Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0625012. 3. 4. e e e 0 Ao Ao Bo REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Old Business: Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution New Business: Case File #01-051 - Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes located adjacent to the south side of TH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue. Request to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: L:\01 files\01 plancomm\O I pcagenda\ag062501 .DOC 16200 Ea§le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman Vonhof called the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Absent Lemke Present Stamson Present Vonhof Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Stamson: Page 3 of the minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at that meeting. These comments were probably from Bill Criego. The Minutes from the May 29, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with the above change. Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On February 23, 2001, the Planning Department received a variance application from D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and the ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application staff determined a second variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN062501 .doc I Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public heating be rescheduled to the end of May due to business commitments. On May 29, 2001, the applicant requested the 3rd postponement of this agenda item for the June 25, 2001, meeting due to business travel. The applicant requests the following variances: 1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet (30%). 2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of 75 feet. Staff received comments from the City Engineering Department and the DNR. Amount of impervious surface affects water quality and stormwater runoff. The DNR recommended the impervious surface be brought into compliance. Staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria had not been met, and the hardship was created by the owner when the principal structure was constructed in violation of the building permit conditions, and by constructing the deck addition without an approved building permit. The staff recommended denial of the two variance requests. Atwood asked if the impervious surface is impacted by stacking deck over concrete. Horsman noted the deck would not be impervious surface if the concrete were not below it. Comments from the public: Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue, the applicant, stated the contractor took care of all the variances and permits for the original structure and was in compliance. Noticed erosion on other lake properties. Recommendation from landscaping company was to create impervious surface to help with erosion. When he raised house, he would have moved it if he could. People who did concrete work gave incorrect advice about need for permits. In terms of hardship standards: Lot shape is weird. Cannot meet setbacks. Other lots with weird shape are within the 75' setback. According to Pat Lynch from the DNR, the impact of runoff is negligible. His property is next to the Windsong Association which is not going to be built on. He felt runoff would not be an issue. Neighborhood lots are substandard and cannot make the setbacks but they all have decks. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\MN062501 .doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 2. Agreed with staff finding. Unusual circumstances because of the nature of the property. 3. Traveled around the lake and felt well over 80% of lakeshore owners have a deck. It is customary 4. Agreed with report, the variance is not impacting the air supply. 5. Disagreed with the hardship criteria in the report. Will not affect stated values. 6. If intent is to not block views, he is not blocking view with deck. 7. The impervious surface based on patio and driveway. Intent of patio is to solidify the retaining wall, not just convenience. (Presented pictures of the property.) 8. Hardship as a result of construction came after the house was built. 9. Financial standpoint - leave it alone. Kurt Hazekamp, 15654 Fremont, did contracting work on the house in 1995. Worked with the building official at that time. The variance hardship was never brought up at the time. Did not know of option to move house forward; just built house straight up to elevate above flood plain. Dr. Todd is a new resident who lives 4 houses down from the property. The work on the applicant's house has added value to his property. Including the surrounding vacant lots and Windsong area, impervious surface would be below 30%. Commissioner Vonhof closed the public hearing. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: Is there a runoff issue if the Windsong property is included? Horsman explained Windsong on the Lake plat layout. Applicant is discussing outlots used as open space by that development. There are vacant outlots near property used by association. Atwood: Is there a relationship between these lots? Horsman noted they should be separate. The applicant is making the argument that there is a lot of vacant land adjacent to him. However, the problem isn't here, the problem is on subject lot with 50% impervious surface. The recommendation of DNR and Engineering is based on the idea that the closer the structures get; "lake creep" is promoted. The Lake Management plan is to eliminate this. Stamson: This is a nan'ow and unusual shaped lot. Hardship criteria were addressed by previous variance. It was the responsibility of owner to accommodate space for future deck. Agreed with Engineering's recommendation. Have decided lack of deck can be hardship, but usually weighs that against magnitude of variance. A 4 foot setback outweighs hardship of lack of deck. The hardship criteria have not been met in this case. Choices and decisions were made that prevent construction of deck. Agreed with the DNR about percentage of impervious surface. Has staff does any calculations on how to remove some impervious surface? Horsman noted the original permit taken out in 1995, with house and some part of the driveway, was at 30%. Stamson would like to see some L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminutesXMN062501 .doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 reasonable amount of impervious surface. Rye noted area of house and garage is below 30% by about 150 square feet. Lemke: The issue before us is deck and not impervious surface. Horsman noted the issue was originally the deck, but upon further investigation, staff discovered excess impervious surface. When the home was built, for some reason it was moved forward so there is only 1 foot left in original variance. It was a violation of the original variance. The original plan was for a deck and meets the Ordinary High Water. For whatever reason when the house was built it changed. Lemke commented if the deck is removed, does the concrete still remain? Horsman commented DNR recommendation is that it is more important to deal with impervious surface. There is still issue of Zoning Ordinance violation. Stamson noted they are separate issues, but dealing with both now. Lemke stated impervious surface is necessary to stabilize wall. Horsman stated properly installed retaining wall would achieve the same purpose. This sounds like his was an older retaining wall that they are trying to save. Struggling with the need for additional impervious surface. Felt there is a need to provide parking. There should be additional impervious surface, but maybe not 57%. Seems like a tough situation. Vonhof: Questions for applicant. Remembered the original variance. Is the boathouse gone or remodeled? Crouse responded he worked with Pat Lynch from the DNR to clean it up. There was an existing concrete driveway on lot. Original detached garage was removed and tuck-under garage was raised and attached garage added to north. Crouse explained remodeling of house. The retaining wall was built when house was raised. Vonhof asked if lot lines go all the way back to street. Railroad right-of-way is 8' wide between the lot and Calmut Avenue. Vonhof questioned who did cement work. Crouse stated it was Lowell Russell. Atwood asked for clarification of when the retaining wall was built. Crouse explained the remodeling in 1995 and the wall settling. Vonhof: Agreed with Stamson that a number of variances were granted on this lot in 1995. It is unusual lot. There is a section of property between the actual roadway and lot line. Appreciate applicant's comments regarding hardship standards. In 8 years of being on the Planning Commission has not seen more egregious violations of ordinance with regard to impervious surface. The patio area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2,300 square feet. It is almost a 100% increase over what was allowed by the original variance in 1995. Cannot support either variance. City Code did not create the conditions. Code existed in 1995 and owner was aware based on variance applications and then preceded to put in additional impervious surface. Impervious surface is so critical on this lot because of adjacency to lake. The fragile ecosystem is highly impacted by runoff. The Shoreland District is to protect this area. The Commission has held very strongly to impervious surface on every individual lot. Will not support request at this time. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN062501 .doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 Open discussion: Atwood: If variances are not granted, what happens to impervious surface? Vonhof noted applicant can remove impervious surface. Horsman noted calculation does not include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot. Vonhof: Recommend driveway be narrowed to width of garage. Crouse stated majority of impervious surface is driveway. Horsman noted surveyor can revise calculations to be more specific about what is include. Maximum width of driveway is 24 feet at right-of- way. Condition should be to reduce width to 24 feet. Stamson: Give applicant some time to figure a way to reduce impervious surface. Look for a reasonable solution to reduce impervious surface. Vonhof agreed. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO JULY 9, 2001, TO LOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Vonhof: We are going to go ahead and discuss the second variance. Stamson: Did not see how the hardship criteria in relation to the lot are met for a deck. It hardships were addressed by the previous variance and the fact that the house was built that does not accommodate a deck really is not a hardship under the ordinance criteria. Did not see going back and creating variances to ordinances for that specific reason. Lemke: There is not much difference between 12 feet and 4 feet. A deck adds to house. A house without a deck looks odd. Considering where house is, felt the variance is justified. Without the impervious surface issue, the question is how close to the lake can the deck be? Stamson noted this had been decided with the original variance. Applicant did not leave space for deck. There was a brief discussion between Stamson and Lemke. Crouse said the City did not inform applicant of option to move house forward to provide for deck. If he had known that then, he would have done so. Lemke: How would a person be aware of old variances? Stamson noted it is not the City's responsibility to make these recommendations. Horsman noted staff today looks at these issues. Vonhof commented that variance resolutions are recorded with County. Stamson noted that house was built with variances so they knew there were variances. Vonhofnoted comments on building permit note previous variances. Vonhof: With regard to deck, variance criteria are not met. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\MN062501 .doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting dune 25, 2001 MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01- 008PC DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK. Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Vonhof and Atwood, nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman explained the appeal process. The applicant may appeal decision of Planning Commission to City Council within 5 calendar days. 5. Old Business: A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001 on file in the office of the City Planning Department. A public heating was convened on May 29, 2001. After review of the applicant's request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 01-009PC approving the variances with conditions. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01- 009PC GRANTING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: A. Case File #01-051 - Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes located adjacent to the south side of TH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easement presently functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south side of TH 13 between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is scheduled to review this matter at a public hearing on July 2, 2001. L:\01 files\01 plancornm\01 pcminuteshMN062501 .doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 Once the ring road is constructed, there is no need for the existing easement. The Planning staff recommended approval of this request subject to the condition that the resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the construction of the new road is completed. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: What happens to road? Kansier explained the City would not maintain this section of road. Atwood: What is reaction of other property owners? Rye noted they were not opposed, but were concerned about timing. Stamson: Vacation is in public interest because ring road will eliminate unsafe access. Rye noted easement exists and statute states that City maintenance of private road for 6 years makes it public. Public interest is removing City interest in private drive. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VACATION OF THE 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE RESOLUTION VACATING THIS EASEMENT IS NOT RECORDED UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RING ROAD IS COMPLETE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Request to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. The staff has identified language in the current Zoning Ordinance that is inconsistent with Minnesota State statutes. Some of these inconsistencies are the result of very recent changes to the statutes. These changes include the following: The definition of elderly housing (1101.1000) · The definition of congregate care (1106A.200) · The number of City Council votes required to adopt an amendment to the Zoning Map and the Zoning Ordinance (1108.506 and 1108.704) · The definition of an official map (1112.200) Since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, the staff has made a number of interpretations on the application and intent of the ordinance. In a few cases, the staff feels it is necessary to clarify the ordinance language to reflect these interpretations. These include: L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN062501 .doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2001 · Language to include basement egress windows as an allowable encroachment into the side yards (1101.503 (1)) · Language to include platform decks as allowable yard encroachments (1101.503 (6 & 7) and 1104.308 (2)) The Zoning Ordinance also references technical documents, which can updated on a regular basis. In order to ensure the reference is current, the language should be changed to eliminate the specific edition number, and reference the current edition. This amendment applies to the following: · The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook (1107.1801 (1)) Finally, after several discussions, the City Council has directed staff to relax the certification requirements for replacement trees. This relaxation is intended to be a more "customer-friendly" approach, especially for single-family homeowners. The amendment affects the following provision: · Tree Preservation Requirements, Certification of compliance with an approved landscaping plan (1107.2106 (5)). The staff is also recommending an amendment to Section 1108, which would add a procedure for site plan review. This review is presently done as part of the building permit review for commercial projects. This amendment would formalize that procedure. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: What is current voting requirement? Kansier noted the Zoning Ordinance requires a 2/3 vote of the City Council. The State Statute has changed this requirement to a simple majority. Stamson and Atwood: Supported the suggestion. Vonhof: Staff does a great job in updating ordinances and making it a living document. Review ordinance as a result of situations. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Rye: Staff is waiting to hear State legislature's decision on budget. It is having a very real impact on one pending redevelopment project. As currently proposed, language would limit ability of City to provide assistance to these types of projects. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN062501 .doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting dune 25, 2001 Stamson: Questioned the House Budget Bill? Rye explained the bill has to do with fees and with applying those fees to actual costs. Stamson noted the bill he was referring to had to do with property rights and compensation for effects of regulations. Rye explained the theory behind this bill. It did not pass. Stamson: Asked about progress of downtown design ordinance. Rye noted a draft will be done this week. Staff is trying to schedule a workshop in conjunction with the July 9th Planning Commission meeting. Vonhof: Asked about process of finding violations. For example, what if a building inspector discovers a building without permit? Rye stated they would be issued a stop work order. After that, it depends on the nature of the violation. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Jane Kansier Planning Coordinator Recording Secretary L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\MN062501 .doc 9