City of Blue Earth
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Monday, March 24, 2008
City Council Chambers/City Hall
Call to Order.
Chair Dan Mensing called the meeting to order at 4:30 P.M.
Roll Call.
Commissioners Dan Mensing, Neil Eckles, Kitty Fletcher, Bill Olson, John Gartzke and Dan Brod. Commissioner Don Teems was excused. Staff present: Zoning Administrator Ben Martig.
Public present:
Steve Pilcher, Brent A Walker, Glen Gaylord, Patty Hanson and Eric Huber
Review of Minutes:
Motion by Commissioner Eckles, second by Commissioner Gartzke to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission of Thursday, February 28, 2008. The motion passed unanimously.
There was no old business at this time.
New Business
At this time Chair Mensing addressed Planning Commission request 08-04, Patty Hanson of 305 N. Circle Dr., Blue Earth MN.
Zoning Administrator Ben Martig began discussion with a background to the following;
Patty Hanson of 305 N. Circle Drive is requesting a variance to allow for construction of an 856 square foot 2-story garage and bedroom addition. The site plan that was used in the notice to property owners has an error in that it shows 4’ from the front property line and 13’ from the curb. The property has not been surveyed with property line locations. However, City Engineer Bill Sayre is estimating the front property line in this location is approximately 15 feet from the face of the curb. Therefore, the proposed garage would be 2 feet from the property line and still a total of 17 feet to the face of the curb.
Mr. Martig reported that after verification with the Public Works Director and City Engineer Bill Sayre regarding any safety concerns on distance from front property line or the intersection. They had no specific concerns. Zoning Administrator Ben Martig explained that the boulevard tree will need to be removed in order to accommodate the expansion. As a boulevard tree is of city ownership, the city could request compensation for a new tree to be planted on this property or another within the city.
The previous conditional use permit for operation of a home business had restrictions of a maximum of 5 to 7 vehicles similar to a residential use.
The applicant has proposed not to submit elevation or building plans in order to avoid having expenses if the Planning Commission would deny the request. The planning Commission could demand plans to consider the action and table the hearing until these materials are submitted.
Zoning Administrator Ben Martig provided the variance approval considerations and noted the following;
The Planning Commission may grant variances if findings are met as described in Section 1010.09 Subd. 1 as summarized below.
1010.09. Variances.
Subd. 1. Generally. The Planning Commission may grant variances for the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variance so granted, but no variance shall be granted unless the Planning Commission finds that:
A. Because of the exceptional or extraordinary physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a particular undue hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, and no reasonable use of land is possible if the strict letter of this Chapter were to be carried out.
B. The conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (Section 1010.09, Subd. 1(B) amended per Ordinance 99-08 on 9-21-99.)
C. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of a parcel of land.
D. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this section and has not been created by any person having an interest in the parcel of land.
E. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located or alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
F. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter.
G. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. (Section 1010.09, Subd. 1 amended per Ordinance 04-08 dated 7-6-04.)
Staff feels that item G is met as the impacts to property value or removal of light is negligible. Generally speaking, the request is within provisions of item “F” to the extent that the use conforms to residential zoning district.
Zoning Administrator Ben Martig stated that although the request does not meet the standard test of the variance approval consideration, past precedent is applicable and holds legal standing with appeal decisions. The side yard variance has been clearly established by past practice. The front yard on the other hand has had variances approved but potentially not to this degree.
2007
· 905 Valley Dr. 5-foot side yard garage setback
· 1219 Highland Dr. – 3-yard side yard setback garage
· 225 S. Galbraith St. – 13 foot front yard setback.
· 811 S. Galbraith – 13 front setback.
· 420 E. 8th St. – 3 foot side yard setback.
2006
· 427 N. Holland St. - 2 ‘ from front setback (note unusual slope of property)
2005
· 1005 Highland Dr. – 3 foot side setback
· 211 S. Circle Dr. – 3’ and 4’ side setback
· 517 N. Holland – 12’ front setback (note unusual slope of property)
· 1201 Highland Dr. – 10’ side yard setback.
· 227 S. Holland – 2’ side yard setback.
· 428 W. 5th St. – 5’ side yard setback.
· 215 Queens Dr. – 5’ side yard setback.
2004
· 228 N. Gorman – 25 feet from front property line.
2003
· 628 S. Moore – 1’ from side property line (adjacent to street)
Zoning Administrator Ben Martig concluded that Staff recommends approval of a 28-foot variance from the required 30-front yard setback (2’ feet setback from property line) and a 5-foot variance from the required 15 feet side yard setback (10’ from setback from property line) for the construction of the proposed 856 square foot, two story attached garage/bedroom addition. The variances include any overhang of the building and added that Staff does not recommend a survey be required unless there is a challenge to the property line being closer than 15 feet from the front of the curb.
Zoning Administrator Ben Martig noted that in the event the variance is not approved, the Parties that are directly impacted by the proposal whether the appeal is the applicant or neighboring property owners, either party may appeal the decision to the City Council. The appeal must be in writing and received within 14-days after the decision. Staff would request any appeal be submitted as soon as possible if pursued.
Chair Mensing addressed those present for questions and comments. Steve Pilcher representing Faith Lutheran Church parsonage located at 309 North Circle Drive gave the following points of concern.
1. Water shed from the proposed construction
2. Property value affecting blockage of sunlight and view.
3. 10 foot between building and Fire rated wall, windows and doors.
4. View of oncoming traffic when backing out of the driveway.
5. Full size vehicle measured from bumper to bumper will hang in the street.
6. Line of site view on Galbraith and North Circle Drive.
Dan Brod expressed concern over the dept of the Driveway with expressed concern to vehicle parking in the driveway not only with line of site issues but a 20 foot vehicle would hang out in the street 2 feet if the variance is allowed as presented.
Patty Hanson and Eric Huber both explained that they plan on the installation of a cement slab on the west side of the garage that will serve as a parking area. Patty Hanson explained that the plan to make handicapped entry and building access for those clients not able to navigate stairs will also benefit from the cement slab. Ms. Hanson explained that ground level of her home is mainly her office area and the upper level is proposed family living quarters.
Commissioner discussion included Chair Dan Mensing the unusual two story business in a residential area build over a garage. Ms. Hanson and Mr. Huber responded that they have discussed building up over the existing house. However, at this time the most economical consideration was to build up over a new garage. Ms. Hanson and Mr. Huber noted that it is cheaper to build up and not out and due to the lot size of their existing house there are not many variables to consider for them for the extra needed living space.
Motion by Commissioner Eckles to approve the recommendation for construction over the exiting home and to pursue a variance for a garage at a later time. A lack of a second to the motion failed the variance request as presented.
The following discussion was noted:
Commissioner Fletcher discussed that she saw no combined nature not to approve due to lack of room on the driveway due to the space allowed for street parking and noted they do not intend to use the driveway for permanent parking.
Commissioner Gartzke noted that the house to the east is lower and unless there is significant grate change the concerns of watershed can be addressed.
Commissioner Brod stated that he has concerns over the length of the driveway and strongly recommended 20 feet allowance for vehicle parking with additional expressed concern over line of site.
Brent Walker and Steve Pilcher expressed concern and agreeing to the points stated earlier and questioned if the 17 feet is the correct measurement from the curb to the side of the building or if it was the measurement to the overhang. Zoning Administrator Ben Martig confirmed the overhang measures 17 feet. Chair Mensing responded by stating that means approving a building on a property line that needs to be 2 feet back. Zoning Administrator Ben Martig noted that the architect drawing looked close so in measuring the determination is 2 feet.
Chair Mensing called for a second to the motion made by Commissioner Eckles and due to lack of a second to the request of Patty Hanson of 305 North Circle Drive for a variance to allow for construction of an 856 square foot 2-story garage and bedroom addition 2 feet from the property line failed.
Chair Mensing gave notice to Patty Hanson that the appeal process can be done through the process of written notice.
Motion by Commissioner Brod, second by Commissioner Eckles to adjourn the Planning Commission at 5:09 P.M. The motion passed unanimously.
1