_�i com,me^t on Critical Area issues, especially vaziances from Cri�ical Area requicements, to assure Uie implementadon of tUis pzogram. Ihznk you foz your coope�ati,on au tabling this matter. We look torward to reoeiving materias on this case in the near future. Sincezely, DNRWATERS . ` andy�Fecht Critical fueal 'RFtA Hydrolog'tst cc: Nancy Duncm, Nationa� Perk Srnice S; pdra Pincl,'�ieVOpclitan Coimcii Joc Richcer UNR Inlormatiun: 612-29(i-(i157, I-RU0-7fiG-ti000 •'C'f'Y: 612-?96-Sa84, I-40p-b5'7-3��29 An L� Opporm��qy [mPioye.r A i` ma oc R«y �i � t� rcr _ �n� � F+hp V. �.� Divcraiy �a� N�nii+� im ut tn Y� Po. � C. w., � W::ato . . .�. , .. . .. PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8l24/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 9l16/98 .•• , � APPLICANT: Paul and Paula Runze REQUEST: Approve a 90-foot setback variance from the estabtished river biuff setback of 100 feet as regulated in Section 28-73(c)(1) to enabie the appiicant to continue construction of a 1,472 square foot detached garage 10 feet from the river biuff. � . . � � �OCATfON: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: 11931 Lofton Avenue South R-2, Residential Estate NORTH: Rural residential EAST: Rurai residential SOUTH: Denmark Township WEST: Rural residential SIZE: Garage = 1,472 square feet DENSITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION Deniai, based on the ordinance criteria, a lack of sufficient findings, and the availability of other siting or construction options. • � '1 ' � 1 1 F:IGROUPSIPl,ANNING\1998VRunze Coveraug24.doc P31W RpW' RI9W 2]]N��'[yN IV# D�N Z]ON T.bN T ' R9N Tlw � 4w S3]Il �W p�W pAC Vidntty Mup .._...if�c:::�."c _.._. ', � � 82 Scab in Feet a,m,a�, �� .. m �� :a..+ w.mm�.� a ��«.n.�..<: �icma � ° �i ° � rs �� .w.ma .m a.,a.�..�.a v. �e� eva waw wsw � —r—__ � IISN IIIN lNi i}IN THM S fIDN Y�� T/A1 ' � T}8N 'IIIX .: �"�q� . ... YyW RLW 0.ipW Vicinity Map . ..� �,`.._-. � 0 23 Scak in Feet .Ma.aaam�.,.,�.om .a�mAa,m�w� �ma. � a'... n �a �w.da�a �.ue mn �� .ao-... c�m�z� s�na,�.� am�.,. s.�a..o.�.�.�rn�+we�, �em � . . - ��- �,. . , , . . ;, ... The applicant is requesting a 90-foot setback variance from the established river bluff setback of 100 feet as regulated in Section 2&73(c)(1). Granting of the variance wouid enable the applicant to continue constructing a 1,472 square foot detached garage 10 feet from the river bluff. A site plan is attached as exhibit A. • . • In the first week of August, the City received a complaint from the Countrywood neighborhood that a detached garage was being built closer to the River bluff line than the required 100-foot setback at 11931 Lofton Avenue. Research i�to the matter revealed that on July 31,1998, the City issued a building permit for a detached accessory structure. The complaint was warranted, for it was discovered that the permit was approved. The stn�cture location as proposed does not meet the ordinance criteria regulating setbacks from the river biuffs within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overiay District (Critical Area). Additionally, the site had previously received a variance with conditions that required a 75-foot biuff setback and a 40-foot rear yard setback for any strucfure. 7'hese special conditions, which are not standard ordinance regulations, were not discovered until after issuance of the permit. As depicted on the site drawing submitted with the building permit appiication, the proposed structure met the required size and setbacks for accessory structures within the R2 zoning district. Two thousand square feet is the maxirnum size for detached accessory structures in this district and the proposed building was under that figure by528 square feet. The site plan submitted was inadequate in that it did not identify significant river bluff in which the property is adjacent to or provide details on the proposed grade changes. A review of the standard City base map reveals that the property in question does not physically abut the river and is about a quarter of a mile away. What the property does adjoin is a sp�r of the river bluff as depicted in Figure 5 of the City's Critical Area Plan. This figure is attached as exhibit B. A more detailed topography map is attached as Exhibit C. Although the ordinance requires a 100-foot setback from the river bluff, this bluffline is defined as a"river blufP' within the Critical Area Pian. Based on the inadequate setback, a red tag stop work order was issued on August 14 by the Building Division. The applicant had already poured the concrete floor slab prior to the issuance of the tag. Based on the ordinance criteria the applicant was advised that no work couid continue uniess the setbacks were met or a variance was obtained. The variance application process was the route chosen by the applicant leading to this case review. Pianniog stafl Report Case V98-35 August 24, 1998 Page 2 Property Characteristics As stated earlier, the lot abuts an extension of the biuffline of the Mississippi River. The ravine is actually one of the "coulees" in which attributes to the area name of the Pine Coulee. A portion of the same bluff approaches fhe fiouse on the west side of 4he lat. Th� se4 back on this side is zero as approved in 1987. The landscaping on the site consists of a mixture of lawn areas and a large number of mature deciduous trees. Some of the trees appear to meet the significant ciassification as defined by the City tree preservation ordinance. There were several trees removed from the proposed garage location prior to the submittal of the building permit appiication. The tree preservation ordinance does recognize that "a certain amount of tree removal is an inevitable consequence of the development process" and allows for the removal of trees on private lots as long as it does �ot involve Gear cutting. The adjacent properties appear to be heavily wooded, and a portion of the Mississippi River that is visibie from the rear yard of the property. The site has a private well and septic system. The septic system is located in front of the principal structure in the center of the lot, and the well is in the southwest corner nearthe proposed garage. Planning Considerations Unlike standard applications that are presented to the Pianning Commission, this particular_ review is different in that the construction process was already started. Even though a building permit was issued, it was issued in error and the staff is not enabled to grant the variance. �egally, staff's error does not require granting of the variance. The property lies within the Critical Area as well as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). The findings section of the ordinance states'The prevention and mitigation of irreversible damage to this resource and the preservation and enhancement of its naturai, aesthetic, cultural an historic values is in the furtherance of the heaith, safety and general welfare of the City." This statement exempiifies the reason for the stop work order being issued. The setbacks and other criteria established for this overlay were created in order to ensure that this decree is foilowed. Steep bluffs and ridges in the district are susceptible to erosion are usually vegetated with significant nat�ral communities. The Natural Resource inventory completed for the City highlights this. In addition, man made stnactures that crowd or encroach into natural bluffline areas do not foster harmonious aesthetics in the districL A reduction from the bluff line setbacks in this area especially one as significant as requested do not foilow the intent of the ordinance. A field review of the property was completed by the entire planning Staff in order to address the situation and view altematives. One of the first items noted was that the fili materiat for the pad of the structure actually encroaches past the crest of the bluff line and has the potentiai for causing some erosion problems if it is not controlied. The second thing noted is that there are several siting alternatives availabie on the site. Some of the existing trees on the site wouid be impacted by the other options but there appears to be alternatives without the need of variance. Ot is ciear that if staff had been aware of the bluff standards, other options wouid have been supported over the proposed location. The third thing that was looked at was why the original setback variances were granted. The rationale for granting the original setback variance in 1987 was "that any other sitting of the Pianning Staff Report Case V9835 August 24, 1998 Page 3 home wouid result in a variance request due to the location of the bluff lines". This finding does not appear as applicable in this case as it is an accessory structure versus the principal structure. Whiie it is an unfortunate circumstance that the permit was ever released, however, it is staff's job is to uphold the ordinance. This tact ensures uniform treatment of properties within the same zoning districts of the City. Review of the proposaf, the existing site conditions, and the ordinance lead staff to not support the variance. On the other hand, the granting of the variance would permit construction of the garage in a low visibility location. The biuff setback required by ordinance is generaily thought of more for direct river frontage, which is currentiy not the case. Additionaliy, the site is somewhat hampered by the presence of blufflines on two sides of the property. Shouid the Commission feei the variance should be granted, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A new buiiding permit appiication be submitted. 2. An erosion control plan be submitted and approved by the City. 3. The approved erosion control measures be compieted prior to the scheduling the first building inspection. 4. Rain gutters be required to be installed on the accessory structure so as to divert and prevent direct out fall of runoff over the bluff. Recommendation Staff recommends: ➢ denial of the variance based on the ordinance criteria, a lack of sufficient findings and the availability of other siting or construction options. ➢ allowing the existing at grade siab shail to remain for a patio or other recreationai purposes if proper erosion control measures are taken where it abuts the Bluff. Ordinance Criteria Section 28-12, Variances. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out the strict letter of the City Ordinances, a variance may be granted, provided that all the foilowing conditions are true: The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved cause a particular hardship to the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were to be carried out. There are r�anrnny aia�i rcepon Case V98-35 August 24, 1998 Page 4 unique conditions that apply to the structure or land in questions that do not apply generaily to other structures or land in the same zoning district. 2. The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. Tne aileged difficulty or hardship must be caused by this article and not by any person presently having an interest in the parcel of land. 4. 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 parcei of land is located. 5. The proposed variance wiil not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, will not increase the congestion of the pubiic streets, will not endanger the public safety or will not diminish or impair property value within the neighborhood. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any Variance. Consideration of a variance and other applications for properties located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District must meet the provisions addressed in Chapter 28, Article VII, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District of the City's Codes. Specificaliy, Section 28-81(b). 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 respect to floodways, floodpiains, siopes and biufftines. 5. The erosion potentia! of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. 6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. 7. Location of the site with respect to existing or fufure access roads. 8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposai systems. 9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. 10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. 11931 Lofton Avenue South Paul and Paula Runze / �I , j' �,. � £,�. _ ;' � / \ � �'��.y\ �t, , � �� , ' �� l� � Rear �ot Line � � i ^ � � 6 I l F- ��d`rd 'r rea — e �a� � a o . r' ti e � r 5 - � ;_> �---- --_ . � �i1V��{r,20 = , - -.i _ :C, �� N C ' << J � C R R -� � � u�. o � 1 `a Q . 1 e _.__ _.... _ __ i � . _, r : . ," ��e _ 0 �J / ,. � / , �/��--� � l� Gv l �� .��T�. . ��`-��: . ��•-2�, _ _ . KY� ` �' :�cc � � G U �, _--- �� <' j ..._ . .. : __ _ . G_.> .. �. � __e ( p � � � � :} 1 �A>�� -��.. - 0�. � 1 � �. .. . -. .Ml. Y', v �� ..' � ">C�� :-.:.� :.. �� _ � � _:�,��- � ( � 1{) � Ll d _ ^ � �� v � � �/V ' � O n G � �/ V O N � � C 6 � V 1 � � V j� C g� �� ! �-�J _$ a ro L 8 0 c o � � / , �L__ � �`\ ; �% ' � � / _ _ ��' �I _ ._/ /' � � � , � � �� _ � �� - �\ � � �� < � ��. � _� , � � �� , '�--; ; � � , � � i 1, � �! L/ � � ' % ✓ � � � \ ' � � � \ , , 1 I � ,., -� i J <, � , � ii _ ��' � �� , ; ,�,� � � � �_ � _ (� �' ^\ \ % \ ; ;' i - .-�-�\ r`-� . �---`-- a� ,_ > � � � �� y!�ar; - � � � % , ,__ � � l ,� �; �� ;�; i,� � \\ \ � J \ \ i \ � , J I v ' �'�--� � � � '-- � � �� ; - � 0 � , , �. ;'� ; C� � � o i, �� , _ \ _ � � � , � �� S IT �l: � � � . _�- / ;� l � � F , �� C o ; �, �, � � � ~ , - _. - - - � (-�---' _ . i � _ r-- � � � ; <, „�_ � i i, / � ��---� � � � � � ~L` � .i � j \�� \ ' � . .. . " . / � / / � �\ �, _ _f/ �, __ , � , � � � - , � _.._ � --.� � �, - � � ; � ; p ; � .�� -� � ,�\ I � . �. � �• � � �� ,, ��, i ' ❑ i r-_..� � �EXHII�IT C C � ��, � �� ,i � � � } i 1 i ! . � ; l � 3 4k�i �� Q � �� • � l{..' z � � /i ti l � � r 1 r ! :.� .,., � _ _ _ _ ._� 1 �p��!lC � 3 r r� � ;.EPT�C StSTER� I ,-,. � � � I � �-- --- -- --- -- -� / � �� R �}�� ..,., �-"t ti ` � ` r Fb`l !, \ /' ��Q� 1 \ \ � r }�.�.�T �? •� . � �.. � �� -_� �°.�+ �"�t'1�T�� I.V �'i � �iT�.�-:"r��, d'\ � � � Y�a � w � a .s �� ,, . � . . 5�'a�`��;"'�• �. .. . • • 196. � ,� : � -: / ,.� . .,.t .• r F � � ro <�_ rii ( ) �i t'. �_` N + :; i S A R FF ,4 ' . � � . �'i � �.., _ _ --__ _ _ __ _ . _ _ -- ------_. . .__-- _..._ _ _ ___ .�` _. / , SG+iT'�a 1,�1� t7F 5��, ?� /.a�' v� t � � � - , ` �4 ,� . _�� ,-` � „��_� , _ .:__ �� ._,.. .� . �..,.. , _ . „. r _. r.�so��urioN�no:"�si-�3c n�SOL�':�?� iiRP-.ti';Ni Y�KiANCE fROM T!1E E:UFF' .'�'E .`�"�"" �� "'� �' ��' �" �SEFBACr: �FEQUIP.:^'�N7� OF'T}fE"`MISSISSIPPI`RIVER ' � GRITICN� AREA CORRIDOR.flEGUiA�IQNS, AND ._,. ...„ » ...... .., .:. _ , . � .. REPEALING RESOLUTION A6-183 "` � `"' .. _.. , _ . . ,. . . _ .. . _ �� -� ��MHERERS, 6ene anO�Audrey Anderso� were graote0 a variance in 1983 fran � the required .,.�-hundreC for; seiDack from bluffi�nes, as requiretl by Chapter 28�� Of fhe Lity 'roF in tbe M�s5i55ippi kiver Criti[r.l Arra Corridor Overtay District, fc• ;�oper2; ce��<cr"�bed as �olla+rs: � �� Lot lA, Bloc4 1, Countryaood Addition, Washington . :cunty, K�nne��ta. . Cam�o��y decc _, 11931 lofton Avenue South, :o2tYg2 Grc�-e, MiRCpSOtd. ._,_:�.,� .,:-... .:. . . . �_>.. ''HtiEk£AS, i�� ;�85 '"`�; 'o�ncit Resotutlon 86-183), lee a�d Mary Ractne ' resubmitted the =r-'��`�n�� *�r the variance rhith hae erpired, and received � �� approval; and � � � Nt1ERE�"S, Lee r.�.:c Mar; Racine have now requested add?tional �ariances to 4�*��,�� ^'peraitt �a��uriher encroachment on �the.btuffiiire setback,.-and� a re�uction of the -� � ,�,�..�„,..,,, wi.0��uu� selback;,. and _ _ ; ..:�.,., w , ., .i;. . � � . , _.. . +��1!��'d'k::�`� . . T,, r�'xe�M3.�WCvt�Ak�s st. A� v+"•.3�. �m x.t^yb� � oeb.:., .., ^-w-.. �m ., x . .., �„ :MKEREAS, tne Plann:ng and Zontng Ca}mi�;,fon of the City of Cotta9e 8rove, re�tewed fhe a�, " c�±�o� at tne'r ^wcting'on August ?4,` 1487; and reca�mended _ IIDDroval of the reGueSt; and � � � � . . MdEREAS, this Council has deter+efned that the spectat tontliN ons`applyin9 ,: to..the structure or land u; question.a�e.peCUliar. W such property ot; 5�.-.=�„ �. =.�I�1aLeiy ad}oining=property and� do not apDty to�otheq.,3and or�ptruc �: : ,.��r��-�� F ,��LlIPlS �:}t1.�;L�rt�d15tr1�C�1n rhiGh suce tend.�,� - o��ted,��;�nq tnat��{�rantfnp�Df<� ;� �-� $ "''�"'�;d"``�"�`�'"`'�+artantl�ritl wav tmpafr�heatth`' 3�j"t�lyt cdnfaFt9`ofi in `' w v�-�ny�akher-respec4 be contrary to�tfM -inttn4�of�.��it�e Zonfng-0rdinantt-�fnd Che -�� .. �� V. <.,to�prahensive Plan, and that the q*anLing�of,soch raN nnte w111,notfrerely SerYe ,�,�, ��uiS � Wnvtnience tu tl�e a0P'�:ant, but 15 nlcessary Lo dllevlate deawaStrable llaiylsAip �aif�Hcuity: s.;-�e z '* ero t ,� ».a2 . >..�. ,_ ` r::�110i1, 7HEREfORE, BE IT RE��OLVED, b,y�3bl,CityXpueC13�9t�tht.Clty�Aff.GOt ,< _ „��; ..•tage 6rme.�MasMngton Cuur.ty, MinnesOta,�,thet �he �appiltatfoif af 14e �fM1d ?tary�-=�� - Rxine for n varSance fror, the.9D0-foot DtaffN ne ietDatk requtrement of the .,�tfsslssfODi River Crftical Area Gorridor pequiattons, and fraa� tpe mimiaaw reir : rard Sltbatk SGa11 be apprc;e�, s�G,fett to tht following eooditiorts: �, � _ '° -��i:��:��Per�ola4lcr tests an0 sqii boringB��sAalt�be �SUbai4ted dewDnatr�tirq � � ` ; thet tAe sfte is suitable fo* an on-site ierage Oisposal tyEtera. p�sa* to`tssue��<, o� a �u11C1nq permit, 2. He structure shatt be piaceE clasee than seventy-tive (JS) feet froW the prfwery Etuf�'•�ne •t the southe�n eeqe of the property. 3. Nr stru�tare sha11 oe piaced ciou� chan forty (40} feet #rae tJ�e r@a' IOt T:ne. ,.�.� �. < �-� ., . " =`�' *�+�+fi �*:�..R'S ,�r��,, m . � . , . , . ..� . �. f . . ...,..., .., . ,. , . _., .. _ ' ' _ _ _ _ nESOLUTION N0. 87-134 Page 2 �� 4 Erosion cenL o� :��.�_as.: c �.. rz�amaended by thp�Ptanning DeparYment .. "' �"�� """ �� and Buiid'ng .n< „-c:�� s!;at1 be utitizea durtng��construction on�the�� _ stte. .: �� FURTNER, BF I? FES�:h�r�`. '� _��tolut�on 86-183 i; hereby repealed. � i � ---� �. `"' l—'— .� z.�__�__ �ayor Attest: � � � � L'�`'' ` . � --.,, z! _ _ -- _.... , �erc , _. . . _ , / _ , -��._.�r��. ,..��;, � . . , , , ,� .,, . �F Case 87-54 � � ,.a�.-. :"�;-xm , ..�. :._,� , ,. � ,.,, x . , . . , � Introduced by: Councilmar, r,am��ero � � � . � A �" � �� " � � SecondeG by; Lounrtr�,a:�� ?am� . . . . Yoting 1n fava�: Cocncitm,n nr�n ra, Councilman Raun, Counctlnan Desze�, Coue- tilrt�,an E��a�: a;:E Nwyer petCrSOn � '� � YoUnp�`iyains.C: None., , �,.,..< x � ,� �. �TR fi 'aa.e}c` , e�^:!lli / , . ' ' 'ti.t^�t, iL . �""s ',.' c a � . RP .n ,. F e .:�� F'yt' �`. .. . ... ' � �..9��. m,�}� . a4 . . �i1:' I� � � . 4 � . , i.C.fi:... .. . . . . W . � . . . . . . • ... . . .. � . .. ..... . . ., aYO¢ . . . . . r . Y �. .� . � . . .. . �.:..r� r..:. ."..� ' �.:..:.w. l� ,�'fr. ,.y.��.. . . . _ . . . � � _ _ .. , _ � : � � � . — .'..� . . Vassed this 2nd day of S,e;�enber, 1987. . � �..q} . .�.. . . �. . ♦ .� . � - . ..- � . . � 1°P d 1�':Jn t ��T" _ .�, 4{ . . i , . .- ' . . �Y . . . "I^�_ a . .. �- �• •---• � • • . ... . . , � � 6.6 CASE V98-34 Paul and Paula Runze have appiied for a variance to Section 28-73(c)(1i of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Ove�lay District to reduce the 100-foot structure setback from a bluffline requirement of the city's zoning ordinance to construct a garage on their property at 11931 Lofton Avenue South. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the ordinance criteria, a lack of sufficient findings, and the availability of other siting or construction options without the need of a variance. Lindquist explained what the City's liability would be due to the error in issuing the building permit. She referenced a letter issued by the City Attorney, who stated that, in general, cities are immune from tort liability from negligent acts in connection with issuance of building permits. She passed out a letter from the Department of Natural Resources and explained that the DNR had not received a copy of the staff report, which was an oversignt. Auge opened fhe pub/ic hearing. Paul Runze, 11931 Lofton Avenue South, read a letter, dated August 24, 1998, that he wrote to the Planning Commission and City Council asking for approval of his variance. Boyden asked if the size of the structure was in question. Runze answered that it was the height of the structure that had been previously questioned. To avoid a height variance, he incorporated a flat roof into the structure. He explained that he plans to store a boat in the proposed garage. Sawyer asked what type of structure is planned. Runze stated that it would be a frame structure and would match the house. Sawyer then asked if the bluffiine paralleled the river and if the garage would obstruct the view. Runze answered that the blufFlirie is perpendicu- lar to the river and that the structure woutd not obstruct river views for adjoining neighbors. Del Nelson, 11801 Lockridge Avenue 3outh, stated that they were not informed of the con� struction of a garage on the bluffline. He stated that he believes it would be a dangerous precedent to allow a structure to be built close to the bluff. He further stated that he ob- served Runze removing trees in the ravine. Nelsan wondered if Runze was planning to convert the garage to a guesthouse due to its large size. Runze stated that he did cut down some trees but stopped when the Nelsons took issue with it. 6ie explained that he was unaware of the bluff setback ordinance when he appBied for the building permit. He further explained that the structure would be used as a garage and that there would be no further cutting of trees without the permission of the DNR. Eucerptfrom Unapproved Minutes of August 24, 1998, Pian»ing Commission Meeting Page 2 Sawyer asked if the slab that has aiready been poured would be for the entire size of the garage and what types of trees were removed. Runze answered that the trees were pri- marily softwood trees but some were hardwood. Japs asked if Runze had filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources. Runze answered that he was not aware that this was required untii his project was stopped. Lindquist stated that the City usually notifies the DNR. Boyden asked if the location of slab would cause erosion control concerns and if it is within the confines of Runze's property or if he is asking for a variance to go closer to the bluffline. Lindquist answered that the slab is very close to the bluffline, and some fill was brought in to elevate the corner closest to the bluffline. The slab is within Runze's property. Boyden then asked what the setback was. Lindguist answered that it is 10 feet from the bluff. Auge stated that he visited the site and that there is not much room between the end of the slab and the bluff. Lindquist showed a pervious survey of the parcel to the Commission explaining where things are situated on the site. Japs asked what type of soil is on the site and if the siab was sitting on a rock sheif. Runze stated that when the excavator prepared the area for the slab, they removed the soil that they determined was not appropriate and brought in Gean fiil. He further stated that there was no bedrock under the slab. Podoll stated that he felt the setback from the bluffline is the issue that the Commission should be concerned about. Sawyer stated that they should also be concerned about what the building is built on because it could fall down the blufF. He also stated that the DNR wouid probabiy recommend denial of the permit. Lindquist clarified that the DNR's recom- mendation woufd be advisory and the City Councii would take that under consideration along with other pertinent information. Auge reiterated that the DNR provides an advisory opinion to the City and it is the City Council's decision to approve or deny. Sawyer stated that the City should not ignore the DNR's recommendation. Boyden asked if this structure could have been placed on this property in its existing size if all the information were known prior to the permit application. Lindquist stated that staff would nave explored other options with the applicant but other locations may have required s setback variance. Runze stated that that the garage will be 1,400 square feet and would not look right in the front yard. He stated that the issue is erosion control and he doesn't under- stand how the slab in that location is changing the runoff in the area. He said that it was engineered to aliow rainwater to drain past the garage. Boyden asked if the design of the garage included gutters. Runze answered that he was willing to add gutters with down- spouts that would keep the water away from the base of the building and that the water wili drain into the ravine eventually. Rice moved to deny !he applicaPion. Jap� seconded. Excerpt from Unapproved Minutes of August 24, 1998, Pla�aing Commission AAeeting Page 3 Boyden asked what the staff recommendation was. Lindquist stated that it was for denial. Runze stated that he was told one of his options was to keep the siab. He asked what the problem was with putting a garage on top of the slab if the slab, and associated erosian issues, could remain. Rice changed his mofion to include removal of the slab. Sawyer asked if the plans would be submitted to the DNR even if the appiication were denied. Lindquist stated that the plans would be submitted to the DNR prior to the City Council meeting. Lindquist then explained that the bluff setback ordinance relates to structures and staff's policy is that siabs are like driveways and are not viewed as structures. Japs steted that he would like to make a recommendation to the City Council that while additional information will be made available io them from the DNR that the Council recognize the Commission's position. Auge clarified that the motion on the table was to recommend denial and that the second motion died due to lack of a second. Motion to deny failed on a vote of 3 to 5. Kleven moved to app�ove the variance because of siting difficulties due to the presence of two ravines on fhe properfy. Podo// seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 5 to 3(Japs, Rice, Sawyer).