Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Draft Minutes 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11,2008 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Consent Agenda: 5. Public Hearings: A. EP08-100 H & M Commercial Properties, LLC, are requesting to amend a conditional use permit allowing outdoor storage. The site is located at 17182 Adelmann Street SE, Suite 300. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Annual Code Enforcement Report B. Annual Variance Report. C. Dock Task Force Report. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:I08 FlLESI08 PLANNING COMMISSIONl08 PC AGENDASlAG021 I08.DOC f www.cityopriorlake.com Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2008 1. Call to Order: Chairman Lemke called the January 14, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner Jeff Matzke and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Billington Fleming Lemke Perez Ringstad Present Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Planning Commission Minutes from November 13, 2007, were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. EP07-150 On-Site Engineering & Forensic Services, Inc. is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage. The site is located at 5714 Graystone Court. Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated January 14, 2008, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On-Site Engineering and Forensic Services, Inc. has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow outdoor storage on a site located at 5714 Graystone Court, within the Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently, the site contains an 8,022 square foot structure (6,780 sq ft. at the foundation). The property is zoned C-5 (Business Park). Outdoor Storage is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the C-5 district, subject to the following condition: 1102.1403(2) Outdoor Storage. Condition: a. Such use occupies an area no larger than 50% ofthe floor area ofthe principal structure and provided it is screened from view of adjacent residential property L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl1408.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 and public streets in accordance with the City's landscaping and screening Ordinance. In April of2005, the applicant applied for approval of the current On-Site Engineering and Forensic Services, Inc. site layout. At that time (May 6, 2005), City staff inquired as to if any outdoor storage would be necessary. On May 12, 2005, the City was informed there would be no outdoor storage on the site. Since the construction of the applicant's building (summer of2005), the City Code Enforcement Officer has worked with the applicant on several instances to reconcile outdoor storage issues. The CUP application before the Planning Commission would bring the current outdoor storage into compliance. On-Site Engineering and Forensic Services, Inc. conducts investigative work requiring the applicant to maintain evidence for a specific time period before disposing of the items. This fact, along with the need to keep trailers on the premises for maneuvering items in and out ofthe building, the applicant is asking for approval of a CUP to allow 3,150 square feet (45 foot X 70 foot) of outdoor storage. The outdoor storage area is proposed to be enclosed on three sides (by the existing building, a 45 foot extension of chain link fencing, and a 6 foot high board on board fence). A six-foot high board on board wooden fence is proposed on the west and southwest rear yard perimeter of the property, to provide screening. In addition, the applicant has planted five additional blue spruce trees in access of what was originally shown as part ofthe site plan to provide screenmg. The 3,150 square foot outdoor storage area is proposed to be enclosed on three sides. The eastern side of the proposed storage area will be enclosed by the existing building. The remaining two sides through the use of fencing (a 45 foot long chain link fence that proj ects out from the southwestern property boundary and a 6 foot tall board on board fence that extends along a portion of the western and southwestern property boundaries). The City Code allows fences to be placed up to the property line. However, according to Subsection 1102.1300(8) of the Code: "No storage, display, or parking of vehicles shall be allowed in any of the required yards or landscaped areas." For that reason, the outdoor storage area should be reconfigured to not project out beyond the side yard established by the existing structure. Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the C-5 Use District provided conditions of approval are met. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In order to meet the above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommended the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reconfigure the outdoor storage site plan to show the outdoor storage area not projecting out beyond the side yard set back of the existing building (not to exceed 3,150 square feet). 2. The applicant shall only place outdoor storage within the confines (cross hatched area) of the approved site plan (attached as Exhibit A). No component of the outdoor L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI 1408.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 storage may project out beyond the northern chain link boundary of the outdoor storage area and that area directly across from it along the wall of the building. 3. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than 60 days after Planning Commission approval (including Exhibit A). 4. The plan must be revised to show the outdoor storage ground surfaces as paved (additional northern portion) and must be submitted to the Assistant City Engineer for approval no later than 60 days after Planning Commission approval. 5. The necessary additional paving and fencing must be constructed no later than May 15,2008. 6. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1403(2) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. Fleming asked staff to address the nature of the code enforcement issues. Moore explained the applicant did not originally anticipate the use of outdoor storage however since that time they do need it and are trying to correct it. The problem is the lag time between the time they are finished with an item and the time it is picked up for disposal. Having an outside storage area will allow an area for the item to be stored. Fleming asked the applicant to describe the outdoor items stored on site. Comments from the Public: Michelle Choudek, one of the building owners responded they collect evidence from electrical failures many resulting in fires. Their warehouse is two-thirds of their building and retains evidence from ongoing cases. When a case is closed the item may have to be disposed in a different way. An example may be a burned oven. The materials are not stored outside. All evidence is stored within the warehouse. They use the outside as a staging area until it is properly disposed of. Fleming asked if any of the items were hazardous or combustible. Choudek replied "No, they are not." Billington asked what type of fence would be used. Choudek explained it would be a Trex fence - a composite material, six foot high solid composite. Lemke asked Choudek if there was anything else she wanted the Commissioners to know about her application. Choudek said "No." There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed at 6:15 p.m. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl1408.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . I am agreeing with all of staffs recommendation and the 6 conditions. . Will vote to approve. Billington: . Support staffs recommendation - I see no problem with this. Perez: . Agree with staff and fellow Commissioners - support. Fleming: . I concur with everything said and will also support the Resolution. Lemke: . Agree with staff and the conditions. MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 08-01PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED CONDITIONS. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. EP07-149 Phillip Hines is requesting a variance from the maximum allowed driveway width and a variance from the maximum allowed impervious surface requirement to allow for a driveway addition and entry path addition for his home located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated January 14, 2008, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Property owner Phil Hines is requesting variances to allow for the construction of driveway and walkway additions on a property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. For this construction, the following variances are required: . A 13 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in the R-1 district (Section 1107.205 (6)). . A 4.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the R-1 district (Section 1104.306). The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District). A single family dwelling with a three-car garage currently occupies the lot. The house was constructed in 2003. At the time of the house construction a 6 foot variance L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI 1408.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 from the 20 foot front yard setback was applied for and denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The house was subsequently constructed according to ordinance at the 20 foot front yard setback. The paver additions to the driveway and walkway were installed on the property this past fall without a City permit. The applicant was informed by staff that only through a variance approval by the Planning Commission would the paver areas which exceeded the ordinance requirements be allowed to remain. Therefore, Mr. Hines has submitted these variance requests. The applicant has applied for variances to allow for the insertion of pavers for driveway and front walkway additions. The lot area to an elevation of912.8 feet (OHW) is 12,812 square feet. According to the December 3, 2007 survey the existing house is 2,945 square feet and the lot includes a 572 square foot driveway, 217 square foot boathouse, 120 square foot concrete slab, and 620 square feet of paver areas. The total impervious surface prior to the addition of the paver areas is 3,854 square feet or 30.08% of the total lot area. The strict application of the driveway width requirement does create a hardship for the property owner by limiting the turning radius for the easternmost stall of the garage. Staff believes a driveway width of no more than 30 feet would be necessary; therefore, staff recommends a driveway width variance of no more than 6 feet. While the applicant had currently reached the maximum impervious surface allowed prior to construction of the paver areas, the removal of a concrete pad next to the boathouse would allow for the construction of the driveway addition without the need for an impervious surface variance. Also, staff believes construction of a smaller designed walkway path is possible to maintain a reasonable access to the front entry. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance from the maximum impervious surface allowed for the lot. DNR Hydrologist Janell Miersch recommended in her email dated December 21,2007 there were no hardships and the requested variance should be denied. The staff recommended approval of a 6 foot variance from the driveway width requirement and denial of a 4.9% variance from the impervious surface requirement. Questions from the Commissioners: Perez questioned staff on the 6 foot variance approval- is there a standard? Matzke explained the driveway extension to the property line would allow the applicant to fill in the area with pavers making the radius turn easier. The County is allowing the applicant space in the right-of-way to be maintained for the time being. That's where staff came up with the 6 feet. Lemke questioned the pavers in the County right-of-way. Matzke explained the applicant obtained a County permit to keep the pavers in the right-of-way until the County reconstructs the road in 2010. That area is not included in the variance. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl1408.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 Comments from the Public: Applicant Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, said this project was undertaken to solve a few issues with access to his house and went on to explain the sidewalk and steep grades in the front of his property. The sidewalk was never intended to be extended as part of the driveway, it was for walking purposes only. The same problem exists with the east sidewalk along the garage area. Staff and the applicant discussed different ways to improve the impervious surface. Hines felt the pavers would be better than just concrete. He hired a landscaping architect and landscaping company to do the work and did not intend to circumvent the ordinance and felt he was in compliance with the ordinance. An older survey indicated there was left over impervious surface and so he subtracted it out of the area to remove the sidewalk. A city inspector came to the property with a Stop Work Order when we were doing work in the right-of-way. That is where this all started. Hines stated he was frustrated with the process trying to make his property aesthetically pleasing. He felt the ordinances are not equally being applied throughout the City. Hines pointed out one neighbor's driveway exceeds the 24 foot width and the other's impervious surface well exceeds the requirements. Hines went on to say another neighbor constructed a larger driveway and did not have to go through this process. He called the City of the violation but did not want to file a complaint. After the work the neighbor's work was completed he was still trying to work out something with staff on the impervious surface. Hines questioned why this ordinance was being enforced on him and not the neighbors. He would like equal protection of the law. Hines continued to explain his retaining walls and the runoff on his property. (Hines presented pictures to show the landscape and driveway.) He did not want to go back and pull out sections of the pavers because they are woven in and would be difficult to take out a section. Hines spoke on the driveway and open 12 inch separation for runoff. Not sure the ordinance would allow it. He said he would be willing to have a civil engineer go back and design the runoff. It does not address the strict code regulation. Hines felt the County road right-of-way will never be used. The sidewalks will go in just at the bottom of his hedges. There will always be the green space (right-of-way) to absorb the runoff. Hines said he would be willing to make modifications to the catch basin on the left side of the driveway. He would go back and have the civil engineer draw up a new plan and create the same kind of catch basin in and around the hedges so none of the water on any part of the front property will run into the street. Hines said it obviously does not address the strict adherence to the code regarding the impervious surface by creating more runoff. Hines again stated he did intend to violate any part of the ordinance, he only became aware of it after the fact. He fully expected the architect and landscaper to pull the L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI 1408.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 required permits and notifications before they started the work. Hines stated, "Now the work on either side of my property - driveways and extensions of my driveway were not done under permit either. It did not necessarily create a flag for me that they did not get a permit because nobody else got a permit that 1 was aware of." Fleming asked staff the disposition of the code and permitting enforcement on the surrounding properties as it sounds like its getting out of hand. Kansier said she cannot speak on Mr. Hines' situation or what is happening on the adjacent properties or the patio he spoke of. "I can tell you we've hired a full time code enforcement office this summer with the intent of evening that out. This enforcement is based on a complaint basis. As far as the adjacent driveways - the majority of one of the neighbor's driveway is in the County right-of-way." Kansier presented a survey of Hines first permit where most of the driveway is on the neighbor's property and the rest in the County right-of-way. Kansier continued "As far as the second driveway - at the time Mr. Hines first applied, they had a shared driveway and looks like they split it and the driveway was moved and impervious surface removed. It looks like an equalizing, which is allowable." Fleming asked Hines why would he allow his architect and landscape company to work without a permit. Hines replied he did realize they did not get a permit. Hines said he has gone back and forth with staff and is now asking for direction from the Commissioners. Regarding the spacing between the sidewalks and driveway - What would the Commissioners allow for a small green space? Hines asked if there is an appropriate way for him to keep the exiting pavers (along the sidewalk). He would happy to go with any direction. There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m. Questions from Commissioners: Perez asked staff what they thought of Hines' idea of creating pervious spacing. Matzke said they had been discussing spacing alternatives and went on to explain the minimum spacing of 3 foot sidewalks and runoff and what is allowed in the code. A one foot spacing is very small and will not alleviate the problem of runoff. Lemke asked staff if there are any ordinance credits for catch basins. Matzke said there were no credits based on catch basin usage. It is similar with pavers. Lemke noted the importance of maintenance with impervious pavers or they will not work. The intent of the ordinance is to cut down on the impervious surface and runoff. Do catch basins require the same maintenance as pervious pavers to keep working? Kansier explained catch basins drain into the storm sewer. She said she is not sure how Mr. Hines is using the term "catch basin". It is not the same as the City. When the City uses catch basins to catch runoff it goes from surface to below ground. Rain gardens are L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl1408.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 used to treat water before it goes into the system. We do not give residents credit for creating rain gardens for impervious surface." Fleming asked staff what area of the existing pavers is represented by the 4.9% variance. What portion of the completed area would have to be removed? Matzke responded the added pavers are at the 4.9% impervious surface. Again, this is just the area on Hines' property. Matzke pointed out the area and in order to stay at the 30% impervious surface lot area, the applicant would have to go back to the original 3 foot walkways and a removal of hard surface somewhere else on the property to maintain the requirement. Fleming questioned if the landscape company obtained the permits would the owner be aware of the impervious surface. Matzke said it would. Staff would check the impervious surface calculations. In some cases, the City requires the applicant to get a new survey. Fleming asked staff if there is any past practice or precedent when a landscape company, architect or landowner has not gotten a permit and found to be in violation - who bears the cost when that dispute arises? Kansier replied from a City's perspective it is the property owner's responsibility to go back and correct the situation. Kansier explained a recent similar situation. The property owner is ultimately responsible from a City's perspective. Hines said he spoke with the DNR at length regarding the impervious pavers and the issue of maintenance did not come up. The concerns that came up repeatedly were whether it was impervious or not - it's a hard surface and people put impervious things on top of it. Hines said he was frustrated with the DNR as he did not feel they had a legitimate argument. He asked the gentleman from the DNR to review his paver information and he did not want to because he was not interested. Hines second comment was on the green space separation and it would not alleviate any runoff in that small area. During one of the City's discussions, the City Engineer agreed if the hard surface is running in the direction of the grade it wouldn't matter ifit was a foot of space or 3 feet of space the same amount of water would run down into the street. If it's perpendicular to the grade it could in fact have a significant decrease. Fleming asked Mr. Hines when he contacted the landscaper about not receiving any permits and was in violation, what response did they give? Hines stated he thought they contacted the City and had some conversations. He had a few feet left and Hines asked him to finish it into the County right-of-way. We're still at odds on how we're going to resolve this. He was hoping it is not the case where he has to remove the pavers. Lemke said "There have been meetings and discussions - at this point there doesn't appear to have been any removal of the boathouse or concrete pad that would get the impervious surface down to 30%." L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl1408.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 Matzke explained the removal ofthe pad of pavers in the back yard, the applicant has to remove or provide some kind of adequate spacing similar to the original plan to be identified as a sidewalk not to be included in the impervious surface. Sidewalks were on the original plan, now the sidewalks and surrounding areas are filled in which became an impervious surface pad. It would take more than just removing the pad in the back, the patio and boathouse to come under the requirements. There is driveway area that could easily be removed. Hines stated there was a considerable amount of hard surface (near the home) but it is not all hard surface. The area near the home has plantings. There is a fairly significant amount of green space to create a separation, although it is smaller than what is required by ordinance, then that area would no longer be involved in the impervious area. Hines agreed Matzke was correct that he probably couldn't get down to an exact 30% but would be within a percent or so, assuming he would remove the slab in the back. Fleming pointed out there is a report from the DNR hydrologist reminding us again that "Prior Lake is already over 5% of the State guidelines for impervious surface. A percent or so to the applicant, in my mind is 6% or 7%. We're trying to be balanced and fair but would ask you to keep that in mind as well." Fleming said he plans to go on record later with staff to increase its scrutiny of this particular landscape and architect. "We need to have them under the microscope for any future projects they desire to commence in the City of Prior Lake, because it puts you (the applicant) in a horrible position and I am very disturbed by that." Close the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Empathize with Mr. Hines. It's difficult for everyone involved. . Agree with staffs findings as far as hardships and support their recommendations. . Approve the 6 foot driveway variance and deny the second request for increased impervious surface. . There is a report from the DNR with their comments. Billington: . Somewhat empathetic to Mr. Hines' plight. . I will endorse Commissioner Fleming's remarks. He (the applicant) relied on the expertise of an architect and landscaping contractor and expected them to rely on their expertise regarding the codes in the City they are working in. They let you down. . I don't know the status of your contract with these parties but certainly have a cause of action against them for damages. Without question. I am not a lawyer by education but I don't think you have to be to make a statement under these circumstances. They should have known that a permit is required to do this work. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 They should have known what the rules are regarding impervious surface within the City of Prior Lake. That's there business to know that. . You have a good cause of action against the landscaper and the architect. Again, I do not know the nature of your agreements with them but seems to me you'll find grounds. . I believe it would be a good time to corral your architect and landscaper get them in front of the City Planning department for openers and figure this out to your best interest. They owe that to you. . Support the staff's recommendation. I do not think we can do anything else. I support their position. Ringstad: . Not to be redundant in some of the last comments, however in my 6 years on the Planning Commission, I honestly don't think we have gone beyond 30% impervious surface. It's been very sacred. . When you (the applicant) are asking for equal application, although it may not feel good, it is equal application. There have been several others in the past who have been in the same situation and had to make corrections. . We have always felt a two car garage was very warranted in Minnesota. We've issued variances to accommodate that. This isn't a garage, it is a driveway modification for a third stall garage. . Support staff recommendations. Fleming: . This is difficult and without being redundant will support the motion adopting the driveway Resolution. . Cannot in good faith support the impervious surface request. . (Speaking to the applicant) Strongly urge you to retain the best legal counsel attorney you can to make sure your property interests are protected. You report your investment is in excess of$38,000. Make sure whatever portion of that amount is recouped. . I would also like to reiterate to staff that we have the ability to identify this particular landscape and architect who performed the work at Mr. Hines' residence that we keep them in our files and flag it for future reference. Lemke: . I too am troubled, this is a very uncomfortable. . It appears the applicant made a good faith effort to improve his property. . Prior Lake's 30% impervious surface is above the State average. The DNR would like to see us at 25%. The only time in the 7 years I have been on the Commission, we may have gone over 30% was when a lot was so small it barely fit a small house and garage with a driveway. That would not be a 3,000 square foot house with a 3 car garage. . Support staff and fellow Commissioners - the 6 foot driveway variance is warranted but just barely. I cannot support the impervious surface change from the 30%. L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 2008 MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 08-02PC APPROVING A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 24 FOOT MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH ALLOWED IN THE R-l DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION 08-03PC DENYING A 4.9% VARIANCE FROM THE 30% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALLOWED IN THE R-l DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Lemke explained the 5 day appeal process. Hines felt out the 6 foot variance will put him over the 30% impervious surface and without the impervious surface variance approved he would not be able to continue. Matzke explained the driveway Resolution with the conditions of removal of other impervious surface to maintain the 30%. The variance is approved based on that condition. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Reminder of the joint City Council-Planning Commission workshop on Monday, February 4, at 4:30 p.m. in the Parkview Room. An agenda will be sent out. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI 1408.doc 11