Loading...
2010-07-27 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners Field, Hennes, McManus, Povolny, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director /City Engineer Ruzek, and NAC Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of June 22, 2010, Minutes COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2010, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Discussion Variance Review Standard Chair Lally explained there has been a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling of June 24, 2010, that discussed review standards for variances. Planner Grittman presented the staff memorandum detailing the case impacting the standards by which variances are considered and approved. The city's ordinance reflects the statute language to consider an existing condition that created an undue hardship from reasonable use. The key terms are "undue hardship" and "reasonable use." He explained that over the past 10 -15 years, state appeals court heard a number of cases that city's standards were perceived to be softening replacing "undue hardship" with "practical difficulties" and "reasonable use" with a different analysis whether the applicant's use was reasonable. There were a series of cases where city approved variances were challenged by neighbors and the cities had prevailed at the Appeals Court level. However, the recent case against the City of Minnetonka in the State Supreme Court decided the softening was not appropriate and the reading of the Statute requires "undue hardship" and "reasonable use" under general standard code requirements. A number of cities had started to follow the new formulation of "practical difficulties" and codified their ordinances in that way but the court ruling does not allow that interpretation so variance review needs to be more vigorous to meet an undue hardship. Mr. Grittman stated it is staff's feeling that the standards applied by Mendota Heights to variance cases is not impacted by the court ruling since it has followed the statute standards. Chair Lally noted there are additional considerations that the circumstances have to be unique to the property and not of the owner's creating, and approving would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and if it is determined the applicant is not able to put the property to a reasonable use, the other rationale is then considered. Commissioner Viksnins noted the city's code uses both terms "practical difficulties" and "undue hardship," and asked if the term "practical difficulties" should be removed. Mr. Grittman stated the language could be revised but the city has generally taken the view that the two terms define the same condition. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would support removal of a term not contained in state statutes. Hearings PLANNING CASE #10 -18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 995 Diego Lane Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building — Continued Public Hearing Planner Grittman explained that Elizabeth Tetzlaff, the applicant, is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to construct a detached accessory building that is over 144 square feet and a variance to construct the building within the required 10 -foot side yard setback. The proposed 200 square foot accessory building will be utilized as a storage building. The property, 995 Diego Lane, is zoned R -1, single family, and occupied by a single family home. He displayed the site plan of the subject parcel depicting the existing home and location of the proposed 10 -foot by 20- foot detached accessory building. Mr. Grittman explained the setback requriements for a building of this size, noting the applicant proposed to locate the new structure 5 feet from the north (rear) propety line; however, a 10- foot setback is required. The general location in the rear yard is appropriate according to the code and meets general standards for residential storage and the issue is whether the setback variance should be considered. Mr. Grittman presented the general standards for variance consdieration and explained this case provides whether a building can be placed in a location to meet the 10 -foot setback standards. The applicants have sugested that this is an appropriate location due to the location of existing trees and for visiblity. Staff believes it could be located to meet the required 10 -foot setback standard or a smaller sized building could be constructed that meets the setback and not compromise the property. Staff recommends approval of the CUP for a 200 square foot accessory building subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report but to deny the request for a variance. Commissioner Viksnins asked about alternate locations that comply with the 10 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman stated the building could be moved east, closer to the trees since it would not threaten their livelihood, or reconfigure the size of the shed (longer and more narrow) to create less encroachment to the trees and meet the setback requirement. He noted that residents have the right to an accessory building, smaller in size, but the setbacks need to be met. Elizabeth Tetzlaff and Dan Stoven, applicants, 995 Diego Lane, introduced themselves. Mr. Stoven stated they kept the shed narrow so it did not encroach into the middle of their yard and if shifted towards the trees it will appear to be in the middle of the yard. In addition, he believed that the closer the shed foundation footings are to the ash and maple trees, which are 40 years old, the more likely it will cause damage to the trees. He noted they have a corner lot and the suggested location is not viewed by the neighbors. Ms. Tetzlaff described the neighbors' open yard configurations and that shifting the shed will infringe on two of the neighbors. That is why they are suggesting a location behind their garage. Chair Lally stated a smaller sized shed can have a 5 -foot setback. Mr. Stoven stated they have no storage and a smaller sized building will not accommodate their storage needs. Ms. Tetzlaff explained they recently married so they needed additional storage for both of their belongings. Commissioner McManus stated if several feet was removed from one side of the building and added to the south end, it would be close to gaining the square footage they want without being much closer to the trees and still not be visible to the neighbor. He stated he appreciates the need for storage but thinks there are solutions to gain what the applicants want without violating the 10 -foot setback. Ms. Tetzlaff stated the shed could be longer and narrower but it would create more of a view impact for the neighbor, who already objects. Commissioner McManus noted the variance consideration requires a finding that they cannot reasonably use their property without this size of shed in that location. He stated if the shed is moved to the south, it would not impact the trees and could be of the size they want. Ms. Tetzlaff stated there is a garden in that location and it cannot be moved. Mr. Stoven stated they are trying to keep the building in the back yard and not towards the street. Commissioner Povolny asked whether they will be cutting down the pine trees. Ms. Tetzlaff confirmed they are cutting down the "thin" looking pine trees and planting arborvitae trees to provide screening. Commissioner Povolny asked about the utility easement, five feet on each side of the property line. Ms. Tetzlaff indicated there is such an easement. Commissioner Povolny stated there is not a problem considering the CUP for the additional square footage but the Commission must find a hardship for the additional 5 -foot setback and, in this case, the shed could be placed in the garden location. He stated he prefers to see no outside storage but the city has to follow its OA Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 guidelines and since reasonable use of the property remains, he is not able to find a hardship. He stated he would prefer they add garage space to the house. Commissioner Hennes noted the trees are 40 years old and asked about the root structure to the west. Mr. Stoven stated both trees are healthy, the roots are shallow, and go into the 5 -foot setback area. Commissioner Hennes stated he is unsure if that would fall into the required hardship finding. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Carol and John Murphy, 547 Winston Court, introduced themselves. Mr. Murphy stated they are 41 year residents and thanked the Commissioners for their time and consideration of this matter. He stated he talked with each of his Winston Court neighbors and has a petition signed by 95% of the neighbors who do not support the variance. Mr. Murphy stated he believes the building would be unsightly, impact his property if he tried to sell it, and may cause additional drainage problems. Mr. Murphy stated neighbors have landscaped their property and much of the drainage comes to his property. He displayed a picture of the property alongside his garage and patio showing a lot of water flows through the easement, especially during spring weather. Mr. Murphy stated they have tried to seal their garage doors from the water but it still causes a problem and the proposed building location would make it worse. Mr. Murphy stated he spent a considerable amount of time with each of his neighbors to explain the application. Chair Lally stated that the issues of the utility easement and water drainage are helpful for the Commission to know. He explained the land owners have the option of building a smaller shed, 144 square feet, and locating it five feet from the property line. He asked Mr. Murphy how that size of building would affect his property. Mr. Murphy stated some neighbors have a small shed but they have larger sized lots so the sheds cannot be seen from the street or impact their abutting neighbors. He stated he cannot object to something that meets code, but the neighborhood is concerned about approving a variance and he and his neighbors would ask the Commission to not approve the application. Commissioner Hennes reviewed the six addresses contained in the petition in support of the variance that was included with the application. Mr. Murphy reviewed the addresses that signed the petition against the application and advised that several indicated they had signed the petition in support but did not understand what was being built. Commissioner Povolny stated if they build a 144 square foot shed, it could be located five feet from the property line. Mr. Murphy stated he understands and that it would meet code so he can't object. Commissioner McManus asked about a shed location to the south, towards the street. Mr. Grittman clarified there is a 30 -foot setback from that street. Mr. Murphy stated they are asking that the variance not be approved because this is a small lot and cutting down the pine trees will be another impact. Sandra Barrett, 550 Winston Court, stated when she was approached to sign the variance petition she asked why they couldn't build a smaller shed, noting no one else in the neighborhood has a 20 foot by 20 foot shed and this is a small lot. She stated she is concerned about losing the pine trees to build a large shed because it will be in plain view from the front window of five homes. She stated she is not against building something more in keeping with the size of their lot and asked the Commission not consider a variance for a large shed. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Hennes asked if the two older trees are a consideration in finding a hardship. Mr. Grittman stated trees can be considered as contributing towards a reasonable use of the property but the issue is whether you need a larger shed to make reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Field stated a CUP allows the ability to address the site plan and asked if it could be required that the pine trees not be removed. Mr. Grittman stated that recommendation could be made but the exact location of those trees is not known at this time. Commissioner McManus stated he thinks it is a subjective decision on the part of the owners that moving closer to the two trees would have a serious impact on those trees. He stated he is not prepared to consider that speculative information. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED DUE TO LACK OF A HARDSHIP AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 2. AN UPDATED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMTITED PRIOR TO BULDING PERMIT APPROVAL. 3. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING Commissioner McManus stated the Commission does not have a great deal of information on how the shed may or may not impact the trees and there is doubt whether there will be an impact. He noted that the evergreen trees will be removed regardless. Ms. Tetzlaff stated that is correct. Commissioner Povolny stated that should be left to the decision of the property owner. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting PLANNING CASE #10 -12 Troy Troje 574 Hiawatha Avenue Conditional Use Permit for Detached Garage Planner Grittman explained the applicants are seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a 484 square foot detached garage on their property located at 574 Hiawatha Avenue. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting it is a triangular shaped lot and zoned single family. The proposed single -car garage will replace an existing detached garage that is presently on the property but too small, below the City's threshold for garage size, and is too close to the property line. The new garage will be 484 square feet in size (22 feet by 22 feet) and meet both size and 10 -foot setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. He advised that the existing condition is nonconforming since code requries all single family homes to have a garage so the application will correct that nonconformity. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval subject to the condition detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Povolny asked if the street vacation is documented. Mr. Grittman stated he believed it was vacated and that will be verified. Troy Troje, 574 Hiawatha Avenue, stated he is asking for a CUP for a two car - garage and had nothing to add to staff's report. He assured the Commission the structure will meet the required setback. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. VERIFICATION THAT THE GARAGE MEETS APPLICABLE TEN -FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -20 Stephen and Jana Patrick 2536 Arbor Court Lot Line Adjustment Planner Grittman explained that Stephen and Jana Patrick are requesting approval of a lot line adjustment in order to resolve an existing property encroachment at 2536 Arbor Court. The applicant's home is located on Outlot A; however, a large portion of the driveway is located on Lot 11, directly to the north of Outlot A. The applicant would like to adjust the lot line so the driveway will be entirely on Outlot A, eliminate the existing easement, and allow the construction of a home. Mr. Grittman noted that the property is zoned single family residential and the other property is vacant and subject to future development with a current zoning of single family residential. He noted that these two parcels have frontage but do not have access to Mendota Heights Road and utilize a driveway access to Arbor Court. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to explain the proposed lot line adjustment. He noted this is an existing condition so the lot line adjustment does not change the number of buildable parcels, which remains at two. This is considered to be a simple subdivision since no additional parcels are created. Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. He recommended an added condition that the existing easements be vacated and new easements drawn to parallel the new lot line. Commissioner Field asked about the redrawn easements. Mr. Grittman stated drainage and utility easements are involved and all need to be redrawn to comply with the new lot lines and platted with the subdivision. Commissioner Povolny asked about vacation of the easement. Mr. Grittman stated the property owner will request the city vacate the current easements so they can be redrawn. Commissioner Povolny asked if there are houses between the subject site and lots fronting on Arbor Court. Mr. Grittman indicated he was unsure and noted the driveway extends through the area between the subject site and lots that front on Arbor Court. Stephen Patrick, 2536 Arbor Court, applicant, stated to his knowledge there is no eaement between the two lots. He explained every lot has a house other than the parcel identified as Lot 11 and the driveway easement crosses the property between this site and lots fronting on Arbor Court. He stated the easement will allow a driveway to cross his property to access parcel Y. 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Viksnins asked about the topography and elevation of the subject site. Mr. Patrick stated the northern parcel has a large buildable area. He described the topography of abutting lots, location of those homes, elevation of the subject site and abutting property, and location of the road easement. Commissioner Viksnins asked what will happen to the northern parcel. Mr. Patrick stated they use the lot to the north for recreation and may sell it eventually. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED THAT ILLUSTRATES THE DRIVEWAY IS COMPLIANT WITH ORDINANCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF FIVE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINES. 2. A COPY OF THE LOT SPLIT SHALL BE RECORDED. 3. THE EXISTING EASEMENTS SHALL BE BE VACATED AND NEW EASEMENTS DRAWN AS REQUIRED. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting PLANNING CASE #10 -23 Stephen and Sherry Kampa 2464 Westview Terrace Wetlands Permit for stabilization of hilltop and hillside, install a wall and build a storage shed Planner Grittman explained that Stephen and Sherry Kampa are requesting approval of a wetlands permit to construct a storage shed, boulder wall, replace a retaining wall, and clear buckthorn on their property at 2464 Westview Terrace. The property is zoned and guided for single family residential. Mr. Grittman reviewed the improvements proposed within 100 feet of the wetland, which requires a wetlands permit to assure the improvements do not negatively impact the water recourse of the community. He displayed the site plan and location of proposed work, location of the retaining wall, and 10 -foot by 10 -foot storage shed that will meet the side yard setback. He stated the area adjacent to the pond is a natural wetland and removal of buckthorn is consistent with the wetlands regulations. The retaining wall would be of boulders and imbedded into the slope so there would be little impact and vegetation would be retained. Mr. Grittman read the proposed conditions and stated staff recommends approval subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Commissioner McManus asked if the owner needs approval to remove buckthorn from this area. Mr. Grittman explained it has been the practice to obtain a permit when clearing buckthorn so the city is aware when such work is taking place. no Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Viksnins referenced the staff report indicating there is soil instability and erosion at the top of the hill. Mr. Grittman stated there is a steep slope from the back of the home to the wetland edge and the purpose of the improvements is to correct that situation. Stephen Kampa, 2464 Westview Terrace, applicant, stated he is trying to improve the property by stabilizing erosion, removing buckthorn, and installing the boulder wall. He stated the bank was not stabilized when the home was built and he had no objection to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Viksnins stated his concern that the unstable soil at the top of the hill may be eroded and disturb the wetland during construction. Acting Public Works Director /City Engineer Ruzek stated the soils are unstable because of the tree canopy and advised that removing buckthorn and installing native plantings is an improvement that will stabilize the site. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SITE PLAN INDICATING THE SETBACKS FROM THE BOULDER WALL AND STORAGE SHED TO THE WETLAND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVE BY STAFF. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION /EXCAVATION WORK MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE WETLAND. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -24 Rob and Stacy Hermann 1033 William Court Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Detached Accessory Structure Planner Grittman explained that Rob and Stacy Hermann are requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to construct a detached accessory building at 1033 William Court that is over 144 square feet and a variance to construct the building within the required 10 -foot side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant wishes to replace an existing 140 square foot accessory structure with a 360 square foot accessory structure within the required setbacks. The property is zoned single family residential. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan of the subject site to describe the road alignment, existing home, driveway, and location of the proposed structure in the northwest corner of the parcel. The existing structure would be removed and replaced by the new structure located 7 feet to the rear (west) lot line and 5 feet to the side (north) lot line. He stated the building and location would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and meets the code if it can meet the setback requirements. The other aspect of this building is that the city has a standard requirement for one garage building on a property but this building is not 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 proposed to be used as a garage even though it will have a overhead garage door and be large enough to accommodate vehicles. In consideration of the one garage building rule, staff recommends the overhead garage door be replaced with a 6 -foot utility door so the structure cannot be used for a vehicle. Mr. Grittman noted that the variance consideration is based on whether the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property. In this case, it is possible to construct a building that meets setbacks on this parcel, even though the rear yard portion of this lot is constricted, by constructing a building that is smaller than 144 square feet and allows a 5 -foot setback. Therefore, staff does not believe there is a hardship finding in this case. Staff recommends approval of the CUP since the use is consistent with what an applicant would expect to locate on this property, a 360 square foot building would not impact neighborhood character, and that the overhead garage door be replaced with a utility door. Staff also recommends denial of the variance and the site plan be modified to show the proposed building with the required 10 -foot setbacks. Commissioner Viksnins asked where the accessory structure could be located to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Grittman stated a 10 -foot setback is required from both property lines. He used a site plan to identify a compliant location three feet east and five feet south and that the building configuration could be "flipped." Commissioner Povolny asked how far that location would be from the house. Mr. Grittman estimated 8 -9 feet from the house and that the minimum distance by Fire Code is 6 feet. Commissioner Povolny asked about the requirement to replace the overhead door with a service door. Mr. Grittman stated the issue is where "garage meets shed" since this building is large enough to be used as a garage. To avoid running afoul of the one garage rule, staff has recommended that overhead garage doors not be used on accessory buildings. Commissioner Povolny asked if the existing building is located too close to the property line. Rob Hermann, the applicant, indicated it is 5 feet. Commissioner McManus asked whether an overhead door is considered a garage door but not a door that opens sideways. Mr. Grittman explained the city has used this as an informal test for some time but it is not a code requirement so the Commission is not bound to require the door be changed. Commissioner McManus stated when he looked at the property there were a lot of things in the driveway plus a camper. He stated people in the neighborhood may be happy to have that stored indoors. He noted the back yard has a lot of topography that would have to be leveled to place the storage building in another location. Mr. Grittman stated there are no wetland concerns in this location and grading is not an uncommon condition when constructing larger buildings. Commissioner Povolny asked if an 8 -foot double door is not a concern but an overhead garage door is not allowed. Mr. Grittman explained there is no code standard dictating the width of the door but the condition is placed to avoid meeting the garage threshold. He advised the Commission can approve any door that fits the character of the site. Rob and Stacy Hermann, 1033 William Court, applicants, introduced themselves. Ms. Hermann stated they proposed an 8 -foot door to accommodate the camper. Mr. Hermann explained that Menards said a typical garage was 20 feet deep with a 9 -foot garage door so they talked with staff and said they would make it only 18 feet deep with an 8 -foot door so it is not considered a garage. Ms. Hermann stated they can compromise with the door even if it does not accommodate the camper but preferred an overhead door so there is a good seal under the door since the building will be on grade. Ms. Hermann displayed pictures of the shed and existing block staircase. If the variance is allowed, they will not have to remove the staircase or do as much concrete work. Mr. Hermann stated if they reinstall the stairs to maintain back yard security, it will be very tight, almost against the house. Ms. Hermann noted that in addition, their back window would look out onto the proposed building. N. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Mr. Hermann explained that his grandfather built this house, they had purchased it from his parents, and intend to remain in this house until they can no longer live there. Ms. Hermann stated she would like to look out of the three - season room and not have a full view of the proposed building and with the proposed location they would not have to relocate their fence. Mr. Hermann stated with the proposed sized building he will have to push out one mower to get access to the other mower. In addition, her parents are moving into this house so they will have extra items in need of storage space. Commissioner Hennes asked about the camper width. Mr. Hermann stated it would still fit with an 8 -foot door. Commissioner Hennes asked what the purpose is for the building. Ms. Hermann stated they would like to store their camper inside but the main purpose is for general storage. Ms. Hermann stated they would agree with a 6 -foot door to be able to build the shed but then the camper would not fit. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the location of the concrete steps and why the steps would have to be removed if the shed location complies with the 10 -foot setback. Mr. Hermann explained their lot is in the shape of a wedge. Ms. Hermann stated the steps are in good condition and removing them will involve more excavation and additional costs. Chair Lally asked if the hardship is the existing topography of the land. Mr. Hermann stated that is correct and if the shed is relocated to meet setbacks, it would be very close to the house and in full view of the back window. Commissioner Povolny asked about changing the configuration of the building, which will reduce the amount of excavation. Mr. Hermann stated the proposal is 10 feet wide to eliminate the need for additional concrete and excavation work. Ms. Hermann noted that would also cost more. Commissioner Povolny advised that financial hardship is not a consideration for a variance. Commissioner Povolny stated the variance request is the issue since a hardship must be found. Commissioner McManus asked where the rear house door is located. Ms. Hermann noted there are two rear doors and they are proposing to move the shed south and west. Commissioner McManus noted that location would not require a lot of ground preparation or removal of the steps. Ms. Hermann stated that is correct and they received signatures from both of their neighbors. She presented pictures of the neighboring properties. Commissioner Povolny asked if the existing building helps with the variance request since the new building would be in the same location. Mr. Grittman stated the existing building is 144 square feet so it complies with code. Commissioner Viksnins stated one factor for a variance is that the plight is with the property and not created by the landowners. He asked if the concrete steps and slab are a consideration or something created by the land owner. Mr. Grittman stated it was provided by a prior land owner. Commissioner Povolny noted the concrete steps were located to deal with the site's topography. Mr. Grittman agreed the stairs and wall were constructed to address a topographical issue. Commissioner Viksnins asked about removing the existing slab and steps. Mr. Grittman stated it is a possible project but may be burdensome and costly. The bigger question is whether a larger sized building is necessary to make reasonable use of this property. If so, the Commission can determine if additional issues exist that will be addressed by the variance. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there are other accessory structures of this size in the neighborhood. Mr. Hermann advised there is a very large structure across the street that is about 25 feet high. Ms. Hermann stated they considered whether the proposed building could be located elsewhere on the property but did not find any options. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. I Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDING THAT HARDSHIP EXISTS DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY AND ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION, CONCRETE, AND STEP WORK THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO RELOCATE THE BUILDING TO MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Chair Lally stated the proposed building and its location will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, the conditions were not created by the landowner, and the conditions are unique to the property (topography, location of existing house, diagonal back lot line). He asked whether the property can be put to reasonable use without the variance. Commissioner Hennes stated they can still use their property so he believed it was a judgment call. Commissioner McManus asked if landowners are allowed to keep auxiliary trailers in the driveway or front yard. Mr. Grittman stated their camper is allowed as outdoor storage in the driveway. Commissioner Viksnins stated he questions whether a 360 square foot structure is necessary to put this property to reasonable use. Commissioner Hennes agreed that 360 may be large but they already have a 144 square foot structure and if that was acceptable, the property owners would not have made this application. Commissioner Viksnins stated the code sets the threshold at 144 square feet and the request is for a shed two and a half times larger. Commissioner Povolny stated he would rather approve a larger shed then to see outdoor storage and items covered with blue tarps. He noted the applicants may have a different use than other residents and he would like to help them gain more storage space. Commissioner McManus asked if it is not reasonable to allow a resident to have an accessory structure to store their items indoors. Commissioner Viksnins stated the question is how much is reasonable to own that needs auxiliary storage. Chair Lally stated the first application had questions similar to this application, such as constructing a smaller shed that required a 5 -foot setback. He stated he does not object to the size of the shed but granting the variance would require the finding of a hardship and he is having a hard time finding that "reasonable use" requires a larger shed. Commissioner Field asked about the door requirement. Commissioner Hennes stated the motion did not address the size of the door but the applicant indicated an 8 -foot door would be acceptable. Commissioner McManus stated if staff does not support overhead garage doors, the applicants may use bi -fold doors. Commissioner Field noted the applicant preferred an overhead garage door because it created a better seal since the slab is on grade. COMMISSIONERS HENNES AND MCMANUS ACCEPTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE DOOR MUST BE MODIFIED TO BE AN 8 -FOOT DOOR SO IT DOES NOT CREATE A SECOND GARAGE. 10 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek noted the motion to approve the CUP and variance was based on only the finding of the topography creating a hardship. No other conditions of approval had been included. AYES 5 NAYS 1 (VIKSNINS) Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -25 Paul Plum 1933 Dodd Road Subdivision Approval to create one additional lot Planner Grittman explained that Paul Plum is requesting approval of a subdivision to create one additional single - family lot on the parcel located at 1925 Dodd Road. The property is zoned R -1 and guided low density and occupied by a single family home. The applicant wants to split the lot to create an additional buildable property along Hilltop Road. He displayed a survey depicting the existing single family parcel and proposed division line west of the existing home. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant provided a survey showing dimensions of the proposed parcel. Minimum requirements for a residential lot are 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of road frontage. He noted that both lots will meet the code's requirements, are in excess of the city's zoning standards, and the only concern is the rear yard setback requirement. Code requires 30 feet or no more than 20% of the lot depth. Due to the configuration of the lot, that 20% figure equals a 48 -foot rear setback and 44 feet is proposed. Mr. Grittman noted the council had considered entertaining lot splits such as this and commissioned an extensive study to address lot sizes. However, after review of the study, the council felt the 15,000 square foot and 100 -foot frontage rules should remain. The lot depth is 112 feet at the most narrow point. Staff recommends approval subject of the subdivision subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Mr Grittman read and explained the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Field asked about payment of the park fee prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Grittman stated at this time the applicant is only making application for the lot split. Commissioner Field asked if the city is forestalling payment of trail dedication into the future so it would have to remember to collect the fee. Mr. Grittman suggested the language be revised to indicate "consistent with city policy" rather than making payment at a particular time. Mr. Sedlacek stated it has been past practice to require park dedication when the plat is filed with the County. Commissioner Field stated support of that practice. Commissioner Hennes questioned the driveway location for the existing home. Paul Plum, 1925 Dodd Road, applicant, advised it is off Dodd Road and the future driveway would be on Hilltop. Commissioner Viksnins asked about application of the string rule when there is no home on the second parcel. Mr. Grittman stated it would apply in the future for placement of a new home on the parcel and staff wants to assure the string rule will not interfere with construction of a home. There is concern because the existing home is set back farther from Hilltop. He explained that once the city adopts the revised zoning ordinance the string rule will no longer be an issue for this site. Commissioner McManus felt the diagram slightly under estimated the bend in the road on the west side by the property. He noted the turn in Hilltop starts 30 feet before the end of the lot so he wondered how to apply the string rule when the road bends. Mr. Grittman described the location of the homes on either side and explained how the string rule would cut through the new lot and interfere with the buildable area. This is the problem with the string rule when homes face different directions on corner lots. However, the average setback rule will be changed under the new zoning code to allow for lots such as this and allow a more typical buildable area. Paul Plum, applicant, explained he owns 1925 Dodd Road and resides at 1933 Dodd Road. He stated he has known the seller for the past 8 years and is renting out the house. They live next door, have four children, and want to split 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 the lot and have the option to sell the home and keep the lot for recreation. Mr. Plum stated they researched the ordinances prior to purchasing the property. He explained that in the past, this was a 2 -lot parcel and the previous owner built an oversized garage that crossed a lot line. Commissioner Field asked who was the previous owner of the home. Mr. Plum answered it was Vernon Christopherson. Commissioner Hennes asked if he was all right with moving the property line back to meet the rear yard setback. Mr. Plum answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Povolny asked if the home is occupied. Mr. Plum stated it will be in several days. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Steve LaMae, 764 Hilltop Road, explained the ownership of their property. He stated they know Mr. Plum very well and only have one concern with the setback and application of the string rule. He asked how a new home on this lot would relate to their front yard, which they frequently use for entertaining, and that drainage be directed away from their property. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SURVEY BE SUBMITTED INDICATING THE FOLLOWING: A. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTED FIVE FEET TO THE WEST IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PROPOSED PARCEL 1; B. BOTH HOMES ON EITHER SIDES OF THE NEW LOT, ALONG WITH THE "REVISED STRING RULE," TO VERIFY THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE AREA FOR A SINGLE - FAMILY HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NEW LOT; AND, C. THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATION AND SIZE ON PROPOSED PARCEL 1 TO VERIFY THAT IT MEETS REQUIRED SETBACK STANDARDS. 2. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE SATISFIED AS A CASH FEE IN LIEU OF LAND. SUCH FEE SHALL BE PAID AT THE TIME OF PLAT. 3. CONNECTION CHARGES FOR STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT GRADING/TOPOGRAPHY PLANS AND UTILITY PLANS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. THE APPLICANT SHALL DEDICATE 10 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINES AND 5 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AN UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINES. 6. IF IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND PAY ALL APPLICABLE FEES AND SECURITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. AYES 6 12 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -26 Peter Opitz 620 Watersedge Terrace Wetlands Permit for a fence and play set Planner Grittman explained that Peter Opitz is requesting approval of a Wetlands Permit to install a fence and children's play set in the rear yard of the property at 620 Watersedge Terrace. This property is zoned R -1 and guided for low density residential. The area is fully developed with single family homes and this lot abuts a wetland. He presented a site plan depicting the proposed improvements (play structure and fence) within the 100 - foot buffer area, which requires a wetlands permit to assure the improvements do not impact the water quality. Staff found there would be only minor disturbances to remove vegetation to construct the proposed fence, which is compliant with the City's zoning requirements. The southwest corner of the fence encroaches 15 feet into the wetland but the average setback is approximately 30 feet. The applicant has indicated there will be no disturbance of vegetation in area directly adjacent to the wetland. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Linda Shea, 620 Watersedge Terrace, applicant with Peter Opitz, explained there are a few minor revisions to the submittal. They would like to add a gate midpoint, to remove some weeds (hosta and perennial landscaping), and move the location of the play set 5 -7 feet to the west so it is not located under two Ash trees. Mr. Ruzek advised there is a storm sewer easement along the west property line so if it should need maintenance the property owner would assume any costs associated with the fence. Ms. Shae stated she accepts that condition. Commissioner Viksnins referenced a -mails regarding covenants for fences. Ms. Shae stated they explored that prior to purchasing the house and learned the Architectural Committee is no longer active and two other Copperfield properties have installed fences. Commissioner Field noted that would be a private matter. Mr. Grittman concurred and explained that staffs analysis relates to the City's ordinances. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. A FENCE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO FENCE INSTALLATION. 2. A REVISED SITE PLAN IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW GATE AND RELOCATION OF THE PLAY SET SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 13 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #10 -18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Conditional Use Permit • Tabled to tonight. PLANNING CASE #10 -21 Brian and Joanne Mullen Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -22 Paster Enterprises Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Field noted there is more focus on variances cases and suggested complex cases be scheduled at the end of the agenda. Chair Lally stated this has been suggested previously and perhaps staff can review the applications and schedule the easier cases first so other applicants don't have to wait so long. Commissioner Hennes stated he had timed the agenda items considered tonight and found the Commission had spent twice as long to consider an application that included a variance. The Commission agreed with the suggestion of Commissioner Field that variances be scheduled at the end of the agenda. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff will look into that option. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 14