The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-10-21 PACKET 08.B.FtEQUEST OF CI°f� COUPICIL �CTION COUNCIL AGENC3A M��TING lTEIVt # C3ATE 10/29/98 . !�. PFtEPARED BY: Community Development Kim Lindquist ORIGBhIATIPJG DEPAFtTMENT STAFF AUTHOR �«.amd.«.�.A.�.�.4��a..4..��.a i . � � � Adopt a resolu4ion granting a variance to Section 28-29(c) of the City's zoning ordinance to reduce a 20-foot minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure to 7 feet for property at 7468 Granada Circle South. ; � . . � a ,. : � t • • ADViSORY COMMISSION ACTION �• ►� • : •: ■ ' = ��I� � � �. ■ "' • � ' ` ' • ■ , . . ■ � • � � •- ■ REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N/A ACTUAL AfV10UNT DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTiNG DOCUMENTS ►�� • ' . . , .. . . - . • • • ;, ►��- • •; �. ■ �'a ■ � ��•� � �� •� ■ � ` • �� • APPRO�/ED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ /#ds -.. .- • - . . ... . -. « - ' . . . - . . _.. ,_ ; .., ,O �6 � D�t� �r�xmaa�maa�waarwe�eara+maaer�a�w�aesamaaaasaaem¢s ccau�ciL �c�io� ��,�E�. [� �,��c�v�ra ❑ �� ❑ ��rt�� F:K.;ROUPS�PLANNIhdG\7998\CITYCOUNLLamber(y cover.dx MEMORANDUM TO: Honorabie Mayor and Council Members Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: October 14, 1998 RE: Mark Lamberty — Side Yard Variance Application INTRODUCTION Mark Lamberty has appiied for a variance to reduce the 20-foot minimum side yard setback for accessory structures (required in Section 2&21(c}, Setback requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance) to a five-foot side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot by 32 foot accessory structure at 7468 Granada CirGe South. f-1 _� y:( e 7: Z� 11 P.1 � 7 The property is zoned R-2, Residential Estate which requires a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres of land. The lot is heavily wooded with a ravine transversing the rear portion of the lot. The lot slopes from the street and south property line to the rear and north property line. The single-family dwelling was constructed in 1997. SurFace water drainage and controlling erosion has been a chalienge. Retaining walis were constructed along the rear and both sides of the dwelling. DISCUSSION The Planning Commissian reviewed this item at their September 28, 1998, meeting. During the Commission meeting, several members expressed concerns about supporting the variance due to the expectation that acreage lot developments should be abie to accommodate larger structure setbacks, the requested side yard setback is less than the side yard setback of urban densities, potential adverse impacts to the neighboring lot, and the potential precedent this application might establish for other lots within this development. Additionaily, there were concerns about tree removal and erosion into the ravine. Commission members also discussed the size of the structure and asked about the possibility of placing the garage elsewhere on the site without the need for a variance. The applicant stated that the property is pie-shaped and moving the garage forward will place the garage even closer to the side boundary line. Shifting the garage farther away from the Mayor, Council Members & Schroeder Lamberty Variance October 14, 1998 Page 2 side boundary line would impact more trees, and the slope is steeper and would interFere with surface water drainage. The appiicant said the proposed garage would match their home's siding, color, and roof pitch. Staff expressed concems for the potential precedent as well as potential impact on the neighboring lot. For purposes of achieving the greatest side yard setback possible, the applica�t was amendable to shifting the garage seven feet from the side boundary line. During the public hearing, Mr. Troy Sparks, 8431 Hilo Lane, said that he is trying to sell the vacant parcel ne� to the proposed accessory structure. Sparks objected to the applicanYs variance request and expressed concerns that construction of this proposed garage five feet from the side boundary line wili adversely impact the value of his property and set a bad precedent. The Commission, by a vote 6-2, approved the variance reducing the 20-foot minimum side yard setback requirement to 7 feet, subject to 10 recommended conditions. Variance approval was based upon the di�culty in siting a detached garage on the premises due to the existence of the siopes/ravine, preserving certain mature trees, and location of the site's reserve drainfield. RECOMMENDATON The City Council is requested to adopt a resolution granting a variance for a 7-foot side yard setback when a 20-foot side yard setback is required. The attached draft resolution was prepared in accordance to the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. G: W tANNINGi19��CITVCOUNClV98360CT27 MEM • • • • t '�'�' A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 28-21 OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 7468 GRANADA CIRCLE SOUTH WHEREAS, Mark Lamberty has filed a variance application to reduce the 20-foot structure side yard setback requirement to construct a garage on their property. The variance pertains to Section 28-21 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The property is legaily described as follows: Hidden Oaks 4th Addition, Lot 002, Block 001, City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota. Commonly known as 7468 Granada Circle South, Cottage Grove. WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed building a 30-foot by 32-foot garage five feet from the side yard property line; and WHEREAS, pubiic hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a pubiic hearing notice was pubiished in the South Washington County Builetin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 28, 1998; and WHEREAS, public testimony was received in opposition to the variance; and WHEREAS, Pianning staff recommended approval of the variance application with a seven-foot side yard setback instead of the requested five-foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed 4he criteria and findings estabiished by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance. A summary of this criteria is as foilows: 1) It Resolution No. 98-XXX Page 2 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 mere(y serve as a convenience to the applicant but musf be necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty 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 6 to 2, recommended to the City Council that a variance to reduce the 20-foot side yard setback requirement to a 7-foot side yard setback to construct a detached accessory structure 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 Pianning Commission's findings that the requested variance to Section 28-21 to enabie the appiicant to continue construction of a 30- foot by 30-foot detached accessory structure with a seven-foot side yard setback is hereby granted for the following reasons: a. The lot is heavily wooded and the proposed location would enabie the preservation of trees on the site. b. There are two ravines on the lot, which reduces the availabie buildable area. c. The location of the primary and secondary septic systems, which were sited based on the availabie buildable area, limits the location of any accessory structure. BE IT FURTNER RESOLVED, that approval of this variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance shall only be applicabie to the garage detailed in the staff report for Case V98-38. The garage cannot increase in size from the proposed 30 feet by 32 feet. 2. A building permit is required for the proposed accessory structure. 3. The variance application shall expire within one (1) year if the structure is not erected. 4. The block foundation shown to be above ground level in the design in Exhibits F, G, H, and I shall be similar in color (tan) to the principal stn.icture and rear retaining wall. 5. As required in Section 2&21(a)(2) "Accessory Structures", exterior finishes shall be durable and be architecturally compatible with and similar in design, color, and material to the principai structure. Resoiution No. 98-XXX Page 3 6. The proposed retaining wall, as shown in Exhibit C, shall consist of the same or similar block as the existing retaining wall behind the principai strucfure. 7. A gravel energy dissipater shall be installed at the discharge point of the garage gutters to prevent erosion. 8. Erosion control measures such as siit fencing or straw bale sediment trap shail be established during construction to limit erosion and sedimentation. 9. Permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures shail be established. This may include measures such as riprap to dissipate water flow, a berm to direct water at the top of the siope, a retaining wall as depieted in Exhibit C or the addition of vegetation along drain- age routes to slow water flow. If the erosion and sedimentation is not controlled, the City may require the property owner to take necessary action to correct the problem. The ero- sion controls shall be consistent with the preservation of the large basswood trees in the drainage route. 10.The large basswood and red oak trees depicted on the Site Pian shall be clearly marked and cordoned with a suitable barrier such as snow fencing during construction. The barrier shall be located to coincide to the extent practicai with the drip line of trees to be preserved. Construction vehicles shail avoid driving on the area between the trees to be preserved and the accessory structure. Passed Unanimously this 28th day of September, 1998. Jonn D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk , . . � . , . • • . . ITEM: 6.2 PUB�IC MEETING DATE: 9/28/98 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 10/21/98 .._ ; • APPLICANT: REQUEST: Mark Lamberty A variance to Section 28-21 of the City's zoning ordinance to construct a detached accessory structure five feet from the property line. SITE DATA LOCATION: ZONING: CON7IGUOUS LAND USE: SIZE: DENSi1'Y: 7468 Granada Circie South R-2, Residentiai Estate NORTH: Residential EAST: Residential SOUTH: Residential WEST: Residential Lot size =1.5 acres Proposed garage = 30' x 32' � ' ! �� • Approve variance as detailed in this staff report, subject to conditions stipulated. • � ' • " � , I • , F:\GROUPS�PLANNING\79981PCREPORTLLamberty cover.doc N m setback is required. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 7468 Grenada Circle South ce to ,..- =f'oot` 0 �_�v . _ .� ----- ----------------- y � �� ]110 6588 a 7001 � 884i � U Q �15TST.S � � 7114 IN5 ]ne It18 ¢ J123 7714 �a I Z J12] Q �0.. . ... ._ . . . , 7128 713t �. . ��p� ' � ]i66 � i � �� 7177 �1 7 � 1 � 7485 . u� .. ', . -J.. A , . I � � 1_ p C �� , ]320 7473 � ]493 :� 9�" . 7294 . . �� . . • • J � � / J362 �" 7486 ; , 7488 i I � ! P .-- --._J . . ]388 �- �Y 7458 !�+ �� , . I �p�l,_ �7481 ��. 7�96 ( � � � �4� � ��e �' : ;�..i�.�SITE ...;,�,... ; , - r ��>° �<,e x'.14-.rr, �. o-.ac �. ' M1 \�. _ _ _' ___..... . ° 1{j • , �, � � :. 748U� �' 4. „y j � .� . 7Q� ' �.. I � TH . ' � � j .;; P G � �e � � o N o' 26 m�m� p _ .., . �r�+.i_.. .-�.r6QO0_.-_�.. � A� �^ � aeoe �. �� , . eO � M1° �� ,�� .. ��,\ � .. . � �� 7668 d , )� �\ . . � � . _ � � > �)� J � " �s� � �� >� �� )�� . . : . W_ 2 � � �l. ? � � �. � 'a�y� ]001 PLANNING STAFF REPORT CASE V98-38 September 28, 1998 PROPOSA� Mark lamberty has applied for a variance to reduce the 20-foot side yard setback for accessory str�ctures as required in section 28-21(c) of the City Code to a 5-foot side yard setback. Exhibit C illustrates the proposed setback and site plan. t . : • ► � When the applicant bought his property, it was undeveloped and heavily wooded. The appli- cant stated that he consulted with his builder during the planning stages of his house about the possibility of adding an accessory structure which would meet code requirements. They determined that the proposed location would have the least negative development impacts considering the unusual terrain and shape of the lot, but would require a variance. The pro- posed 30-foot by 32 foot accessory structure could be located elsewhere without requiring a variance; however, it may be less desirable to do so. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS The property is located on Granada Circle South in Hidden Oaks 4th Addition. A ravine with a 25-foot steep slope splits the lot. The top of the slope is 10 feet behind the proposed accessory structure. At the bottom of the ravine, the City has a drainage and utility easement. The elevation and slope of the entire lot runs south (high) to north (low) and then higher again further north. There is currentiy a drainage problem on the property. The water from the ex- isting driveway fiows around the south side of the house down a slope to the alternate septic site. There is significant erosion in this area caused by stormwater drainage. The hiilside will need some landscaping improvements to control the stormwater drainage regardless of the status of the proposed accessory structure. The current drainage and proposed drainage is iilustrated in the drainage plan labeled Exhibit D. The driveway to the existing garage is constructed of gravel. The applicant plans to install a bituminous surface up to the attached garage. The driveway to the proposed accessory structure will consist of compacted gravel or similar materiai. This will be done to limit erosion by slowing down water flow. It also is a requirement of the Hidden Va112y's subdivision covenant. • � r The appiicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot by 32-foot detached garage south and east of the existing principai structure. The residence currently has a three-stall, 34-foot by 28-foot garage. Staff has spoken with the applicant several times regarding the variance request and he has indicated the proposed Iocation was primarily chosen due to drainage concerns, Pianning Staff Report Case V58-28 September23, 1998 Page 2 location of the secondary septic system, and the desire for preservation of mature trees. Additionally, the site is constrained by existing topography which precludes the ability to shift the garage further back on the lot. The property is well wooded, and as depicted on the site plan, several large trees exist in close proximity to the proposed garage. Five larger basswood trees exist to the northwest and two red oaks are located to the south. These trees helped to define the building area for the garage. It is recognized that other trees will be removed to permit garage construction; how- ever, they are smaller in size than the seven mentioned above. Although supportive of granting variances for tree preservation, staff was concerned that construction activity may seriously impact the trees, to the point that they would ultimately have to be removed. The City forester reviewed the site and felt that it may be possibie to save the trees under the current proposal. Apparently both species are sensitive to soii compaction so survival is dependent upon the preservation measures taken during the garage construction. There wiii also need to be some trimming for the red oak branches. The fall is a good time of year to do this trimming. Through the garage design, the applicant has attempted to reduce site disturbance by buiiding up the garage floor elevation by increasing the length of the block, rather than by filiing to increase the ground elevation. Due to site grades, the applicant has experienced some drainage and erosion probiems. He believes the location of the garage permits adequate drainage around the residence and be- tween the retaining wail and the detached garage. The initial proposal had the garage canted more toward the house, which limited the drainage pathway. The current proposal, having the garage parallel to the property line, permits a creation of a larger spiiiway. The applicant also expects to berm west of the garage to further direct drainage from the driveway down toward the ravine. The City engineer felt that the proposed drainage pla� could be a better system than the existing condition. However, instaliation of a garage does not improve site drainage; on the other hand, it does not hinder development of a good drainage solution. Finally, the applicant chose the proposed location due to the identified secondary septic sys- tem area. He does not want to encroach into this area in case it is needed for the future. He is also concemed that shifting the garage west, to meet the required setback, couid prompt more site drainage to travel through the designated secondary system. Upon review of the appiication, staff was uncomfortable with the proposed request. It appears di�cult to defend a five-foot setback for a large detached structure when the property is 1.5 acres in size. A reasonable expectation would be that within acreage lot developments, struc- tures would have greater setbacks. Further, the request presents a rather severe variance, especially when considering the detached garage is large at 960 square feet and supplements a 952 square foot attached garage. Finally, the applicant has reasonable use of the property and so the Commission must decide if a variance should be granted for something over and above reasonable use of the property. The owners of the property to the east, abutting the property line of the proposed accessory structure, have expressed opposition to the variance. They felt that an accessory structure would be unsightly if located so close to the property line. The letter states that the property is Planning Staff Report Case V98-28 September 23, 1998 Page 3 large and when planning construction on the property, a detached garage should have also been planned without the need of variance. They also felt that there are other locational op- portunities available to the appiicant which do not require granting of a variance and therefore the variance should not be granted. A letter expressing their concerns is attached as Exhibit J. In attempt to meet the ordinance criteria, staff reviewed the site on several occasions and asked the City forester and engineer to review associated issues. Placement of the garage requires balancing of a variety of city goals and policies: tree preservation, interior storage of personai belongings, investment and improvement to individual properties, and providing for an alternative septic system. When considering all these factors, staff discussed shifting the garage somewhat to increase the proposed setback. Our concern is the potential precedent that granting of the variance may precipitate as well as the potential impact on the adjoining fot. Upon questioning by staff, the applicant was amenabie to shifting the garage two additional feet from the property line. The forester also confirmed that this change would not dramatically alter the survivabi�ity of the site trees. Although the change may be minor from a visual stand- point, staff believes it wouid be prudent to approve the greatest setback possibie. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of a variance from 20 feet to 7 feet for the proposed garage. The garage could not increase in size but may decrease in size to achieve this setback. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting a variance for a 7-foot side yard setback when a 20-foot side yard setback is required for a detached garage at 7468 Granada Circle based on the findings detailed in this report and subject to the foilowing conditions: 1. The variance shail oniy be applicable to the garage detailed in the staff report for Case V98-38. The garage cannot increase in size from the proposed 30 feet by 32 feet. 2. A building permit is required for the proposed accessory structure. 3. The variance application shall expire within one (1) year if the structure is not erected. 4. The biock foundation shown to be above ground level in the design in Exhibits F, G, H, and I shail be similar in color (tan) to the principai structure and rear retaining wali. 5. As required in Section 28-21(a)(2) "Accessory Structures", e�erior finishes shall be durable and be architecturally compatible with and similar in design, color, and material to the principal structure. 6. The proposed retaining wall, as shown in Exhibit C, shaii consist of the same or similar biock as the existing retaining wall behind the principal structure. 7. A gravel energy dissipater shall be installed at the discharge point of the garage gutters to prevent erosion. 8. Erosion control measures such as silt fencing or straw bale sediment trap shall be estabiished during construction to limit erosio� and sedimentation. Planning Staff Report Case V9&28 September23, 1998 Page 4 9. Permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be established. This may inGude measures such as riprap to dissipate water flow, a berm to direct water at the top of the slope, a retaining wail as depicted in Exhibit C or the addition of vegetation along drain- age routes to slow water flow. If the erosion and sedimentation is not controiled, the City may require the property owner to take necessary action to correct the problem. The ero- sion controls shall be consistent with the preservation of the large basswood trees in the drainage route. 10. The large basswood and red oak trees depicted on the Site Plan shaii be clearly marked and cordoned with a suitabie barrier such as snow fencing during construction. The bar�ier shall be located to coincide to the extent practical with the drip line of trees to be preserved. Construction vehicles shall avoid driving on the area between the trees to be preserved and the accessory structure. Prepared by: Ben Martig Planning Intern Ordinance Criteria: Section 28-12, Variances Section 28-21, Accessory Structures AttaChments: Location map Exhibit A= Hidden Oaks 4th Addition Plat Exhibit B= Preliminary Plat Topofogical Map Exhibit C = Site Plan Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J = Grading Plan = Existing House and Attached Garage Design = Proposed Garage - Front View (Northeast Side) = Proposed Garage - Right �ew {Northwest Side) = Proposed Garage - Left View (Southeast Side) = Proposed Garage - Back View (Southwest Side) = Variance Objection - Residents of 7472 Granada CirGe South � �, �� •� •� :' � . � � • •: .: � •� �. SITE � 7'}68 CrRANAbA : .. 0 24 � 178.1 \__-- R' 2 30.81 ,.\ ."` O_ g e ll0p" o � ` 36.9g � N / o-T ,- n /n - ol �✓Fjb J'ca ? >2 J, A2L .j ' . ...%45.a2 :'�i NeB N%9 cixi Scc.l --��'�-,� � �- H6ri(.ny/cn Lw.nfy ��.. /i21 J/�/921 )/ � oo/ Gon N n..m�„� i j � .:.; i � . �. : � . � .. .., _ . Z ,� � � . .... . � � . ., ..`,-. .' ' N6 % E �.. :.. � R=9�q.5T r"'.�� ... � � � 60A9� 1 ��', � , ,i,o �°«, g S t �� 7 �'""_", J w 6g.6g 'S . �� R �' o � ^ i .-i'a.g29X' 1�, 53 8.79 �'�i� ��a� - 2502��_... �_ °` o �IJ2, �h �./2d./3 :� :�'. � , a.i�°or3e'� � �� -� 74 l/� ��T .� a�� W o .o-� kti ^ �, ��„` ET S0. . � $o � a l y�� .,� �.�. � - 7_ �. o I "J e° � .�. ��,e o � � o i E � �-. / ` '4'� ^�� ' Ui ��i �"' a Y o9< 8 a i �� '�.� � ,,� � � $� •�' NB9 2.T 26'Y e, >. ' a .-,-- rsea3 21 1 �: _I �-.. a�0'2093' �-. ��- -69a i 9 � ,. ,�, , p 9 ��.i .,. _. �' �nt' b�� , e .W zp, °' ir� 3a _ .P /� `�'��T" h P r ° P \ . i1.//\� NoRrH v� °/$ 4 " 'BLOCK g� ` a T 3�� l. 2 9 � 4+ i`� °31� 0 'C �e 9 a S! q 4 � E r ; 5 6 L p s .� 4 2 � 4� a+ -, �'s,Ba... � .1 �7 ��. �� '� �� A4� %J'l�L�\ t� ..� �'s 3 �, R , 9� F e o � �� _� � m N'"o - "_��za.:.::. ON O q _ � � � .. o I 3 N � t n y v � e I Q � _� n C P � � 2 � � U � � p � � � � � 3 �.�. p� � q9 Ld ,.e�� p � ..� A' �,49 y.0� � °� �� -�� r� ) :�:. . � �> \� , - �-.;� �- q � � `^ ��- d�.��.. ; . p i� , /,6 i� - s .� � w s" o � : �-� �q 9 '� % c � ° ° '° N �-�- - � �. �,� , 1� l% � ti '�' °.A° zat�;.E�'..D �4' 3e � y; e �W�, e9 ZJ � y . 4'U S�� b.� � ' Nee i `$��.� "�� °.� � � k�� ` Zo5 \ a° � � � 3 e,,.��-�_ �� `-\ M \ \ � 1 � �gse � � ' '�3' e`?a'�.� � 5 � 3 �� ..� 5 °�� °� oro\ e�; ' � ��^ ti ° �`��` ° � �, o , - � � o a s c N� e� s -d .�� z - � �� , 6 : 9� '� �ti Beori�gs ore orienied to t�e Washirgton Cwniy Copdinote System, O De�wfes V2 inch by I4 inch iron monumeM sei morked by regisVOtion number 15230. � ' . � � �� 300 SCA�E PEFT .•� e5 4 � 9 � Z �, Oh 6 � ero \ G � � S ti 0 � °' 0 �� \ 3 NS �S� Y o �sr �\ . I ( EXHIBIT B= Preliminary Plat Topological Map , .� � -,, • , � . . , � asa a �� , , , . � , : � , ----_�,,� ,, ' . , . . . ,. , ,, , : ,; � - �� _ � � - � � . `. , , _ -,.--,.-. i, , ; ; , i , : , ,� _ _-.�, ,� ; . � , , ��._ , �� ' % ` � � �1 1 , .,.- .,:�..a 87 : .. %/ ".� .. /i,.-.�,. ..,. � ,\'.� :, ` _ � - , �� , � . �855 7 \ . � � 6Q � ` � . � ` $ � / ; � i,.� � � . ,, '; ' _ � SITE � ` '� } >- p .., � � � r t � ,, � . i ' - , � ' R �� , , : �. , �. SP , � l�,�. I?.. ' �,'` �'' � '�. -� � _ ---� . � � �.�. ♦ % . .. __-".. , , ��. � Q� � t ,�� r 1� :6'8 .__- � ___. .-__....\ � . �� W , � o �� _ :� ; -. i� 0 � � �r r �� , .. � , i � / `A � "_A i / t L r � _"' t "8S6 � „ _ . , ' � � � --- ,`�F. � ' t � % � - .. �'_"_ , , -__ _ — B4D . � �_ 3 . , , ; �� • � --- `-8�p - ' t��. , `, � F R . ^ - - -'- -• -_ , , � �� / � �820 _ _�,__ -,. �� '� \' � .�`'��:. � � i, � 3 . � ,_., :, _ .. , - �: .. . ,,� ;` - _. . ,,. :" ... — - -� ..., � , ,�,. ,, __ �� r � _��. ' 1 � sa;o ' , , �� 8j - � —._.� ; " • "'7`� �,-=c: ; � ��.! i 'B.� --_ �" � � _ ... � A .u� 4 �� 1 � l ,. , ; � . . . � : '_ �,,\ � �t ' + i I � " t , i � "� � � .� A,"'S' �� `�� i t , � , E'6 �; _ _ ' a `. � ��._ ' " .' , , : � �--_.— `.��-� _: �" .� ` ��. _ , ' —� � _ v� �� _ , ,: , _ �. � , , '. � � . i� -_ _ Bj� � �., _ ._ t V �� " . . _ __ _ ----; - _ �. . . _ - . \ � ,. _ _ . � . , � � —. � - -,'�, � � ; � . , . �' � �� ` 1 `_ ` ! �'. � y � .. \ ..� . # � � 5 �� ' � . �� \ \\ \ ')�._"�� . �x- \ � _ �,t �'. `�.� ,�,�C�.� ?�. .�.� �. / � �.'""64�� _ .... - ' � � �'4� � � i� � a !� �� .. .�_'. .: , `�, ` � ' � g� \ �� _ _ � � �`�� `� � t � =�_ � � � � ; � � � `��`9 ' �� ` , t i ��A �� . �"� .`,� � �.\ � ^� �.� . � , \ �:\: � .,�` � �� . �A � - ._ '� \ \ , ` \ \\ � i� \ � ��.��\ � .:� � -�., ��' _Q _' �N O R T H j'°3 ��/� �� . .. . �.',. \\�• ��r \:. ..:i . � '�1��` \ ..��. �� '_ ,: � �. �� -. . . , � `9 _ . --.—_--_..' , , . \ EXHIBIT C = Site Plan . � • . . �* o Rr6531�� n=5 � 1. "'r^� � � �i� b2• � ' r �� a o m �9C,g. � � m � � o �� 1 � �� 3 -- °� , C � o � N � � �. �� Z �� x � 0 z � � � J � ' M� C V � � J , e � � �° �° �.�,� ,�� 1�r .� �� s ' o �� Q. Sp � s'y'`� ��_---. ' �`'�s a F �S [ ' J �� S s � v ` ' !/(/ � � .a. -\ " �+. „` `� � JN / � , i � Y � � m :� i Q •n Z� � 5 S Q � z a � sy o N i Q o � � y�j 3 �� a Q . W � , ,`��, c; o � P `~ � . , b '� � :+c \ \\ '�L � a .,�:� �, r�, g � ��? � o ' �: . d : � `C y a� �- e :�. ,,m ) � , f��ca � � � � \ V � °) c, 3 1 � � � r � ��i� .i Y � .�,,. . e `^ � � 3 0. � „ 0 ,� C � : � � , . . � � . , �� R_65 m n f55' � .. --�---- � �_� 62: � �: _ � l 1 • ' � s' � . o _ - __ - — , _ � O z Z � � J � �d �°� ; q °. .� J N ,s t�v J = i � 0 4 � � -o C �° �" ,c l ' � � � j � e ' �s � � �J � V a �.�� °.�''� i �'� � � � � r� X � US G� � � 0 & o , h) N � ! \ � ^ � � �� i W . � � \ � � � ' � e� J �� ..�^ "° � �• � � ,. , � % v v F i �� -----�----� � � J I H r � Q �P V �s s o. � so '� ��j�� . � :) 4 7U s x = /�i { 1 � '� JN r Y ,� .� . ., � Y 4' a r 1� o'�. '�, f � � a� � �, se , o � �� b a � '\ e ��Y / gg � � � a � 1 c,ti°° � �.,. � ¢ o`� 1 W � 3 � '�� .. � � � � ` . . , . . �8 . � \ � .c i < � � °:•i� d-w, C�� a � q � 3 0, � :� h � � E � XHIBIT F= Proposed Garage-Front View (Northeast Side) � � > W J S Z 3 o — i � n � tf� > W J e . Z . S e C . � � • ��• .� . .•- : �^1 ` C W � H tA H _ � N � Right View(Northwest Side) J W J � Z 3 C � e 7 y . . �� . T : � .. w . J EXHIBIT H= Proposed Garage - Left View � � W � M � �"' � W J (Southeast Side) � � ��: � � EXHIBIT 1= Proposed Garage - Back View (Southwest Side} � $ � �d �W a o� �K � 3 , +� ° � h ' \o !' � J J ► ► ► l .• � v � ¢ 2 � q 0 �S � . September 20, 1998 City of Cotta�e Grove Planning Di�rision of the Communiry Development Department CWtage Grove City Hall 7516 80�' Street South Coriage Grove, MN 55016 To Whom It May Concem: We xcceived a Notice of Public Hearing dated September 16, 199$ reg�rding an application by Mark Lamberty, Lot 2, Block 1, Hidden Oaks 4"' Addiaon (7468 Gra7wda Circle South), Cottage Grove for a variance of Section 28-21 of the City's zoning ordinance to cons�ruct an accessory garage five fect from the side of the property line adjacent to our propem tocated at Lot 3, Block 1, Hidden Oaks 4�' Addition (7472 Granada Circle South), Cottage Grove. �Ve object to this application for a number of reasons. 1. The I.amberty's purchased their property with the knowledge of the existing zoning ordinances for thc City of Cottage Grove. They have a 1.5 acre ]ot and could have situated their home on the lot so any future structures would not unpact any zoning ordirtances or parcels of land o« ned by others. 2. Their designated secondary septic site could Fx moved to another location to accommodate the proposed garage so the garage would not impaa the zoning ordinance. Perhaps the secondary septic could be moved to the Northwest side o[ the property (to the other sic� of the primaiy septic) or to the front }ard. Moving the secondary septic to either of these locations to accommalate the proposed garage would ensure tha2 none of the neigJ�bors would be viewing the garage any more directly than their current home location is viewed. 3. The L.amberty's could posiaon the proposed gacage direc:ily behind their existing garage (either just beyond their r�auung wail or remove the retaining watl to place the garage in its location) and just e�end their driveway around and behind to the additioaal garage's location. This would not affect zoning. 4. The currently proposed location for the garage would place it in direct view of any home buiit at 7472 Granada Circle Souih wfuch could lower the value of ttus parce( of land We currently have Utis land listed for sale and direct viervs of the garage could very ' negatively impact possible sales. Should the land not sell and w•e do indeec+ decide to � build on the land, we defiuitely do.not want to view the prop�sed garage from our ' � windows. • ' . 5. The development is named "Hidden Qaks." It has beautifiil views of the woods and a quiet seclusion about it. Staring straig�t ouf tt�e windows at an added garage will very negatively impaa the landscape and "feel" of the azea. Perhaps the reason the Lamberty's would like to build their �xoposed garage in the location they are requesting is not onty because it would be the "easiest° thing for them to do but it would ensure that they are not looldng at it out of their windows so as not to affect the'u views of the woods or the'u property values. We do hope you will take these comments ven� seriously and decline ihe requested variance. RespectfullY sutxi�itted, � I � � G��, �{��-� Troy & Geralyn EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.2 CASE V98-38 Mark Lamberty has applied for a variance to Section 28-21 of the City's zoning ordinance to construct a detached accessory structure five feet from the property line. Lindquist summarized the staff report and recommended granting a variance for a seven- foot side yard setback subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Podoil asked if the city usually gets involved on an individual lot basis regarding erosion control and if this issue would be something the city would have known about without the variance application. Lindquist responded that the city was aware of the property due to the building permit and the building inspector does watch out for these types of problems. Japs asked if the standard setback in the area was 20 feet. Lindquist answered that it was. Brown asked if these lots were serviced by septic systems. Lindquist stated that they were. Boyden asked if the garage was moved forward, wou�d it be possible to mave it further west on the lot. Lindquist stated that it wouid be closer to the trees and wou�d limit the drainage area. Auge opened the public hearing. Cristeen �amberty, 7468 Granada Circie South, responded to the memo from Troy and Geralyn Sparks, which was inciuded with the staff report. She stated that due to the terrain and the septic system, the proposed site is the most logical location to build the garage. She also stated that the secondary septic system could not be moved; when it was installed, the company determined that the site it is located on is the oniy logical place for it due to the terrain and the placement of the initial site. Mrs. Lamberty said that the garage could not be relocated due to the drainage and the trees. She stated that the neighbors would be ab�e to see the garage no matter where it was sited on the lot but it have the same siding and roof pitch as their home. She reiterated that the garage would match the existing building aiready on the site and did not believe it would negatively impact neighboring properties. Japs asked if they selected the house location on the lot. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they had some input. Japs then asked if they could have moved the house further to the north. Mrs. Lamberty responded that there is another ravine on the other side of the house. Japs asked the Lamberty's how they would feei if a neighbor requested a five-foot offset to build a garage next to their house. Mrs. Lamberty responded that due to the codes and covenants that need to be followed, outbuildings have to be aesthetically pieasing and meet the specifications of the builder. She doesn't believe it would be a problem if someone requested a five-foot variance. Boyden asked if the Lambertys agreed with the conditions in the staff report. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they do. Boyden inquired how long they had lived at their residence. She responded for a year and two months. Boyden then asked if they had pianned to build the garage when they initially moved in. Mrs. Lamberty stated that they had talked with the builder about an additional outbuilding and at that time learned about the possibility of filing for a variance due to the lot restrictions. Podoii asked if a secondary septic system was common in that area and why. Lindquist answered that the state requires a secondary septic site in case the first one fails. Japs asked if the garage could be moved forward and slid over toward the retaining wall, even though it may adversely affect some trees. Mark Lamberty, 7468 Granada Circle, expiained that it is a pie-shaped lot and if the garage was moved forward, it would be closer to the property line. By shifting the garage over, it would impact trees that are not shown on the site pian. He further explained that there is a severe drop in elevation to the right. He stated that while it is a large lot, there is not much buildable area due to an easement in the rear, a septic area, and ravines. He stated that about a third of the garage would be in tne ground due to the ravine. Troy Sparks, 8431 Hilo Lane, stated that he is concerned because he is trying to sell the property and construction of a garage so close to the property line may impaet the sale. Japs asked Sparks if setbacks were a factor in their decision to potentiaily build a home there. Sparks responded that when they initially purchased the land, none of the other lots had a garage like this and they never thought that anyone who would build a home in an exclusive area wouid build a large garage. Aage asked if anyone else In the audience wanted to speak in favor or against. Being none, he c%sed the pubiic hea�ing. Podoll stated that setback requirements for this lot are a concem because, according to the homeowner, there is only about a third to a haif an acre of buildable site on a lot that is an acre and a half in size. He thinks that when the Planning Commission went through the R- 2.5 rezoning, they looked at 10-foot side year setbacks. Podoli also referenced that when the Planning Commission approved Hidden Valley 7th Addition, tree preservation was one of the main issues. He stated that he likes the block foundation for the garage. Podoll moved to approve the variance appiicafion reducing the side yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 7 feef sabjecf fo fhe 10 conditlons stipulafed in the staff reporf. Foster seconded. 1. The variance shall only be appiicable to the garage detailed in the sPaff report for Case V98-38. The garage cannot increase in size from fhe proposed 30 feet by 32 feet. 2. A building permif is required for the proposed accessory strucfu�e. 3. The variance applicaPion shall expire within one (1) year if the sfrucfure is not erecfed. 4. The b/ock foundation shown to be above ground level in the design in Exhibifs F, G, H, and I shall be similar in co/or (tan) to !he principal structure and rear retaining wall. 5. As sequired fn 3ectlon 28-21(a)(2) "Accessory Sfructures°, extterior finishes shall be durable and be a�chitecturally compatible with and sTmilar in design, colo% and maferial to the principal sfructure. 6. The proposed retaining wall, as shown in �hibit C, shall consist of the same or similar block as the exisfing refaining wall behind the principal sfructure. 7. A gravel energy dissipater shall be insta!led at the discharge point of the garage gutters to prevent erosion. 8. Erosion control measures such as silt fencing orsfraw bale sediment trap shall be estab/ished during consfruction to /imif erosion and sedimentafion. 9. Permanenf erosion and sedimentation contro! measures shall be established. This may include measures such as riprap to dissipafe water f/ow, a be�m fo direcf wafer at fhe fop of the s/ope, a retaining wall as depicted in Exhibit C or the addifion of vegetafion along drainage routes to slow water flow. If fhe erosion and sedimentafion is not controlled, the City may require fhe property owner to take necessary action to correct ihe probiem. The erosion controls shall be consistent with the preservation of the large basswood trees in the drainage ioute. 10. The large basswood and red oak trees depicted on the Site Plan sha/! be clearly marked and cordoned with a suitable barriersuch as snow fencing during consfruction. The barrier sha!l be located to coincide to the extent practica! with fhe drip line of trees to be preserved. Construcfion vehicles shall avoid driving on the area between the frees to be preserved and the accessory structure. Japs is concemed about the precedent that wouid be set, especially in an area with a 20- foot setback as a standard and reducing it more than 50 percent. He stated that he would prefer to find another location for the garage where it would have at least a 10-foot setback. Podoll stated that he would tend to agree but feels that moving the garage Goser to the principal structure would impact the neighboring property more and increasing the setback to seven feet from five feet would set a precedent that the City wants as much setback as possible while maintaining tree preservation. Motion passed on a vote of 6 to 2, wifh Japs and Sawyer voting against.