HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Variance Appeal for Garage
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
INTRODUCTION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 7, 2003
7B
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT
VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE (Case File #03-56)
On May 27,2003, the Planning Commission granted a
front yard setback variance and a side yard separation
setback variance to the McGaheys for the construction of
a 24 foot by 24 foot (576 sq. ft.) detached garage with 8
conditions.
History: Edward Feiker, 14946 Pixie Point Circle SE, is
appealing the Planning Commission's decision to
approve a 17.5 foot front yard setback variance and a 6
foot side yard separation setback for the construction of a
576 square foot detached garage on property zoned R-1
(Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland Overlay
District) and located at 14948 Pixie Point Circle SE (Lot
5, Eastwood 1st Addition). The property is guided Urban
Low/Medium Density Residential in the 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
Backaround: Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance
permits any owner of affected property within 350 feet of
the subject property to appeal the decision of the Board
of Adjustment (Planning Commission) to the City Council.
The appellant contends that a smaller garage could be
constructed and still allow the property owner a
reasonable use of the land, and has concerns about
safety because only 9 feet will separate his garage and
the subject proposed garage.
16200 ~:~9& el~~W~~9.P~.\?frri8lf1'WJ~'Mf~R~gbq~c~72-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
Current Circumstances: The subject property is a
riparian lot on Prior Lake. A single family dwelling,
constructed in 1959, currently occupies the site. The
property was platted as Lot 5, Eastwood 1st Addition in
1954. The lot is 8,498 square feet in area above the
ordinary high water level of Prior Lake and approximately
47 feet in width at the front yard setback. A garage is not
present on the property. Gravel off-street parking is
provided in the Pixie Point Circle right-of-way. In the
past, City Councils, on a case by case basis, have
concluded that a single family dwelling with a two stall
garage is a reasonable use.
According to the survey, the existing dwelling is 44 feet
from the property line abutting Pixie Point Circle and is 64
feet from the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake
(904'). In 1988, a 5 foot side yard setback variance was
granted for the construction of a living space addition.
Site development is restricted by a 20 foot wide sanitary
sewer easement running between the existing dwelling
and Pixie Point Circle. Structures are prohibited within
the easement. In addition, the site exhibits a significant
topography change from Pixie Point Circle (942') to Prior
Lake (904'). However, the slope does not exceed 30
percent and is thus not considered a bluff.
Issues: Records on file at the City indicate that a
detached garage is
present on either of
the two adjacent
lots. The appellant,
Mr. Feiker, has a 22
foot by 24 foot
detached garage,
which is only 4 feet
from the side
property line
abutting the subject
site. Feiker Garage at 14946 Pixie Point Circle
The Zoning Ordinance requires properties in the R-1 use
district to maintain a 25 foot front yard setback, however,
this setback may be the average setback of those
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
2
properties within 150 feet on the same block front, but
may be neither less than 20 nor more than 50 feet. In
this instance, the average setback would be 20 feet
because the average is 19.6 feet. The garage is
proposed to be set back 2.5 feet from the property line
abutting Pixie Point Circle at its closest point. The front
lot line is not perpendicular to the side lot lines, which
also constricts the buildable area of the lot.
Side yard setbacks on nonconforming shoreland lots of
record (less than 90 feet in width at the front yard
setback) are permitted to be a minimum of 5 feet
provided that that sum of the side yards is 15 feet and a
minimum 15 foot separation is maintained from structures
on adjacent lots. No yard encroachments (Le., eaves,
gutters, and basement egress windows) are permitted
within a 5 foot setback. The proposed east side yard
setback is 5 feet. Since the garage on the property to the
east is only 4 feet from the property line, the minimum
side yard setback for the subject garage should be 11
feet to comply with the 15 foot separation requirement.
In the R-1 use district, a single family dwelling is a
permitted use, and a detached private garage is an
accessory use. A private garage is defined as "a
detached accessory building or portion of the principal
building which is situated on the same lot as the principal
building used primarily for storing motor vehicles..." The
zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 2 parking stalls
for a single family dwelling. The site currently has
parking on an open gravel surface. Although the zoning
ordinance does not require parking for a single family
dwelling to be completely enclosed, a two-stall garage is
customarily considered a reasonable use in a residential
use district, particularly in Minnesota.
On riparian lots, detached accessory structures are
permitted between the front building wall and the street
offering access to the lot provided it complies with
required front and side yard setbacks and is compatible
in design and materials with the principal structure. The
proposed garage meets the required west side yard
setback, but encroaches into the front and east side yard
setbacks. In addition, detached accessory structures in
residential use districts are limited to 832 square feet in
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
3
area. The proposed garage is only 576 square feet, so it
is in compliance with that provision.
Variance Hardship Findinas: Section 1108.400 of the
Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of
Adjustment may grant a Variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance,
provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of a lot, or where by reason of exceptional
topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot,
the strict application of the terms of this Ordinance
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the Use
District in which said lot is located.
The narrowness and topographic conditions of this lot
create a difficulty in complying with the strict application
of the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Moreover, the location of the 20 foot wide sanitary sewer
easement limits the location of any garage.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in
question are peculiar to the property or immediately
adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which
the land is located.
The property exhibits extreme topography that constrains
development of the property in addition to the sanitary
sewer easement. Also, since the property lines are not
perfectly perpendicular, the garage cannot be shifted
further to the west and still maintain the requested 2.5
front yard setback.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the owner.
The granting of the setback variances are necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a reasonable use of
the property because without the relief the applicant will
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
4
be unable to construct a garage on the property, which is
considered a reasonable use.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger
of fire, or endanger the public safety.
It does not appear as though the variances will impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
negatively impact public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not
unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the
surrounding area, or in any other way impair the
health, safety, and comfort of the area.
Relief from the setback provisions of the zoning
ordinance do not appear to unreasonably impact the
character and development of the Lakeside Avenue
neighborhood. Detached garages are a customary
accessory use within this neighborhood. Moreover,
some of the garages, including the appellant's, do not
comply with required front or side yard setbacks.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be
contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "provide
adequate off-street parking and loading facilities." The
variance appears to be consistent with the intent of the
zoning ordinance, that is, to allow the storage of vehicles
and other materials within an enclosed structure, outside
of the public right-of-way. The property currently does
not have a garage, and a garage is customarily
considered to be a reasonable use in residential zoning
districts.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve
as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
5
The requested setback variances are not a convenience.
There are no other options for the construction of a
garage on the property within the buildable area. It is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship.
The property cannot be put to a reasonable use as
allowed in the R-1 use district without relief from required
front and side yard setbacks.
8. The hardship results from the application of the
provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property
and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The difficulty was created by the sanitary sewer
easement, the topographic change, the lot shape, and
the required 20 foot front yard setback. The property
owner did not create the hardship for the setback
variances.
9. Increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for
granting a Variance.
Increased development costs are not the basis for the
variance requests.
CONCLUSION:
The McGaheys would like to construct a 24 foot by 24
foot (576 square feet) detached garage on property
zoned R-1 and SD. In order to do such variances are
necessary. The Planning Commission, acting as the
Board of Adjustment, granted a 17.5 foot front yard
setback and a 6 foot side yard separation setback
because a garage is not present on the property. The
appellant is appealing this decision because he believes
the garage can be reduced in area and thus shifted from
the side property line away from his existing garage.
Staff supports the variances because the McGaheys
have an undue hardship. The property currently does not
have a garage, and a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage
is a reasonable accessory use of the property. More
important, the existing sanitary sewer easement,
topography, and the appellant's garage setback create a
unique situation that warrants relief from required
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
6
setbacks. The construction of a garage and driveway
would also eliminate the existing encroachment of the off-
street parking pad in the Pixie Point Circle right-ot-way.
If the appellant's garage was set back 10 feet from the
property, the subject garage could be placed at the 5 foot
setback and a side yard separation setback variance
would not be required. In essence, the McGaheys are
merely seeking what the appellant has - a reasonable
use of the property.
AI TFRNA TIVES:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and
deny the appeal.
2. Overrule the decision the Planning Commission and
grant the appeal.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
RFCOMMENDA TION"
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
A TTACHMFNTS:
1 . Resolution 03-XX
2. Appeal letter
3. Location map
4. Survey
5. May 27, 2 . 3, Planning Commission meeting
. I
mlnut i
REVIEWED BY:
L:\03 Files\03 Appeals\03-56 Feiker\cc report.doc.DOT
7
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 03-XX
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT APPROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD SEPARATION SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Edward Feiker has appealed the Board of Adjustment's decision to approve
front yard and side yard separation setback variances for the construction of
a 576 square foot detached garage on property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District) at the following location, to
wit;
14948 Pixie Point Circle SE,
Lot 5, Eastwood 1 sl Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The City Council has reviewed the application for the variances as contained
in Case #03-56PC, held a public hearing, and upheld the Board of
Adjustment's decision hereon on July 7, 2003.
3. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the
proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The narrowness and topographic conditions of this lot create a difficulty in
complying with the strict application of the setback provisions of the zoning
ordinance. Moreover, the 20 foot wide sanitary sewer easement limits the
location of any garage.
5. The property exhibits extreme topography that constrains development of the
property. Also, since the property lines are not perfectly perpendicular, the
garage cannot be shifted further to the west and still maintain the requested
2.5 front yard setback.
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-56 feiker\uphold resolution.doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. The granting of the setback variances are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a reasonable use of the property because without the relief the
applicant will not be able to construct a garage on the property, which is
considered a reasonable use.
7. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "provide adequate off-street
parking and loading facilities." The variance appears to be consistent with
the intent of the zoning ordinance, that is, to allow the storage of vehicles and
other materials within an enclosed structure. The property currently does not
have a garage, which is customarily considered to be a reasonable use in
residential zoning districts.
8. The setback variances are not a convenience. There are no other options for
the construction of a garage on the property within the buildable area. It is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship. The property cannot
be put to a reasonable use as allowed in the R-1 use district without relief
from required front and side yard setbacks.
9. The difficulty was created by the sanitary sewer easement, the topographic
change, the lot shape, and the required 20 foot front yard setback. The
property owner did not create the hardship.
10. The contents of Planning Case #03-56PC are hereby entered into and made
a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the
decision of the Board of Adjustment granting the following variances for the
construction of a detached garage, as shown on Exhibit A- Certificate of Survey:
1. A 17.5 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard setback
(Section 1102.405 (4) Setback Requirements for Residential Structures).
2. A 6 foot variance from the required 11 foot side yard separation setback
(Section 1101.502 (8) Required Yards/Open Space).
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-56 feiker\uphold resolution.doc
2
Passed and adopted this 7th day of July, 2003.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Blomberg Blomberg
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager
1:\03 files\03 appeals\03-56 feiker\uphold resolution.doc
3
EXHIBIT A
/J1i/OI1
II.C,,"
c(
{~Ir~
~_Sh'
""'~ V",.., ..........
r' -~~1~ _ :~:. .
i - '-.~, "-",
, ,
/........
~-- '-~
I
IOt_~
2i:aE
~1Il III
Ilt 0 10(0
~ g~'V'
;-~~~
I~" ~ I
.~~ . "~ ) I
- ~'~"''''''''~-...._,,"''' J
I ."
.-~1.1 !
'----,- ,-~)I
]:-;tt
!
o
,
r--.__.,
i"lfr!~'"
~,.
I
/
I
>' 1
1\.CIr
!
HOUSf
~!a '>'.. !
;'" ;'
"" I
9210 ,
.~o~'! N(\!}SC!-\ !
Nor, ,1 i .JL. \
6~\le' W'11kWg / /
O'w "n, ~,) ~'.7' {':o
., I' 1_' !
-~9--LJI~ -, I I:' "~.~}\
361 \ 1 to--
, \ {
, \ ~ . ,
-:: ~".\k::!9.2i:" .": I,
0" ",,-:~'~~-' .;~J,_ i
10p"I..... -. "'"_...ll Qf 1500 5on, ,:!Swr_
H. ~3o' . "",,",,_ _'~~'~ .
-1
!
l':; 1.y
~'ot. ~vf
::.~.,. 1:(
~I
7'
!
;1
. (
"
. ~'':''~
0,
i
"'Or
o"';"l',$(
~'" It".
"'VI
.,
UuC fl,;. .1\1':""
GJUi...u:t.
s''It (l
'342ln
<
~".. 94200
"""
/Jlh "<,;.,
~ ~OA-~
~,.. c ""~
~^ .~~
~'-~~,.~
941.25
_.'
· \~~~~l:\\l:\\\\~\l\:[~:
.
1
I
1U-'r\ 3 0 ;ro3 I i
I.l,~ 'KlI'rlll~j
I.., i, I," I ,\1 >1 liT II >N TI) 1 'ASTWl II Ill, SCUll C"unty. Minnesota. Also shOWing
ill \ blhll.' Illlpro\'ClI1ems anti cnl'ruarhmel1ls 1\11 to or un" trom said prnpcr1} ,I' am
r;::- r.::'@'":J'.NT2
\ I ... \ ,4-, \.' . .
Ii i' 'lE: C c. i! . _.::, i I ;.
: I! II:"
I: L-' ;'
" (: . ,
:',: JJ.. I ~ m3 :U'il
Prior Lake City Council 'u' !\\, - ;:1 HI
UL-. J~
Subject: Variance at 14948 Pixie Point Circle, Lot ~5
Variance was granted for the location of a garage, the Variance was
so that they would have room for a side entrance. That was turned
down, as the property is not wide enough for a vehicle turn around
area, so there is no reason for the variance and they can move the
garage over on their property and still keep the ten foot distance from
the lot line. The Planning Commission approved a 24x24 foot garage
which is oversized for the lot. This area is for residential use only. I
also worry about closeness to my existing garage and lack of
adequate lighting in the area. This large garage would cause
additional risk in case of fire, water drainage, snow drifting, etc. This
would block the sunlight and also block sight lines from my house to
the street because of the angle of the new garage. Police patrols
would no longer be able to see my home from the street and it would
be more difficult to adequately secure the area. Garages next to
each other create an alleyway which is a significant security risk and
can depreciate the area property values.
I have had my home broken into once, and my garage broken into
twice in the past. This increased security risk is unnecessary. I have
no problem with the construction of a garage on that property that is
within the current planning commission regulations.
Regardsl1 jJ, /J ~
~7uj/ r~~ J
Edward L. Feiker
14946 Pixie Point Circle
APPEAL LETTER
--.----------- 1
Location Map for
Feiker Appeal
-0
><
ffi
-0
o
~
(')
;:;
w
~
9
(,)
::>
w
OAK RIDGE erR
ATTACHMENT 3
I
!. \ I
I I
i 1 i
I [/J-
) ~ /1
\~I:)-<--<,-",-<-<:ir / \
G
If... '-......--
",
, j
+
j:
.,
a"fi
~/Qb 4G~
9.,,. Et
~I
~/()Ji
~
~,
(l.q.
/
l(') =lu .... .
;::Dg
::;... a E
01/) I/)
S<>>lI1cn
-o<t<t
.2"'~(J)U)
-,..J~; i - :
.,~.~. I
~:7
--~ C i
---.-~.Ji'
/",,/'
I !
1
n.CIr
HOUSE
-1
"
>,--
'"
I
!
1
~ I
'J
it,/
,
r-~(J,.c
6. P4
.it'.",~:~
.a
-....----.
-'.......
G'II'1...,;f
$Int (I
9042 o.~
<'
I,ESt 'R Wi'll IN
PROPOSED LOCATION OF DETACHED GARAGE
1.1)1 ~. IS ,.\flOITI' IN Till- "~T\Vf If \ll. Scutt t'nunt\. Ml11m.~Ola 1\ISH shuwmu
1111 \lslhle irnl1rove'rn~n'... :It .
ult"nt~ on to or 11fT I,.,,", ',;11<1 "",pert,, II' an,
ATTACHMENT 4
{~Jr~
- -~'~-,.'^'"
T... " "".
: '-9'~<l_ ~:...~
. "'-
o
,
r .
'l. ~
Ii ('Cf
-l, .~' :;,
I
,11'1\ 3 U (om
SURVEY
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 27,2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the May 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman,
Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Ringstad
Stamson
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:31 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 12,2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
....
A. Case #03-40 Michael and Debra McGahey are requesting variances from the zoning
ordinance for the construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on property located at
14948 Pixie Point Circle SE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated May 27,2003 on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
Michael and Debra McGahey are requesting variances from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on property located at 14948 Pixie Point Circle
SE. In order to construct the detached garage the following variances are required:
1. A 17.5 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot average front yard setback.
2. A 6 foot variance from the required 11 foot side yard separation setback.
3. A 6.8 percent variance from the maximum 31.5 percent impervious surface standard for
shore land lots.
The property currently does not have a garage. Topography and a sanitary sewer easement
encumbers the site and creates an undue hardship, consequently staff supports the setback
variances because a reasonable use is not present on the property. However, the proposed
impervious surface coverage variance could be reduced to the existing level of 31.5 percent by
the removal of some of the existing sidewalk pavers or reducing their width to be less than the 3
feet exempted under the ordinance.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Staff recommended approval of a 17.5 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback and a 6
foot variance from the 11 foot side yard separation setback for the construction of a detached
garage, subject to the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet the
minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
4. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete.
S. The garage shall be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure.
6. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 31.5 percent.
7. The accessory structure shall not encroach into the 20 foot sanitary sewer easement.
8. A soils report shall be submitted with the building permit application.
Staff recommended denial of the 6.8 percent variance from the maximum 31.5 percent
impervious surface coverage standard.
The DNR commented bye-mail they would recommend removal of the impervious surface
coverage were not in support of any increase.
A letter from their neighbor, Ed Feiker opposes the requested variances.
Questions by Commissioners:
Criego questioned the side yard setback of 15 feet between structures on substandard lots.
Kirchoff responded there would be 18 feet between the structures on one side. The neighbor's
detached garage is 4 feet from the property line causing the variance request.
Comments by the Public:
Applicant Mike McGahey gave a brief history ofthe lot from 1957 when it was Eagle Creek
Township. The constraint on the lot was a sewer line through the property. After talking to staff,
the McGaheys decided to go ahead with plans to construct a garage. All the runoff issues have
been addressed. The excessive impervious surface is due mostly to pavers on the patio and
sidewalk. Mike felt the pavers are effective and will continue to use pavers for the driveway.
McGaheys agreed with staffs recommendation.
Lemke asked McGahey if staff thought the garage door should be facing the street. McGahey
said they considered it, but his 22 foot pickup does not fit. Valley Engineering also agreed that
the side loading would not work on this property.
Ed Feiker, 14946 Pixie Point Circle, stated he is against the east 5 foot variance. The McGaheys
are good neighbors but he was not aware of the proposed garage. He felt they should have a
garage but not a large 24 by 24 foot garage. Feiker was concerned the value of his property would
decrease with their garage that close to the property line. The garage will also block his view of
the sun and street.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27,2003
Debby McGahey, explained part of the difficulty is working around the unusual sewer line. They
are very restricted with the location of the garage and are trying to stay within the ordinances.
Mr. Peiker's garage is 4 feet from the property line. It is a hardship not to have a garage and
storage area.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Agreed with staff s report, there are hardships with the sewer line going through the
property.
. Agreed with staffs recommendation not to increase the impervious surface.
· It is necessary to have a garage. A 24x24 foot garage is not unusual. Its too bad the
neighbor's garage is 4 feet away.
· Pine with the request as long as it remains 5 feet away from the property line.
I
I)
Lemke:
. Agreed with Criego. There is a hardship.
. Staff is correct in stating a 24x24 foot garage is a standard 2-car garage in Minnesota.
. Support staffs recommendation.
. Agree the impervious surface should not be increased.
Ringstad:
. Agreed with Commissioners. The Commissioners have consistently stated that 2-car
garages are a reasonable use and lack of a garage is a hardship. Properties that do not
currently have a 2-car garage, if at all possible, should. It is a hardship with an easement
through the property line.
. Agreed with not going beyond the existing 31.5 percent impervious surface. The
Commissioners have also showed consistency in not increasing the impervious surface on
riparian lots.
Atwood:
. Agreed - Given the constraint of the sewer easement this is a hardship.
. Asked for clarification on a former issue with pavers. Kansier stated staff has not
accepted pavers as impervious. The issue with pavers was with a Planned Unit
Development. The Commissioners allowed a modification to the maximum impervious
surface. It was felt at that point, it was a larger development and staffhad control over
the design and location of the pavers. The homeowner's association document will lay
out the maintenance of the pavers. It was something the City would try. Pavers have not
been allowed as pervious surface on other single family lots. The DNR and City staff are
not convinced ofthe effectiveness.
. Stamson stated the development the Commissioners looked at was a very complicated
installation procedure. More than what you would see in a driveway.
. Criego said the applicant could put in pavers but it would be considered pervious.
· Is this property considered a bluff? Kirchoff said there is a topography change on the
bluff but not more than 30 percent. It is not a bluff.
. A garage should not be denied given the constraints.
· Would be willing to extend the impervious surface percentage.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 3
, ,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Stamson:
. Concurred with Staff and Commissioners.
· The sewer line on this property is unique and creates a set of hardships in placement of
the garage. That warrants the first two variances from setbacks.
· The second variance to allow clearance between the structures - noting the neighbor's
garage is a detached garage 4 feet away.
· The placement of the easement is not a hardship for impervious surface.
· This is not an unusually small lot. Even if lack of a garage is a hardship the impervious
surface should remain as is.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· Assuming the sidewalks are included in the impervious surface calculations.
· Noting condition number 4 in the staff report indicates the driveway should be surfaced
with bituminous or concrete. Could that be changed to allow pavers? Kansier and
Kirchoff said they could.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-03PC
APPROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD
SEPARATION SETBACK INCLUDING THE 8 CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRlEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-04PC
DENYING A 6.8 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 31.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
GARAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Atwood. MOTION
CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. Case #03-46 John and Arlene Kalton are appealing the Zoning Administrator's
decision to not permit a dog kennel land use in an R-l District.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 27, 2003, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton regarding
staffs decision to not allow a dog kennel land use. Staff received complaints regarding the
number of dogs on the subject property.
The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from the
American kennel Club records. The appellants stated they currently have 8 dogs. Staff reviewed
the submitted documentation and determined the request did not meet the requirement for a legal
L\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN052703.doc 4