Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-061 Council ResolutionCITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 03-61 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 40 -FOOT SETBACK FROM 62ND STREET, FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION AND HOME ADDITION AT 6206 RED MAPLE LANE (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, COLONIAL WOODS) WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance to allow for garage and l home addition to encroach 3 feet into the required 40 -foot setback from 62na Street for property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane, legally described to -wit: Lot 1, Block 1, Colonial Woods, Anoka County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council fords that the granting of the variance, subject to conditions, is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lino Lakes City Council approves the proposed Variance, as described in the attached staff report, dated June 9th, 2003 with the following condition: 1. The applicants, their successors and assigns are hereby notified that should the City of Lino Lakes expand 62nd Avenue by ten feet or less, the City will not pay compensation to the property owners for severance damages due to their encroachment in the setback area. 2. Issuance of a building permit shall be subject to review and approval of an Individual Sewage Treatment System in conformance with City Code and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080. 3. Granting of the building setback variance shall not be used as "hardship" for deviating from required sewage treatment setbacks. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 9th day of June, 2003. A'l "PEST: J. Bergeson, Mayor ExEntrr # 1 • • •r .• 1; • . • PROPOSED CONDITIONS P.j..dN. Building Permit Survey roe *ew boa Cie. • tat I. wwle L walk nd% Mai. C.,ln. . 252.40 ti 62nd Street H $qle 44 "Pi • 1 i uarmrr# Existing Space INN 26 feet D R I V E WAY Proposed Space PROPOSED SPACE . Garage and Entry/Mudroom Eft 1/2 bath Eft Oft 10ft MUDROOM E N T R Y 1 12 ft 18 ft 8ft 1 12 ft 16 feet GARAGE 24 feet 48 feet Upper Addition Bathroom Master Bedroom Walk In Closet Family Room 32 feet Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 2 EXHIBIT #� Staff recommended this be continued to the June meeting. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review to the June, 2003 meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. A. REBECCA KELEER. 6206 RED MAPLE LANE, VARIANCE Staff stated Ms. Keller would hike to enlarge her existing garage on the south side, as well as add a home addition above the garage and a mud room on the east side. Applicant had stated that it was necessary to encroach into the setback area in order to make the proposed addition of a size large enough to make the project worthwhile. It was staffs contention that the desire to expand simply in order to have more storage space does not constitute a demonstration of hardship. Further, by making some design changes and expanding to the.east, rather than the south, the applicant has the ability to fulfill their desire for expansion while working within the requirements of the ordinance. Staff presented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62nd Street. Mr. Tralle asked when the street was proposed to go in. Mr. Grochala replied they hoped to start it this year. Mr. Lyden asked if the proposed road went through a green space. Ms. Gretz replied she did not know about the green space, but there was a lot of wetland in the area. Mr. Lyden asked if this was in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grochala replied it was in the transportation plan, which was an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden asked what the plausibility of extending the road to Holly Drive. Mr. Grochala replied there were challenges to constructing the road. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Rebecca Keller, 6206 Red Maple Lane, stated she has been in her home since 1986 and when they purchased their property, the setback requirement was 30 feet and at that time, 62"1 Street was not defined as a collector street, and if were defined as a collector street at that time, it would have had a 401 foot setback. She estimated it was changed to a collector street five or six years ago. She stated the reasonable use of her property was a very subjective thing. Usable use for her was a three -car garage. She stated her circumstances were unique in that they lived on a comer lot and they did not have access to 62"'d Street. She noted if they were to build a garage farther to the east, they would not have very good accessibility to the garage. She indicated they would have to go all of the way through their property to get to the garage. She stated other design choices would be more costly and would not provide them the economic and aesthetic value they wanted. She stated they would not be getting special privileges by asking for this because if they built five or six years ago, they would have requested a smaller variance. She stated the intent of the ordinance should not prevent the owners from making practical design choices. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 3 Chair Schaps asked if the existing garage was 26 feet deep. Ms. Keller replied it was 20 feet, with six feet of entryway. Chair Schaps asked how many feet wide the garage would be if they stayed within the ordinance. Ms. Keller replied the original plan they had was a three -car garage with three stalls out in front, but now they decided to do a double -deep garage in back, which would add six additional feet. Chair Schaps asked if they had considered any other way to do this. Ms. Keller replied they were making the decision knowing what the possibility of the road was in the future. She stated they would be responsible for making this choice. She pointed out there were many homes in the City with a 30 -foot setback. She noted there were no plans at this time to even expand the road. She indicated if they had the entrance to the garage in the back of their property, they would have to remove trees and the driveway would cut right through their yard. She noted they also had to upgrade their septic system, which would also limit their garage expansion. Mr. Rafferty asked if they were only going to have two doors facing the front. Ms. Keller replied that was correct. Mr. Rafferty stated he believed they could make their plan work without having to need this variance. Ms. Keller stated 20 feet for a garage was not workable and they were banging their doors on the side of the garage when they opened them. Mx. Lyden stated he did not believe the road would ever go through and the reason the Zoning Ordinance existed was to protect the public, and in this case the only one affected was the homeowner. He stated he saw no reason how by expanding the garage six feet to the south it would irnpact the public good. Mr. Tralle asked if the road was proposed when they bought the home. Ms. Keller replied she was informed the road might be expanded when they bought the home in 1986 and it was on a ten year plan. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed with Mr. Lyden and he could not see the road going through any time soon. He noted they could plan things and say they were going to do them, but if it was obvious it was not going to happen, they had to realize that. Mr. Hyden asked if this was at one time a 30 -foot setback. Ms. Gretz replied she was able to obtain that back to 1992, collector streets required a 40 -foot setback and before that the Ordinance quoted a 30 -foot setback from the street, not differentiating if it was a collector street. Mr. Hyden asked what were they suppose to go by. Ms. Gretz replied they dealt with what they had now and hoped it was the best way to go. Mr. Rafferty stated the most positive thing was that the people who built the home knew the street might go through and everyone was made aware of the fact that the street might DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 4 go through. He the rules were what they were, however, things had changed with the existing homeowner and when they purchased the home, it was a different setback. Chair Schaps stated every lot bad potential and every lot would have some type of a restriction. Unfortunately, Ordinances changed but they needed to follow today's Ordinances. He stated he believed they had other options including reducing their square footage. Mr. Corson stated they had the Ordinances for a reason and if they granted this variance for 31/2 -feet, the next person who came before the Board requesting a 31/2-foot variance, they would have a difficult time denying it. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow an addition (home and garage) for property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane, Rebecca Keller for the reason that the lot bad unique characteristics and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3-2 (Tralle, Lyden, and Rafferty — Aye. Corson and Hyden = Nay). B. Thomas Lanmeyer, 6174 Centerville Road, Variance Staff stated applicant's home was non-conforming in that it was located within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Amelia, but did not meet the required 150 -foot setback requirement from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). Applicant would now like to add an addition onto his home, however the proposed addition would likewise not meet the required setback from the OHWL. As a result, the applicant was requesting a variance from the 150 -foot setback from the OHWL. Staffpresented its analysis and reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff recommended denial of the variance because it did not demonstrate a hardship. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Thomas Laumneyer, 6174 Centerville Road, stated he believed his unique circumstances were tied to the physical property. He presented his Certificate of Survey and noted he had 174 feet to the easement and if they went 150 feet with a 28 -foot house, that would put him over the easement line by 4 feet, so it was impossible to place these structures anywhere within the Code. He stated the home was built in 1959 by his parents. He noted the home was very small. He stated he had lived there for 8 years. He stated the home was 80 square feet, noting it was smaller than a 14x80 mobile home. He noted he believed he had a hardship.- He stated he did not believe there was an absence of hardship. He indicated his situation was unique to the area because he was the only existing home on the lake that was this close and he did not believe anyone would ask for a variance because there were no other homes that close. He stated the DNR had been notified and they did not have a problem as long as he did not go closer to the lake. He stated his proposed addition would not bring it closer to the lake. He indicated he had' spoken with his neighbors and they did not have any problem with this proposal. He indicated this would not hurt anybody to add onto his home. EKLIN SOIL TESTING AND INSPECTION EXHIBIT # 5 1986 Ridgewood Avenue White Bear Lake, MN 55110 1 -65f -429 -1090 Itch & Becky Keller . 6206 Red Maple Lane Lino Lakes, MN 55014 May 19, 2003 . On May 13, 2003, we made another site visit to your home at 6206 Red Maple Lane, Lino Lakes. Two more borings were done east of your home. These borings had mottled soil at about 10" and the soil was very wet. This would not be the area to install a mound. You have really no option but to place the mound at the south side of your present 4riveway where we had planned last August of 2002. We were not sure of the property line at that time. Since then you have located the pins. We did not have as much room for the mound as we had thought without going into the right of way. of 62nd Street 20 feet and bout 10 feet into the right of way of Red Maple Lane. I talked to Peter Kluegel, :..the City Inspector, about using some of the boulevard for the diking. Peter thought this may be possible. You folks will have to meet with Peter and show him the new proposed plans. The design and tanks will all remain the same except for the diking. Attach this new data to your August 15, 2002 soil report. 111 Dale Eklin Certification No. 695 • MPr'A Certification No. 0695 • Soil Boring Percolation Tests • Site Evaluations • Designs • Inspections he Northeast Suburban Area Since 1952 - � � c "4-BL c1:7 )-e. (t of- 4- ea-Ra,s1-1- 2oto RED / lAM ` MN" 1-J Ala LAKa. 54Atar r" = APA'X 3.' NerA 5v.Avast IJOaiFy G ;Nsf RSD »o 77 - .007-PAN vs I NA Mono RJOar ,Q i&P/ ur_ /7. 2 ro3 0 C".7 —J • ^;r•fi...,V•? : y!,;l r� ;.'7anw:Y:' "x2•ur.•r.:•e.¢::`• : "°FS ": :ytr,"•ir`rti •:y`= '.a:.t!`'. ^r- •• Building Permit Survey For: Tony Luczak Const. Lot 1. Stock 1. Coloidoi Woods. ,aka Co. Un. 89' 18' • nil 252.40 plAs Witt. NAos To exruvD JOFT yfr' RDo A4Apla £.ANc j%1aNT . &i,AV 212: ` 62nd Street . N $q"L `' 4 4 "14I Pi" W114' //AV ro e%rowo 1.a Fr FN'ro 4070 Dr • • "awe wd4V II' P.iyo grR•eer mr. FJViPRovao oR l LLi'pso STAFF ORIGINATOR: C.C. MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 7B Tanda Gretz June 9, 2003 Resolution No.: 03 -61 Variance to allow an addition (home and garage) to be constructed within the required street setback, for property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane. Rebecca Keller ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Rebecca Keller owns property located at 6206 Red Maple Lane, in the northeast comer of the intersection of Red Maple Lane and 62 °1 Street, in Section #32. The property is approximately 34,000 sq. ft. in size and contains a home and attached 2 -stall garage. Ms. Keller would like to enlarge the existing garage on the south side, as well as add a home addition above the garage and a mud room on the east side. These additions would require construction approximately 3 -1/2 feet into the required 40 -foot street setback from 62 °d Street. This review is based on the following exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Certificate of Survey 3.) Floor Plans 4.) P&Z Draft Minutes (May 14, 2003) 5.) Septic System Sketch & Information ANALYSIS The following chart summarizes the zoning and land use designations for the subject property, as well as surrounding properties: Location Guided Land Use Zoning Subject Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural North, South, East and West Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural City Council June 9, 2003 Keller Variance Under the Lakes Zoning Ordinance, a property of this size and zone is allowed up to 1,200 sq.ft. of accessory building space. The property currently contains an existing attached garage measuring slightly more than 20 X 22 feet - roughly 500 square feet. The applicant plans to expand the garage to 992 square feet. There are no other accessory buildings on the property. The Lino Lakes Transportation Plan classifies 62nd Street as a Minor Collector street, with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requiring a 40 -foot street setback for all collector or arterial streets. At present, 62nd Street is paved from Ware Road to Red Maple Lane, with the section from Red Maple Lane to Holly Drive not constructed, but indicated as a "proposed road" under the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan. The applicant's proposed addition would extend three feet, seven inches into the required 40' street setback. The applicant has stated that it is necessary to encroach into the setback area in order to make the proposed addition of a size large enough to make the project worthwhile. Conversely, it is staff's contention that the desire to expand simply in order to have more storage space does not constitute a demonstration of hardship. Further, by making some design changes and expanding to the east, rather than the south, the applicant has the ability to fulfill their desire for expansion while working within the requirements of the ordinance. Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) The property is not currently serviced by public sewer and water. An ISTS inspection, submitted by the applicant indicates that the existing system is not in compliance with current code requirements. Such designation requires the upgrading of the system within two years. Additionally, the expansion of the house will necessitate installation of a new system. The applicant has had the property evaluated and submitted a proposed system design. The proposed location of the ISIS, as submitted, would encroach upto 20 feet into the 62nd Street right -of -way and 10 feet into the Red Maple right -of -way. The construction of the system in the proposed location would, aside from not meeting setbacks requirements, significantly impact the City's ability to use the public right -of -way for its intended purpose. Therefore, an alternative site or design will need to be submitted by the applicant. P & Z BOARD RECOMMENDATION The above report was presented at the May 14`11 meeting of the Planning &Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, the board voted to approve the proposed Variance. Draft minutes of the meeting are attached. 2 City Council June 9, 2003 Keller Variance CITY COUNCIL MEETING — MAY 27, 2003 The City Council heard this application at their May 27th meeting, where they asked staff to consult with City attorney Bill Hawkins to draft a resolution approving the variance but with language that would protect the City from right -of -way acquisition issues in the future. OPINION The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum street setback requirements for all City streets as a way of providing buffer space between traffic and structures, as well as providing for future right -of -way requirements when streets are constructed or enlarged. 62nd street, while not currently constructed east of Red Maple Lane, is designated on the Lino Lakes transportation plan as a collector street, which pursuant to the zoning ordinance requirements dictates the 40' setback. It is staff's opinion that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with regard to the granting of a variance, have not been satisfied. The additional septic information presented by the applicant at the May 27th meeting does not change staff's contention that the applicant has at their disposal other design choices which would allow them to expand the garage and home, but still comply with the ordinance: first, by reducing the proposed expansion by 3 -1/2 feet or, two, by expanding to the rear of the lot rather that toward 62nd Street (the proposed septic tank locations are shown an undetermined distance from the rear of the house, and the applicant would still presumably be able to expand in that direction without impacting the siting of the septic tanks. As a result, staff would recommend denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62nd Street. However, as requested by the city council the City Attorney has provided language to be included as a conditional of approval that should protect the City's interests if and when 62nd Street is extended easterly. Additionally, staff would recommend that any approval of the variance also be conditioned upon the suitable placement of an Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) on the site. While the placement of the sewage system on the site is a separate issue from the variance requested, granting of the variance and subsequent building may further limit the available locations of the sewage treatment system. In no case should the granting of the building setback variance be used as "hardship" for deviating from required sewage treatment setbacks. OPTIONS 1. Deny the proposed variance. 2. Approve the proposed variance. 3. Return to staff with direction. 3 City Council June 9, 2003 Keller Variance RECOMMENDATION Option No.1. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 03 -61 Approving Variance 2. General Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Plan 5. P & Z minutes 6. Letter from Eklin Soil Testing, dated May 19, 2003