The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 10, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 10,2000 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-027 Mark and Robin Buenz are requesting a road access elevation variance for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at 14513 Glendale Avenue. 5. Old Business: A. Discuss lakeshore setback and bluff with DNR. B. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet. 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 Th~~lN:~t~~1{~~?P5~~~~r>t~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 1. Call to Order: The March 27,2000, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Cramer at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Cramer, Criego, and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Criego Cramer Atwood Stamson Present Present Present Present Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the March 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Cramer read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first item. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #00-017 Bernard Carlson is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the project known as Carlson's First Addition, located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Main Avenue and Eagle Creek Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27,2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. Bernie Carlson submitted an application for a preliminary plat for the 0.35 acre site located at the southeast quadrant ofthe intersection of Eagle Creek Avenue (CR 21) and Main Avenue. The plat will combine four existing lots into one lot, which will allow for a future building addition. A building permit cannot be issued over lot lines or on properties described as an outlot. The preliminary plat, to be known as Carlson's First Addition, is the site of a commercial building at 16281 Main Avenue. Staff felt the proposed preliminary plat met the standards ofthe Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. If the preliminary plat is to proceed, staff felt it should be subject to the following condition: L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN032700.DOC Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 1. A utility easement must be granted as per request of NSP over the south 5 feet of the east 15 feet of Lot 1. Comments from the public: Applicant Bernie Carlson, said his primary concern is to get a building permit to invest in downtown Prior Lake. NSP asked for an easement which he does not belie:M~:Jp.ey need and is waiting to get the results. ..:::::::::::f}:::::::::::::::::::::':::r The hearing was closed to the public. "::::::::;:;:;:;:;:::::::::;::" ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ,.::::::;:;:.' ":;:::::::;:::;::::" ............ .................... .................... Comments from the Commissioners: ":':':':':':':':':', "::::::::::;:;:;:::;" .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ......... ..... ..::::~~)\?~}frjjj}~~~j~~\?::: "::::::::::::::::::" ,':::'. .......... ..... ........... ...... ................................... ,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.' Criego: . No problem with request. . Agreed with staff s recommendation. ,.:.:.:.:.:.' Cramer: ................. ............. .,............ ..... ...... .......... ......... ...::::::::::::::" ..::::::::.' '.:.' .................... "::::::::::::::::::'. . Agreed with staffs assessment. ". .... ,.,.....:...... "::::::::\\:::::\\\::::::\:,/:i:' . Indicate ifthe easement is not requiredf:::pia1{~::!Pt$:j!}s in the r!90Inmendation to City Council. ":(\.. '::"':::::::::::::If:'::.:j::::::::::;:::::::::::::t/. '.:,:,: ................. .................................. ..... ........... .... .......... ... .......... .. .......... . .......... :;:::::::::::::::::., Vonhof: ......... ...".::::::":, .. :ov:~ds:~~ ~~::;:iP~ort ilie request. . Agreed ~~~~,.?~~isst6~~~1:::::comments:..... MOTIQM;::tiV::::CID~~kSECONl::l}"'VONHOF, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TH:s::gRELIMINAR,H~p@.T KN:@WN AS CARLSON'S FIRST ADDITION, S~~9T TO THE CO~lTION THAT THE DEVELOPER GRANT NSP AN EASt~~I~:::~F NECE~::~.rY' Vote takeri'lij,'lil:::::::jwes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #00;'010 Affordable Housing Solutions is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Stodegate, a 43 unit multiple family dwelling, for the property located in the southeast corner of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27,2000, on file in the office of the City Planner. On February 14,2000, the City received a complete application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a multi-family dwelling on property located in the SE comer of Tower Avenue and Toronto Street. The property is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential) and is 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 27.2000 guided as R-HD (Urban High Density) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The public hearing was originally scheduled for February 28, 2000. The item was continued at the request of the developer to allow for recommended plan changes and to allow the developer time to hold a neighborhood meeting. Notices were mailed to property owners within 350 feet for the February 28, March 13, and March 27 public hearings. The property has been zoned for multi-family residential since 1975. The ~~9j:@.ct site consists of 1.7 acres. The proposed building will include 43 units and w!U::1M''lhiiee stories with underground parking. ..:.:.::::::::.:.::,:,:::: ... .. Staff recommended approval of the CUP with the following ::::f'ns: ~~, 1. Four additional shrubs are required to be planted iJltthe::':BHfteryard requir~I:\?JQpg 2. :~O~:~~~~ian to be submitted. ..:/{:::jjij:i:!:::::::::r'::' "::':;:r::\::::. ":::::::::j::::}::::=:' 3. Issues in engineering memo dated March 1, 20(j(rmijit.:pe aq1#i~@d. 4. Hydrant locations indicated and 300' foot hydrant radi~~::f~/6e prdvided. 5. A letter of credit must be submitted. The LOC will be f6ij:::~g?% of landscaping costs, tree pres~rvation requirements, Esti~tx~..:g~. bids must be::'sqRm~Ued for the required landscapmg :::::::::!!:;:::::"::'::::::r:::j:'j:::::::::::::::::::::::.:.t.:...::....:=;::.::::::::::::::. Cramer questioned the access criteria. Tov~~::r~sp9Rd~~r:tfi,::tB~d is adequate and will not impact the neighborhood..::::..::::::::::::.:......:::.::.. .:.:::;:::;:::;::::::.;:::::....::.:.:::... Comments from the Il,:M~nc: '\~~~~t. ............ . .... ............. . ..... .............. ..... ..... Jeffrey Gustafson, Aft6rt!9Je ij9IWg~:.:~~~q:.9Rgthally they attempted to construct an apartment building across.:tlj@,':'$,freefoW::nM':'j3Sderman property. The request was turned down becau~.t:Jhs:J;'ity felt th~::it2perty would be best used as commercial property. The City con!.~~tilflHwq::AA~t explaiH~9::l4.1~::property had been for sale and had not received any as:29Phlble offers.:.?:ti~tdevelolf~'lmt a proposal together. Gustafson said the City Co.H8F!1 knew of the inteHg~d use:\vhen they solicited the property. They did meet with th~':fi~~qporhood a few ~i~ks ago and addressed a lot of their questions and concerns. The co:mp!~ is a marketilte project. The rental payments were comparable to the neighborihg.:::::mgrtgage.nfyments. Gustafson explained the rental rates, the on-site office d ak .......... ...... an caret Ingtf:?:: ..::..:{)..::.. ........... ...... .............."" . ".;;:::::::::::::::::::::.' '.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:." Criego question~(fthe location of the building site. Gustafson responded that after much consideration this location made the most sense. One of the City's requirements was the storm sewer and ponding. The architect designed the project to reduce runoff. Atwood questioned the unit rent. Gustafson responded the breakdown is in the staff report and is about $1 per square foot. The architect, Charles Radloff, Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, explained the temporary ponding location. With the implementation of this project they believe the runoffwill be 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2000 reduced. The project was moved to the south side of the property to blend in with the single family residents. Parking and traffic flow will stay to the north of the neighborhood. The building will be used as a screen. The units are upscale and larger than the existing market. Radloff explained the grades, storm sewers and traffic flow. He believes they met all of the requirements and ordinances. Radloff said he was impressed with staff s thoroughness. .............. .................... Radloff said they could add more trees in the area and went on to expla~R:'h8~~~:gHiding, parking and the terrace walls.,...::::/:::::::~:::::::::!.I.IIII\\:::::~:::\~::::.. Andy Whiting, 17057 Toronto Avenue, felt parking will be an iss!!!'on Tof<illtp.Avenue. Water runoff is a big issue at the intersection. He felt the s~.4y:~::wa$.::~40ne in S~t'!llber after the softball season and did not reflect true traffic coU.lll~~j~:/:WlHHng believes:l~~~J!Y:~s ~7s200 police caIls last year on Tower Street and -::rbnil"= would only in~e ............. ........ .............. ........ ............... ......... ................ .......... ................. .......... .................. ........... ..... ........... ........... ..... .,......... ............ '.:::.' "':;::::::::::::::::" ,'::::::;:::::::::::::::;:;:;" .......... ................. .......... ....... ....... Tom Haugh, 17041 Toronto Avenue, agreed with Mr. Wfiippg;:::::::He i'i~es 2 doors down from the project and said the traffic is very heavy. Anytime::l~:::ID::t summer between 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., it is hard to cross the ~~m;t}Yith all the softbiU::1H!:fjc to the Ponds. His other concerns were for the traffic gol'ijg:tq:~ly"'=~~..Park, crime:::iJ~rthe parking. Haugh questioned where the residents wil(~Wk .1rHg~::!i:N~~~ .f?f.Hinderground parking. He suggested not parking on Toronto A venu~L .;:::::::.. ....:::::::~::::::~:~::::?:~\:r::. ................................. ..................................... .. Terry Pettinger, 17277 HqE#6ifTti.~~~:said his egpcerns are for the additional traffic at the Pond's Edge Early LearWhg Cente#g~coming a:~wg@.rgarten, the general traffic to the Ponds Park and the rr4,t~ction of !t~rfic to Buss~::~ark. There will be a very huge increase in traffic.:P&ffiij:S!f.. al~9fp9mt!4::2:H!:~Jb.#~::histing water runoff. He has lived in the area for 6 years and eiijq!I::!hc."\v'OOd's:!:::t!vm though the building is appealing, it is 50 feet offth~:::I~:I~:;{~~:~s othef::~9~.ern was the rent and the adjoining low income values. Crieg9~:?~r..:..:.... ..::: . .. PO~A~S~ out that adding "ll!: particUlar building will not add traffic south of the n~~g~l~g?od. All the trtlc from this project will stay north. All other issues raised are eXlstlng~~@ff~\.._ .ffj( Dean Neumiffil::dli~A:~Jjverlook Cir. SE, opposed to the proposal stating there is a lot of multifamily btiIlligs in southeast Prior Lake. He felt this type of apartment complex is the wrong typeqf"gateway for the neighborhood. Agreed with Mr. Pettinger's concern for traffic with the new kindergarten. The new post office is going into the area as well. He understands the ordinances but questioned if that is what the Commissioner's would want to have to drive by every day. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 27.2000 Cramer: . · Agreed with residents that there is a lQt Qfmulti-residential hQusing in the area. This is nQt a cQmmercial piece QfprQperty. It is a transitiQn piece between R1 (single family and R4 ( high density). · This has been zQned R-4 since 1975. Hard to. deny. · Originally traffic came up first as a CQncern. But nQne Qfthe traffic c<J.nB!p;w..are frQm this develQpment. The traffic is generated frQm sQmething Qutside tpyf'develbpment. It is nQt an issue. ..::::::(:::::::::::::::\::::.. · There is an issue fQr runQff. But the proPQsals in the CIP shqHi~na.ke:::ltf:.of it. · McDermQtt said with the cQnstructiQn Qf the PQst Qffice site ah.IQr the iiii:::q)ad will address the runQff issue. ..::.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.\(::.:.::.:::.::.:.::.:::j}: ...::::::::::.::. .....:....~........:.:.:...:.:.. . .. · The true issue is the parking. NQt sure what the par~:~pg:will be. .:::::::::::::.:.::::::::.. · GustafsQn addressed the parking. Assumes therej~::~6 parki~g Qn TQrQntQ Avyph'e. The standard arQund the metro. area is Qne to. QI1~ilU%tJl:. half dINWg stalls per unit. They are proPQsing two. parking places per unit: Teri~m::.wplild'libt be able to. park three Qr fQur cars per unit. This is nQt like a single faniHy::]il~t. They will cQntrQl the parking. ........ "':":::'::.:::::::..:. ..::: There is a need fQr this type QfhQusin&:::lij:j!n~::::Y.~ty. ..:::::::::::::....:::::::. SUPPQrt the prQject. ..:.::.: ...:............. .... . ..... . '.:.;::::;:;:::::;:::::::::::::::;:::::.' V onhof: . ....... · CQncurred with Cram~E;:~j::oo.~f.1ts. ':':'. · Thanked neighbQrs ..f9~Hheir cQ'ryB,rn and staf'f:{oLaddressing them. · ~~~;::~:~1~:~1Iji;~::~ stQ:;:::~~~:::~.::,j~.~.~S*::.:.jf{6ad improvements will CQme within · QuestiQn to. staff - WaE~~!j:blinafHg::H~ve::shmd pipes? Architect RadlQff said they WQuld. .....:.:.:..:.: ...;.:.....;.;.;.....;.......... " · ACCQn1pig::t<Vtll~:jmFce caifs:::I~jHf.QrmatiQn they have are general crime. QuestiQned wh~t:lhe neighbof4,p~9 PQlice':g!~IS' were. TQvar resPQnded with the infQrmatiQn .:l1!pvided by the PQli~!l\:{(:" ~~~;:;~~ has b1bned R4 since 1975. The application meets all the conditions. · TQrQntQ'Hiig!p:Jw::jpbsted with "no. parking" signs. McDermQtt said if the ring rQad was cQnstni8~jp:there WQuld be no. parking. · QuestiQnedthe stQrm sewer with the cQnstructiQn Qfthe new PQst Qffice and ring road. · McDermQtt explained that PQrtiQn QfTQrQntQ WQuld be vacated if the ring road is cQnstructed and WQuld no. lQnger be a public right-Qf-way. · Agreed with CriegQ the traffic frQm this prQject will nQt affect the neighbQrhQQd. · Agreed with Mr. Pettinger that it is an impQsing structure to. the neighbQrhQQd. · QuestiQned the neighbQring subsidized rental. TQvar said Qnly Qne cQmplex was subsidized and the prQPQsed rates Qfthis prQject are substantially higher. · Seventy-faur palice calls in a year is a lat. 1 :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2000 . Reluctant in favoring this project. Criego: . Concerned for the runoff but staff assures there will be a solution. There are several variables. . The temporary solution of ponding in the parking lot is adequate. The drainage problem needs to be addressed by City. . Parking will not be a problem. . Concern for the buffer yard. It is not adequate. Strongly believe.~::f..~rg the screening on site as a buffer to the south. ........ ..:\:::::::1::::::::::.. . Questioned when W oodridge development started. Rye s~!~ t~i propertY:::w~~ annexed in 1991 and platting was subsequent to that. .::::/:::::::::::::f:::m::::::::::::::::: ..::<::::::::::::::::::::::.... . Empathy for the neighbors, but this property has bee.w:*Bhed R4 for many yeaf.~i.:::m1.#f reality has hit home with this particular develoPIl1:~*t:==-. .... ...::;::::::::::.. . It is a different development than up the hill. l,t::ii:::il~.sier aql::W~ll bring more\vhite collar into the community. . ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::....:::::::tr::::........:::::::::#:. . The community needs this type of housing. ..:::::::::::::::::::i:::::.. . In favor of this project with the excep!!9R.ofmaking sure tfi~::PMff~Izone is adequate ~~~:: ~::;:as well as making surea~~ care W'%runoffin the next ..::::~t)~:::::::::::::::::::~:~r~? .... ..;.:::::;:::::::::::::;::::::::::.;.....;.::;:;::. Rye said the additional runo~ 1f*the proj~Jfout.ns per minute. Open discussion: V onhof: ..:.:.:.:.......:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..... ............. .. . Increase the scr~eni~~:::.Wf~ffi:M1t~m6rtm~it~::~s a condition. would be done. ..::::::::::.:. Tovar explained how it .. ............................................ . .... ..:::::::::::::::::.:.:.~..... ";';';':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::" ;.;.;...... ,.:::.;." Charle.~::f{a:aloff add'f&I!9.. the lai{d~JPlng and bufferyard. Suggested hiring a landscape arch.it~ct to address the::Pt9.plem thifwould be agreeable with staff. ..::::;~~~~t~t\:::.. ..:~ttt~ Jb~:f'I::~Y VONHOF.~I\\':ECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVij::i!iE CUP }Ml'TH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS INCLUDING A CONDITIOJ.:f\:m:MA 1.;:::irftE DEVELOPER MEET WITH STAFF AND INCREASE THE BUFFERING..~m~'ti THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LOT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ST AF~~?::.. ADDITION TO THE MOTION BY CRIEGO, TO KEEP THE CALIPER INCHES ON THE LOT. VONHOF AGREED. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go to the City Council on April 17 , 2000. A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:55 p.m. I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 C. Case #00-021 Northwood Oaks LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the project known as Northwood Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, for the property located on the west side of Northwood Road north of Hawk Ridge Road. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansierpresented the Planning Report dated March 27,2000 on file in the office ofthe City Planner. ..::::~t~!~!?~~~!\;j;~:~::::::;: ..;:;:;:;:;:.:.... .....:.:;::. Northwood Oaks, LLC., has applied for a Preliminary Plat for the prc>,p!iY located on the west side of North wood Road, north of Hawk Ridge Road and sO':l.t.ltBt~ic Lake. The preliminary plat consists of23.96 acres to be subdivided into 3319f.~ for slfiiJ~t:family residential development'.::::r::\\~:::::::::.::::;i:i::: "::\::::ii::::::::::~~::::. ..::::~:~:~:~::::::::::::.:.::::::::::::~/ In 1997, the City Council approved a preliminary plat fQf,::the de.yelopment known '~ji:::?): Northwood Oaks Estates. The approved preliminarX~:R"it.. consi~t~::pf 34.15 acres <i?:" subdivided into 46 lots for single family dWellingS;:~):::"'::::::~::::~i::iiiiil""'.:::i::t~::::::::::~:::::i:::::::}::::}::::.. In April, 1998, the City Council approved a final plat for the:~:t.~Lphase of this development (the area south of Hawk Ri4.t.~:~~R9.ad). This preliffi~!~::plat consists of Outlot A of North wood Oaks Estates 1st Pi!9altipP:h:J~Y reconfiguiip'g~lhe lots, the developer has removed four of the lots frod1iiJhe'Xfq~~:iiWf!~r...S~pteland District, thereby reducing the required lot area. This also emtql~dJpifdeVe1qpsffo increase the number of lots in Phase 2 to 33. Since t1.!@;:=pwnber oflots,:::~~:greater tlViffthat approved by the original preliminary PI~~:::::j::pew:::~~~rinary pHl~.i'~~~ required. Staff felt critical inf9nn~!ion to m.w~g a decision gJ~:the proposed preliminary plat is missing at this timeF::''T1ijii::WfoIJP!U9.fkmSh!q~ij:the proper tree inventory and replacement plan and the necessary diii19im~:::calcutiiU8rtst~}rhis preliminary plat should not proceed until thiS. ~:~itiiMi~:ii:::~::::::~ubirii!~':~i:~~::::~eviewed by staff. Ifthe.:::Ete1Iininary Piaf::mi~J9. proce~.H~::lrshould be subject to the following conditions: h:::::::::II~mlt a new Tree '~I}nto;:::nd Preservation/Removal Plan. The inventory must in2ti(lfJ! list of the ~i.l.hificant trees and caliper inches on the site and it must identlJY:i~~frtrees tqlbi removed for initial development and for building site developiii~~I::::::::;;;tj::Plan must also identify the need for any replacement trees. 2. Show the l~~y=ear flood elevationsfor each of the wetlands and storm water ponds and identi/Y=:'ihe required 30' structure setback. 3. Provide lot areas for each of the lots. Lots containing wetlands and/or storm water ponds must also include a net lot area (less wetlands and storm water ponds). 4. Identify driveways and garage locations on the grading plan. 5. A complete set of drainage calculations meeting the specifications of the City Engineering Department must be submitted. The NWL and 100 year elevations in these calculations must match the plan. I :\OOfiles\OOplcomrn\OOpcmin\rrm032700.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 6. Revise the plans to include the following Engineering changes and requirements: a) The Proposed NWL on the plaits for the south wetland, on Lot 9, is showlt as 915.9. The outlet pipe invertfor this wetland is shown as 916.87. These two . elevation must match each other! b) The outlet pipe elevation for the above wetland is called out on sheet 5 of 5 as the overflow elevation, this should be called the inlet elevation. ................. ............ .. c) The plans call out to "Cut Swale To Adjacent Wetland" from ..~<<j:::~;;;.~it~etlaltd. The plans need to show this swale being stabilized with rip~tJP.\::lf1:~erlailt with erosion colttrol fabric.:::I::::::::jt::. ..::::t::jj:jl\\jlj}}:::::. d) The outflow hydrograph and associated water elevatirUJ.s.'-!fer the soiit!iJ"W-etland are incorrect. The numbers should form a smoot1j/,iiVi-r{Ji'stead errafi~~y'y' ..:::::.. going up and down as showlt. Check the outl~Uiipe us~d in the calculatilli1~jj::it shows as 0.1 inch diameter pipe. The spillw,9.X\:1.s showii,\::9~ 916.91, but th4.:?::::.. ;:;::::.!:t~~nc:;::a;:O,o contours arountl~ needs to be e) The Pond Outlet Elevation Olt the hydrograph file7l)~:.!IJ!r.. south wetland must f) ~;;~;~:::;:'::::d~::~lt::=;::;~file g) The outlet invert of t9lf:lliRfL.coming l~f~:::the NUR/!pond on Lot 19 needs to h) ;::~ ~~::;jf~~=1fO;:~:; ;::;.this wor~ Vonhofasked ifstaffhad::tlp!@::lO...cneClf'intBHhe letter from Jerry and Terry Schrank. Kansier said thi.$9hranks li"aY~::~Q work with the developer on locating the property lines. :g:~~l\!llt needs to be resolved prior to the final platting. Cpegqj:qpestioned if ther"j:}tas not a change with the number of lots, would the original develaPl~gt go through~i:::::t<ansier said the developer would still have to submit the calculatidri~~:::~f@e preseIYiilon and meet the engineering requirements, but not come back before the PI'~::::'rtimission. Comments fro.p::'the public: Developer Kurt Larson, 2033 Royal Drive, Eagan, said he started with the original plat in 1997. The sole purpose for changing the plat was to change engineers and add lots without changing the basic plat. Larson thanked staff for their patience. The first approved plat is still basically the same. The tree preservation has not changed and are well below the City's requirement. There has been some confusion on the stormwater calculations. The Watershed District has approved the calculations. Larson asked for the recommendation of approving the plat with the conditions stating the conditions are technical and can be addressed in a short time. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2000 Atwood: · Questioned how much trouble is it to address staffs concerns. Larson responded it could be done shortly. He just received the information today and had no idea it was not complete. · Kansier responded that staff had been requesting the information for months and have not received it to date. McDermott said the plans had been subm~;rt~~two or three times and still did not have the information needed. The calcl.!,!!ii6i1tda not match the plans and she did not feel comfortable recommend~::::::iP~':~;:~.. Larson said it would take a couple of weeks to get all the informa~!9:n into"st~fti::..He stated they were important items but not items that would ta.~#'::~~tlP.9g time aritnij~q:}l.ot want to hold up the process. .... .......;.:.:::;:::::. ..::;:t~)jr[i!it;::::::::}::::.. ...... . . . . .::~!!::::., The public hearing was closed. .. ;:::;:;:;:::::;" ................................... ..... ........... ........... '.;::::.' ":::;:;:::;:;:;:;:;" ";:;:::::::::;::::::::::::" . ....::;;i;}iii;~;~::::.... ..:it~!::::::.........:::::(}:. ":':':':':':':':':', ~on;~~:Plan is very similar to the first. tI~fg:ij~J;1@'@'~ a ch~:::::II::ih~ Commissioner's philosophy approving plats since 1993.:::::~.taffr~~J$::I~P1J::.!':R:eHence it is best to address problems right in the preliminar){B~~M~hige:';'E~I#:::rrom experience. · Recommend deferring agtiAi:)Ju.:ti1 the inf6ppation is iriAi~md. :::::J::f)::t:.:......:::;:::::::~:::j:i:::::::: :\:::::\. Comments from the Commissioners: :::~dmfuv~,4 .. ,.:;:;::;.' · ~a~~;i=l9!1_1t;atidil::.~~~:~::~)?e obtained. There has been plenty of time to · ......::::~~~ed with stafff6.::'I{er.::::::::" CtalH~i:\; · Agf~~~~::~tovide th::i~pformation. · The devil,OOnr saJptfie feels he could have the information in 2 weeks. · Kansier sala::~~~$P=could schedule the meeting to April 24, if the applicant provides the information:J?)fAprill0. · Defer until April 24, 2000, for final action. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DEFER THIS ACTION UNTIL APRIL 24, 2000, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TIME TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2000 5. Old Business: A. Case File #00-024 Hillcrest Homes variance resolution approval. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000 on file in the office of the City Planner. ,.::;=::;:;:;:::;::=::::::;:;:;::.;..., ..::;:;:;::::::;.;.:...........;.::::::::::;. On March 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing I@,glfding the requested variances on this property. After reviewing the propos~1::WU1Ff@~P:tct to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft/i\:ftesolunqp:::f.pproving the variance to the side yard setbacks. ..::::i:r::::::::m:::::::::::::':::::::: ":::::::::::::1\::::::.. ..;:;:;:;:;:;::.:..... .. ....:.::::: ..:;:t~~~~~~~~t:::.:-....:.::)~::. The following variances are included in Resolution OO:Hp.PC: ';::::::::" :.:.:.:.:.:.' ......... ,';';':';';':':':';';';':', ..:::.....:.. 1. A 3.08 foot variance to permit a side yard.~etb.:=9.f6~q~:::te.~tinstead of the required 9.16 foot side yard setback for a buildirtg::}Y!:!tl':::65 feet in length. 2. A 5.16 foot variance to permit a 9 foot side yard seiB.:::!nstead of the required 14.16 foot side yard setback for ~:'I:li~:;:::::::ll 65 feef~I\~~jf.~' MOTION BY VONHOF SECOND BY A'tWOntj/?tQ::ADOPTiRESOLUTION 00- ;;;;R:d~C::~:~~:!::~ abs~ined. MOTION .. B. 2001- 200~~m review. Planning Di.~7f:t?t::,R:9.~ Rye '~e~ed the Executive Summary Capital Improvement progr:d::::79Ql:~::2oq~~:\\\I:I:'I::::::}:::: ...:.:.:::;~;.:::::::::::::::.:.. . Cri.:~1I::'questioned if the:::oo~ road::Bonstruction would help the Stonegate development dtitR~'~..~:~:~:~e. Rye said~:~l\.rould. :~ego :~y with the CIP report as is stands. A. Annual Variance Report. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated March 27, 2000 on file in the office of the City Planner. There were 19 applications for 59 variance requests in 1999. Forty-four requests were approved, 11 denied with 4 incompletes. Nineteen lots were in the Shoreland District with 14 being Riparian. 1 :\00files\00p1comm\00pcmin\mn032700.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 27. 2000 V onhof: · Felt it was a well done report and very helpful to the Commissioners to determine regulations. · Requests for impervious surface variances have gone down since 1995. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ..:::(ft::::::::::::::::::::::::): Vote taken indicated by ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. ................................. ............ .................... ............ .................... ...... .......... ...... .......... ...... .......... ..... .......... ',:.:.:.:.:.:.:. B. Annual Complaint Report. ...... .... ........ ..... ......... ..... ........... ... " .................................. C . ...........................'....... nego: .p . . . p.. .?:::.: ... · Substantial increase from 1994 and 1995:;:::::::~~{happeq~:::t(fthe 10% unclosed files? · Horsman responded half:gg~!g~: are proba.1~y closed the other half are taken to court. · Concern for lighting R#:yhnd th~]1roperty lii\i~. Does the City plan on taking any vo::::n on those ;C~:~t;;;~:'~jS smfrs mtention to do so. · What remedies does th(r:&~ly. get going.to.bistrict Court? Horsman explained the fines:::::ai:::~n:::_I:;:~:::~eanrt~.:~i::::~~:j:::issues. MOI:!~N BY VONHdl~:::~ECOlit.;rBY ATWOOD, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND F:~~I~ TO THE Ctl CODNCIL. Vote tald~':::m~icated ay~~:::6y all. MOTION CARRIED. "::::?~:~:~:i:~::::.;. ..::i:::i:?' "::::::::::::::::::::;:" ..::::::::::::., Anno-Uij,~~"lhs and Correspondence: Adjouribnent: 7. 8. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn032700.doc 11 f AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SITE: PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 4A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION (RFPE) FOR ROAD ACCESS FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CASE FILE #00-027) MARK AND ROBYN BUENZ 14513 GLENDALE AVENUE STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR -LYES _NO-N/A APRIL 10, 2000 On March 14, 2000, an application was received requesting a variance to permit the construction of a single family dwelling with road access below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation of 907.9 feet on property located at 14513 Glendale Avenue. Staff has reviewed the application and found there is additional information needed to process the request for the project. This information may indicate the need for additional Variances. The original public hearing notice was published for the meeting scheduled on April 10, 2000. Rather than presenting a plan with changes recommended, the staff is requesting the hearing be continued to April 24, 2000, and address these issues prior to Planning Commission review. A new notice will be published and mailed prior to the April 24 meeting. CONCLUSION Staff recommends a continuance of the hearing to allow the applicant to submit a revised survey and to allow for adequate time for staff review. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the public hearing to April 24, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. 16200 ....l:\OOfilP5\OO\lllr\OO-02"AOQ..02mc.doc:. k M' 5 .L cagre ueeKAve. ~.t.., Ynor La e, mnesota 5372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 44/-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ACTION REOUIRED: Motion and second continuing the public hearing to April 24, 2000. 1: \00files\00var\00-02 7\00-02 7pc.doc 2 q:g~\ERING ~~=~~ 1-eICOMPRNY, INC. t 1000 EAST 14111h SlREET. BURNSVlllE, MINNESOTA 55337 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Legal Description: LOT 4, BLOCK 1, OAKLAND BEACH 5TH ADDITION. SCOTT COUNlY. MINNESOTA. ~hl) DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION (111). ~ DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION ... . INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE A,8 .. FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION .. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION , = TOP OF FOUNDATION ElEVATION 'III, It, . == M.4//II FtA?,€. - ~tA8 CJ,-V (;}/4'1M cLEt/,L/77/Jd YORWAY HOMES PRO.ECT NO. 9477.00 BOOK Z'J&l PAGE It.. <t- 17 1 ') SCALE: 1" = 40' Be,",~ AfA;t,lf.: /111/ t tp rr. It/E'S1' tJF .I1PS7 JtI~rrnu y ~T Cd<. 7; = 901, pJ APORC$C: /4-5131 6L.6VO/lLC AVe,v~ LtJr 1I1?C4 .. /8, 52~ 5&'. n: ~ AI1e4.. 2/ZI 5<? I'/. ~ ~ ll' " ~!-; tfY'~ ~'IJ ~f1'.0\ . . ~, .,\~ ~~. \9g1'" . - .. I ~ o~ I ~~ w~ I ~S ~5 I w . Ol~ to- .,.... I"Ir ""'0 o z /66.21 582'52'11"[ '" ..., : r-. T -:J '-- ,... , I.) ~ZZ.S7 HUh'~7t. . I~l ~ !~ -e" ,P,l'4IlIs"~ ("110. 0) 1!;,tJ PT ~1<t~~A!. t""~R : r-I T : ,-_...J f I 20 ~ :~~ '...0' . ;!.)I~ '951~ I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representatron of a tract os shown and described hereon. As prepared by me this .f!!!.- day of JAtJIIAFl.Y , 2.000 _ f6/~ :H/- ~ I At>p !.CJ'$I ~I( ,JiNJ ~ /J t1 A M~ f'~t'HI!b ~11J.o) u,vn./d... /CI.M..u~f /. ~ Minn. Reg. No. /Cf08{, Aea.w? IItJuft, I>" PT. 1"P141. J/tJ<JSc. ' R-1lftb '*~ ~ .!uv,m"" RlVlf,m J.11' -t"f' .. lilY' nlAlAl FLNR.. _ SU6 "" 6~~ ~tGVA7?d-y' ............... 80UD'N'~ :, \.,.0\ MANe HEU.ER , forT \~h...'" . " , ----f/ c '2 3 r- CfI fI'I 2 ~ I&'{S5~ '5'10 OAK AND ~5qc; f#II~ '\ - ~~ ~;..- r ~. _.;.-. __":..:,;'.,.a- _.~~';":"__' ...... ...... ._ ..'I."". ~. .' ~...' . . " _'~ .... "'- _ ."...' :.; '_,;' _., 'v.. j.., .,~.:"._.". . I' ~ PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 5A REPORT ON DNR POSITION ON STRUCTURAL ENCROACHMENTS INTO BLUFF AND LAKESHORE SETBACKS STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES -2L NO APRIL 10, 2000 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received an appeal notice challenging the Zoning Administrators decision to not allow a balcony to encroach into a bluff setback. On February 28, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution #OO-04PC that supported the Zoning Administrators decision. In addition, the Commission directed staff to contact the Department of Natural Resources for their input on structure encroachments into bluff and lakeshore setbacks. DISCUSSION: In the code subsection on yard encroachments a limited number of encroachments are permitted. In the code subsections for bluff and lakeshore setbacks, there is no reference allowing any type of encroachments without the approval of a variance. Code Subsection 1101.503 Yard Encroachments, falls under Section 1101: General Provisions, and is a general provision ordinance. Code Subsection 1104.304: Bluff Setbacks and 1104.302(4): Setback Requirements; Structure Setback From Ordinary High Water Level, are special provision ordinances under Section 1104: Shoreland Regulations; therefore, the more restrictive ordinance shall be applied. In regards to City Code Subsection 1104.303 Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. The exceptions listed of stairways and landings refers to free standing accessory facilities placed on the ground for access up and down the bluff and not attachments to the principal structure. L:\OOFILES\OOAPPEAL\OO-014\ENCRPT.DOC Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER , " Riparian lots are special properties with unique features that require special regulations to protect valuable resources such as natural vegetation, topography, water quality and water levels. The bluff and lakeshore setbacks are special provisions applying to riparian lots only. There are no stated exceptions for encroachments, so a variance is required for these setback encroachments. Peter Leete with the Department of Natural Resources confirmed with staffs interpretation that encroachments into the bluff and lakeshore setbacks are not permitted. He provided staff with copies of the DNR Shoreland Ordinance supporting this interpretation (Attachment 1, DNR Code). The following attachments are included references for this report : 1) DNR Code Definition; 2) City Code Subsections. RECOMMENDATION: In summary, the listed encroachments permitted in yard setbacks in the general provisions code section are not permitted in the special provisions code section for bluff and lakeshore setbacks. The DNR agrees with staffs interpretation of the required minimum setback for structures from bluffs and lakeshore. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the staffs report confirming that permit structure encroachments into the bluff and lakeshore setbacks are not permitted. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. ACTION REQUIRED: The Planning staff recommends Alternative #1. Accepting this report for informational purposes and future reference. L:\OOFILES\OOAPPEAL \OO-014\ENCRPT .DOC Page 2 Zoning Ordinance 1104.304 Bluff Setbacks: The required setback from the Top of Bluff is determined as 'follows: as measured from the Top of Bluff, the upper end of a segment at ~ least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. ~ BLUFF SETBACK ----i 3D' mtllilllPlIl /j 1104.305 Engineering Reports Required: On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building permit and the property owner shall provide the following: (1) The applicant for a building permit on that property shall provide a report prepared and signed by a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota on the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site and whether the excavation, fill or placement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The report shall also include the engineer's recommendations so the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation. (2) The owner of the property shall provide certification from a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to. (3) The Building Official, the Planning Director and the City Engineer may waive the engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or ---../ City of Prior Lake May I, 1999 l104/p7 Zoning Ordinance ..~ (3) General Development: Riparian Lots Non-Riparian Lots Am .bQt Width at Am Lot Width (Front) Single 15,000 90 75 12,000 86 Duplex 26,000 135 75 17,000 135 Triplex 38,000 195 75 25,000 190 Quad 49,000 255 75 32,000 245 Tributary: Riparian OHW Lot Widths Lot Width Single 86 75 Duplex 115 75 Triplex 150 75 Quad 190 75 *There are no minimum lot size requirements for rivers and streams. (4) Setback Requirements: ( Natural Recreational General Tributary Development Development Development Development lakes lakes lakes lakes Structure height setback 150 75 75 75 from OHW (feet) Unplatted Cemetery (feet) 50 50 50 50 Structure height 35 35 35 35 limitation (feet) 1104.303 Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. City of Prior Lake May 1, 1999 . l104/p6 SENT BY: DNR METRO; ~ 4- 4- 0 10:55AM; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/3 ~ I.. , STATEWIDE STANDARDS FOR ((MANAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS)) Effective Date: July 3, 1989 I I I , I . I . II t I i I I i I , ~NESOTA DEPARTMENT OF \WI ~ NATURAL RESOURCES Division of "aters J SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM iENT BY: DNR METROj 4- 4- 0 10:56AMj 6127727573 => 6124474245j #3/~ ~ of ultimate disposal. subp- 14c. Shore impact zone. "Shore impact zonel! means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public uater and a line parallel to it at a setback of SO percent of the structure setback. Subp. 15. Shoreland. "Shorelan.:" means land located within the follo~inq distances from p..Jlic water: 1,000 feet from the ordinary hiqh water level of a lake, pond, or elo~age, and 300 feet from a civer or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater_ The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides uhich extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and ~hen approved by the commissioner. Subp. l5a. Significant historic site. "Significant historic site" means any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the N~tional Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. subp. ISb. Steep slope. "Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or de5~ribed as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site I s so i 1 cha racte r is t lcs, a.~... .mappe.4. ..and. q.escr i bed in a v a ~ lab Ie cou n t 'f so i 1 ~.v..ey,s::::.9 t.::"')J.t:h:e'r:;:...t;!:~~;!\,:1:c::a::l.:".t':~.po r t s, un 1 e s s appt'opr late des .!9..n.~:ffi! 'co'nst ruct ion techniqu"es a.nd ....f.il"r~.i..Q9 pract ices a",~sed in accordance wi th the prov is ions i:)f.:':t:R'e~ regulat..i9.;A~s'~" Where specific information is no!:. availab1e;....'St.t-ep slop,e.~>-!rre lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as "'-':::;;':::'" .~a:'~fed over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are".-"". . >noK bluE Es. ~\ .... ' ~ i ", " . ,'/ ... ;:- .il Subp. 16. Structure. "structure" means any building or /~! appurtenance, including decks, except aerial or undergrou~d l1 utility lines, such as sewer, electric, tel~phone,.t~l~graph. ~i gas lines, towers, poles, and other supportlnq faCllltles. :::. ....\ \. Subp 17 Subdivision. "Subdivision" means land that is '. ~.:'\\~divided f~r the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including ".:"planned unit development. ,............:... . . ...~;:,;.~.,.1:b.~..~. l~. [Repealed, 13 SR 3029) Subp ~"""i:8i:';"''''''''::::sU.if~_::~4t.,,:r:-.,;t~I:;J.eflt~d -eo.nrn;'i"~iai' use. I' A-I. 5 " PLANNING REPORT AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 5B DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING EXCEEDING 40' IN LENGTH JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES X NO-N/A APRIL 10, 2000 SETBACK WALLS PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision requiring an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the building wall exceeds 40' in length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is to reduce the effect of the bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet. On February 28, 2000, and again on March 13, 2000, the Planning Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement (see attached minutes). The Planning Commission suggested the following requirements be included in an ordinance: · Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10 feet and the other side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset. · Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks. ANALYSIS: The staff attempted to write an ordinance including the suggested language. Under the proposed approach, the ordinance becomes even more complicated and confusing, and is thus very difficult to apply and enforce. In our opinion, the change to the ordinance should provide a simpler approach. The Planning Commission' previous discussion has suggested a need to limit the building length, or to provide a break in the building wall. The purpose of this is to limit the bulk of a long building wall on the adjacent property. In order to accomplish this objective and still provide some setback relief, the staff suggests the following approach: 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewall\sidepc3.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . Increase the initial length of a building wall to 50 feet before an increased setback is required. If the building face exceeds 50' without a break, the setback must be increased 2 inches for each additional foot of building wall. . The additional setback will not be applied if there is a break in the building wall equal to 10% of the entire length of the wall. For example, a 70' long wall requires a 7' break. This approach will be simpler to understand and administer. It also accomplishes the objectives of the original language. Finally, this language would apply to all lots. This approach would require an amendment to the setback provisions of the ordinance, as well as to the definition of a building face. These amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Provide staffwith specific direction. I :\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\sidewall\sidepc3.doc Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 28,2000 . Deerfield's tr ils will connect with neighboring trails. V onhof: . Highway 13 shoul e a parkway. The State will provide fu ds up to the curb. If the City wants trails they ve to put them in. When the Ci should include trails and alkways. . Surprised the fire departmen does not get their tu out gear under equipment certificates. A new station sho d have somet . ng in it. . Agreed with Criego that trails are' porta ties in the community. The Commissioners briefly d' Rye said truck traffic has decreased on 1 way 13 with all the road redirection on 185th Street and County Road 17. Atwood questioned im ovements for the Frog Town ar and Shady Beach Road. Rye responded it would utilities and road construction. In conclusion, e Commissioners recommended stepping up ds for downtown and adding trai to Highway 13. ~ B. Discuss 40' building side yard setback ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated February 28, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. Staff requested direction from the Commissioners, Horsman said in reviewing plans and building permits he is seeing anywhere between 45 and 50 homes this affected by this ordinance. This does not apply to just substandard lots. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . The last place you want a straight wall is on a substandard lot. . The Commissioners need to go back to the basics. Why did the Commissioners pick 40 feet and 18 feet as an important measurement? V onhof: . There is a number of substandard lots. Side yard setbacks are 10 & 5 feet, 75 feet from the lake and 25 feet from the street. Much of this came out of the lakeshore lots. . It was really driven by the 50 foot lot width. I :\OOfiles\OOp1comm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes February 28. 2000 . Rye said the DNR had concerns with creating the "tunnel effect". . The square footage on houses is getting bigger. . Go with more screening on riparian lots. This is more of an aesthetic standard. Stamson: . The real problem is the 18 feet, not the 42 feet. It takes so much square footage out. Criego: . If the idea started with 50 foot substandard lots, the 18 foot measurement was incorrect. There is no way to have a two car garage without asking for a variance. . Reducing the 18 feet to something less may not be the answer. It may be multiple cuts to the side of the building. V onhor: . A solution could be "A cut can be considered a third of the width of the residence." . Extend the length ofthe wall to 50 feet. Stamson: . Allowing a 4 foot jog would be fine. It is enough to break a continuous wall. Criego: . Reduce 18 feet for sure. Increase wall to 50 feet. Rye suggested taking a couple of recent applications and bring back some scenarios. The Commissioners agreed. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: The Commissioners received the 2020 Comp Plans. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn022800.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2000 . Que ioned staff if the setback measurement is from the eaves or foundation. Kansier respo ed from the foundation but there is a provision in the ordinance stating how wide the ver-hang can be. Specifically, it cannot be less than 5 feet from the lot line. . Supported e variance, as that is what was intended. Cramer: . Originally felt there wa a hardship but after going ou 0 the site found a more general concern with the 'de yard setbacks of the a acent home to the north. . Horsman explained the neig boring side yard set cks and future potential problems. . Concern not warranted. Supp ed the request. Criego: . Abstained. MOTION BY STAMSON, SE ND BY VONHO DIRECTING STAFF TO PREP ARE A RESOLUTIO MlDRESSING THE S TBACKS REQUESTED BY APPLICANT. V onhof: . Concurred with Stamson that this wa . The hardship criteria was met. Atwood: . No comment. Vote taken indicated a s by Stamson, V onhof, Atwood an Cramer. Criego abstained. MOTION CARRIE . 5. Rye sugge ed hearing Item B before Item A because most ofthe a ience was present for that em B. The Commissioners agreed. Item B was heard first see page 5. -TV A. Discuss setback requirements for building walls greater than 40 feet. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13,2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. On February 28, 2000, the Planning Commission discussed the Zoning Ordinance provision requiring an additional side yard setback in Residential Districts when the building wall exceeds 40' in length. The purpose of the additional setback requirement is to reduce the effect of the bulk of a long wall on the adjacent property. This is especially important on nonconforming lots, where the side yard setback may be reduced to 5 feet. The Planning Commission discussed several alternatives to this requirement. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2000 Several examples of houses exceeding the 40' wall length were discussed. The examples included both substandard and conventional lots. The plans also presented different breaks in the building, as well as continuous walls. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . Questioned staff's recommendation. Kansier said staff really does not have one. The City is hearing from builders who are concerned. It does not appear to be a problem with the newer lots. It is a problem on the substandard lots. Houses are getting bigger, people are building setback to setback. Staff is willing to work with whatever the Commission feels is appropriate. . Felt 50, 60 and 70 feet is too long. There has to be some level of break. . Retain 18 feet, but have it in multiple phases. A house would look more reasonable with multiple breaks as opposed to one big break. . It seems to be needed on the garage side. Stamson: . Clarified the 18 foot break. Kansier said the reason for the provision was to reduce the mass on the adjacent property. . The intent was not to cut down the square footage. . 18 feet might still be a problem with a smaller house. . Suggested setting the standard back. Do not have an alley look. . The idea is to break up the wall. V onhor: . Look at the 50 foot lots in the Shoreland District and setbacks. . 50 feet is more workable than 40 feet. . The City is running into this standard more often. A standard is needed so the are no huge walls. Chris Deanovic, 16091 Northwood Road, agreed with the assessment that it appears most of the problems are the long walls on the smaller lots. The standard lots will be okay to work with. Deanovic suggested staying focused on the lake lots which seem to have more problems. He felt 80 percent ofthe time the City will be in the 40 to 50 foot range. Length is all that is left on the 50 foot lots after setbacks. Keep the break around a 4 or 5 foot break or multiple. Cramer: . Reduce to 15 feet for breaks. . Strongly want to keep this to substandard lots and not apply to standard lots. . It might complicate enforcement. But it is a huge issue on the substandards. . Would like to see the staggering for all lots, but to a greater degree to substandard. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031300.doc 4 .' Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 V onhof: . The Commission has be strong on impervious surface. Something is going to have to gIve. Rye brought up another approach. Ifthe total distance front to back of the building is 40 to 50 feet, the City could require a particular dimension in breaks. It could be done in a 5 and 3 or 4's or 6 and a 2. Then for 50 to 60 foot length a requirement could be a little greater. So that the longer the wall require cumulatively more offsets or breaks. Apply to all lots. After a discussion, the Commissioners felt a 20% break in the length ofthe building would be appropriate. The break would be 20% of the front (widest) width ofthe house. Kansier gave examples of the breaks. Chris Deanovic said the building code separates between the standard lots and substandard lots and questioned if there is much of a problem with lake lots. V onhof responded there was and the potential is there for problems. The City does not want long walls in a crowded area. Deanovic said in his experience, it would be better to apply the requirement after 60 feet. Rye said ideally ordinances should be consistent for all lots. Criego: . Agreed with Rye's idea to put the sum of either side on a regular standard lot. . On a substandard lot, propose 10 feet on one side. If there is a garage attached on the side that is closest, it would have a foot or two offset. V onhof: . Suggested to add at least one wall on a substandard lot can be allowed up to 50 feet. Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes, pointed out a tuck-under garage cannot be shifted. Stamson: . Set a standard for what the break has to be. Forty feet with one wall on substandard lots be 60 feet and then come up with a reasonable number for what the break has to be. After discussion, Commissioner Cramer summed up the requirements: . Substandard lots: One wall at 40 feet, one wall at 60 feet, one side the sum of 10 feet and the other side between 40 and 60 feet with a 1 foot offset. . Standard lots: Remain two 40 foot walls, with the sum of 10 foot breaks. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\rrm031300.doc 5