HomeMy WebLinkAbout0924012.
3.
4.
Co
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (continued) Consider an application for a
preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and consider variances to the
minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the
south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows.
Case File #01-061 Matt and Sandra Tofanelli are requesting variances to permit a
structure to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the OHWM; a
setback than the minimum required 25 feet front yard; a setback to the side yard
line less than the minimum required 10 feet; and a variance to permit an accessory
structure not compatible in design and materials with the principal structure for
the property located at 15731 West Avenue SE. The applicants wish to construct
a detached accessory structure in the Shoreland District.
Case File #01-076 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.1104(1) and
1102.1203(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the hours of operation for
motor vehicle service and repair and to Section 1107.1907(4) of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the need for rain sensors on irrigation systems.
5. Old Business:
Ao
Case Files #01-066 & #01-067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets and
American Glass & Mirror Variance Resolution.
B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagendaLS. G09240 I.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
e
A.
7.
8.
New Business:
Discuss infiltration systems and engineered runoff management.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 files\01 plan¢omm\01 pcagenda~AG09240 I.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the September 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correction: Item 4, Page 16 - top of page - correct Motion vote: Ayes by Stamson,
Atwood and Lernke, nays by Vonhofand Criego.
The Minutes from the September 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were
approved as corrected.
Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-039 and #01-040 (continued) Consider an application for a
preliminary plat to be known as McCormick Acres and consider variances to the
minimum lot area for three of the proposed lots for the property located on the
south side of 170th Street, North of Highway 13 and east of Pheasant Meadows.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report.
The Patrick L. McCormick Trust filed an application for a preliminary plat for the 1.85
acre site located on the south side of CSAH 12 (170th Street), west of Highway 13 and
east of Pheasant Meadows. The preliminary plat, to be known as McCormick Acres,
consists of 1.85 acres to be subdivided into 5 lots for singe family residences. There are
two existing single family dwellings on this site. The application also includes a request
for variances to the minimum lot area for 3 of the proposed lots.
The Planning Commission initially considered this request on July 9, 2001. The
Commission tabled action on the request until August 13, 2001, in order to allow staff
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
and the developer to assemble additional information. On August 13, 2001, the Planning
Commission further continued the hearing until August 27, 2001 at the request of the
applicant. The applicant requested an additional continuance to September 24, 2001, due
to scheduling conflicts.
Staff recommended the following conditions:
1. The plat must be revised to eliminate Lot 5. The remaining lot lines must be
reconfigured to provide the minimum lot area for each lot.
2. The existing easement for installation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water to
the property to the south must be identified on the final plat.
3. Prior to final plat approval, the Tree Inventory must be revised so all trees are labeled
and it must be signed by a registered land surveyor.
4. The water and sewer service locations must be verified.
5. The applicant must obtain an access permit and any other required permits from Scott
County prior to final plat approval.
If the variance is approved, conditions #2-5 should be attached to the preliminary plat.
Comments from the public:
Applicants Tim Arvidson and Kris Busse, said the issues have been covered. Arvidson
said one consideration discussed was to acquire additional property from the neighbor,
Howard Molmens. Another option is that the first lot could be sold with the log house or
created as an outlot.
There were no other comments and the floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· The Commissioners have an obligation not to create a substandard condition where an
alternative exists.
· Work with the applicant to create an outlot so they have flexibility in the future.
· Do not want to create lots that are too small.
Criego:
· Questioned staff's feeling on the outlot approach. Rye responded the problem is if
the outlot is created, there are still two lots that need variances.
· Assuming that is fixed, what are the alternatives? Rye said the outlot is not buildable
by ordinance. If the outlot is reduced in size to eliminate the need for variances, the
most that can happen to it is to be divided between the adjacent lots. If the applicant is
able to acquire additional land and solve the lot size problem, then the variance issue
goes away.
L:\01 files\01 plan comm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
· If it was an outlot and the other 4 lots became standard, is the width of the outlot wide
enough in the future to allow creation of a legal lot. Rye said they would have to
make the minimum width.
· Arvidson responded the lot areas were substandard because of the County's required
right-of-way.
· The applicant is correct. Rye explained the original intent of variances to right-of-
ways.
· Arvidson stated the plat indicates the width at 86 feet. Looking at the property to the
east, the County would probably not want the dedication. Arvidson also said in
speaking with the County, they did not state they would force the fight-of-way, it
would be up to the City.
· Why does the applicant have to give up the fight-of-way to the County? Rye
responded they requested it. The City did not come up with this, the County is
anticipating the 100 foot fight-of-way, the full length of the road improvement.
· Agreed with staWs recommendation. The outlot would not serve the purpose.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff and fellow Commissioners, there is no hardship. Nothing is being
asked from this developer than asked from any other development.
· It is important to get the right-of-way now, otherwise it would have to be purchased
later. It is standard practice, not unusual.
· The outlot is not workable. Once the other 4 lots are conforming, the outlot is not
going to become a lot without variances. It doesn't serve any physical purpose for
being an outlot. It makes more sense to create 4 lots.
· Deny the variance.
Atwood:
· Agreed with the Commissioners, but cannot get a clear perspective on the property to
the east. The City purchasing the right-of-way could cause a problem. They could be
dedicating land that would not be used.
· Interested in heating from the County actually requesting the right-of-way. It is
assumed they are going to request it. They may see it differently after seeing the
entire platted area or allow for a different request.
· Rye said it is standard practice to upgrade a road project. State standards will also
apply. The County has not even begun to design the project. At this stage, the
County may not have any more information.
Arvidson suggested stating something in the Developers Agreement or Purchase
Agreement stating the City can take the right-of-way. The lots wouldn't be substandard
and it wouldn't cost the City anything.
Rye responded that was creative and should be reviewed the City Attorney.
Vonhof:
· Did not believe the variance hardship standards have been met.
· Support staff's recommendation with regard to the preliminary plat.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\IVlN092401 .doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
· How the lots develop is up to the applicant. It is not something the Commission can
resolve. They can work out the outlot.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
013PC DENY1NG THE VARIANCE REQUEST FINDING A LACK OF
DEMONSTRATED VARIANCE CRITERIA HARDSHIP.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT KNOWN AS MCCORMICK
ACRES AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE
PLANNING REPORT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-061 Matt and Sandra Tofanelli are requesting variances to
permit a structure to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the
OHWM; a setback than the minimum required 25 feet front yard; a setback to the
side yard line less than the minimum required 10 feet; and a variance to permit an
accessory structure not compatible in design and materials with the principal
structure for the property located at 15731 West Avenue SE. The applicants wish to
construct a detached accessory structure in the Shoreland District.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Matt & Sandra Tofanelli
for the replacement of a detached accessory structure on an existing platted lot of record
located at 15731 West Avenue. There is an existing single family dwelling located on the
lot. The applicant has proposed to rebuild an existing garage and requests the following
variances:
1. A 14-foot variance to permit an 11.1-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 25.1-feet as required by setback averaging.
A 13-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 40-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 53-feet as
required by setback averaging.
A 2.3-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
line, rather than minimum setback of 10.8-feet as required for the sum of side
yards on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet.
4. A variance to permit an accessory structure that is not compatible in design and
materials with the principal structure.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN092401 .doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
The City Engineering Department has commented that should a different garage location
be required, the applicant must submit a revised survey to show the proposed grades and
an erosion control plan. The Building Department commented that retaining walls over
4' in height require a permit and structural engineering. In addition, structural
engineering will be required on the foundation walls.
The Department of Natural Resources had a "no comment" response on this request.
The staff believed all the variance criteria had been met with respect to the requested
setback variances. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist on the lot
because of a steep rising grade of approximately 14' from the garage front elevation of
906' to the back wall elevation of 920'. That would require large amounts of fill to be
removed from the steep slope, and engineered retaining walls to hold back the
unbalanced backfill. In addition, staff determined this area is not a bluff by definition as
the average slope is approximately 22%.
Staff recommended the following conditions be included with approval of the setback
variances.
l)
The garage must be flood proofed to FP-4 standards. The applicant shall submit
building plans depicting elevations and materials that meet the conditions of the
Flood Plain Regulations, and all other applicable Ordinances and agency
regulations.
2)
The Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of adoption, and proof of recording along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form shall be submitted to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The variance criteria have not been met with respect to the materials of the garage. This
is a design choice that can be changed. The staff therefore recommends denial of this
variance.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Sandra Tofanelli, explained the primary structure and materials. They felt the
decorative block would make it look better rather than the concrete. Tofanelli said she
was open to suggestions.
Charlie Sunder, neighbor of Tofanelli, stated he was in favor of approving the variances.
It would be consistent with the other garages in the neighborhood. There are no other
options, the garage would have to go down. A garage is needed.
There were no other comments and the floor was closed.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's recommendation to approve the variances and to approve the
decorative block. The garage will look nicer with one material. The lower level has
to be flood proofed. The decorative block would solve the problem.
* Approve as long as the garage remains the same size.
Stamson:
· The hardships have been met.
· The intention of requiring the compatible design and materials was so nothing
substandard would be erected. It was not intended to deny someone who wants to
build something more attractive.
· The flooding requirement is going to create the need for block. It makes sense to
allow the more decorative material.
· Grant the variances.
Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCES AND ALLOWING THE
DECRATIVE BLOCK THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE, MEETING STAFF'S
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File//01-076 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.1104(1) and
1102.1203(3) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the hours of operation for
motor vehicle service and repair and to Section 1107.1907(4) of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the need for rain sensors on irrigation systems.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider two amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance. The first amendment would limit the hours of operation for car washes,
which are included within the category of motor vehicle service and repair. The second
amendment would add a provision requiring rain sensors on required irrigation systems.
These amendments were initiated by the City Council.
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance states specific findings that must be met to
change the ordinance. These are:
1. There is a public need for the amendment.
2. The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this Ordinance, the
Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted plans or policies of the City.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
3. The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or Federal requirements.
Staff felt there is a public need for these amendments. The restrictions on the hours of
operation will serve to mitigate noise and other potential nuisances that may result from
the motor vehicle service and repair uses. The proposed language also provides some
flexibility by allowing the use to operate outside the hours of operation if the doors
remain closed. The rain sensor requirement will help to preserve the City's water supply,
one of the City's natural resources.
There were no comments from the public.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff, all the ordinances met the criteria set forth by the State.
· Use the same restrictions as C1 to be consistent. The time frame of 6:00 a.m. to
11:30 p.m. makes the most sense. That will be the primary hours for station
businesses.
· Did not like staff's third option. Explained the difficulty of enforcing.
· The irrigation amendment should be approved.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Stamson.
· Questioned if Commercial restrictions are the same for a watering ban? Rye said it
was.
Lemke:
· Questioned if it was a rain or moisture sensor. Criego said he was an expert on the
matter and explained.
· The carwash ordinance makes no distinction how far away the homes are located.
There should be some sort of distance built into the ordinance.
· Most of the noise is from the drying fans outside the carwash. Rye explained the
proposal.
Criego:
· The recommendation is basically 6:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. with the doors closed or not
operational.
· Most people are sleeping at 6:00 am. As it relates to nighttime, people are in bed at
10 pm. There is still a noise issue with this time frame. If there are no neighbors, we
are imposing limitations on something that is not needed.
· Regulate the distance to residents. Then set the hours. The problem is noise.
· Irrigation sensors are great.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with the irrigation. Rain sensors are a great idea.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
· Agreed with Stamson, there should be consistency with the districts regarding the
carwashes. It would be possible, especially with gas stations, which are adjacent to
residential areas. Something could be done.
· Don't know if its better to regulate the hours or maintain the doors be closed all the
time. Noise is a continual condition.
Open Discussion and comments: (regarding carwashes)
· Most carwashes now have to open the back door to be air-dried.
· Most gas stations are along Highway 13. Between 6:00 a.m. and 11:30 p.m., the
traffic and noise levels are going to be higher, the carwash noise is not going to be
significantly contributing to that.
· Do not like the doors being shut. Liked Lemke's suggestion of mitigating the
distance from a residential district.
· There is a design that keeps the dryer inside the carwash.
· How to police?
· Questioned staff if there have been complaints from the C1 District. Rye said there
were none, it came from a C4 district.
· All agreed there should be some regulation.
· Limit the hours of open doors.
· Hard to speculate what will happen.
· Really only applies to 2 stations in Prior Lake.
· Table to next session and contact the stations and explain the problem and see if they
have a solution that would work. They may have additional information.
· Other cities have varying regulations to their ordinances. There is no standard
language.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE RAIN SENSOR AMENDMENT PURSUANT TO
STAFF'S LANGUAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO TABLE THE CARWASH
ISSUE TO OCTOBER 8, 2001 AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Vote taken indicated aye by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case Files #01-066 & #01-067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets
and American Glass & Mirror Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-015PC as directed by the
Planning Commission at the September 10, 2001 meeting.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
015PC AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-015PC as directed by the
Planning Commission at the September 10, 2001 meeting.
Stamson clarified the variance requiring a paved driveway. The concem was the
applicant would leave the patio and return to a dirt driveway. We want to avoid that
situation. Horsman responded the driveway ordinance regulates a Class 5 action.
Allison Gontarek, representing the applicant, asked to be recognized.
Chairman Vonhof stated the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-11PC.
Discussion:
Criego said he did not vote for this the last time based on the 36% impervious surface.
Although the Commission felt the property should have a driveway and a reduced
sidewalk. The applicant at the time was not prepared to reduce the impervious surface as
much as the Commission wanted him to. Questioned the intent to have a driveway with
normal curb entrance to a three car garage or only provide concrete to a two car garage.
Stamson responded his initial Motion was for staff to determine the impervious surface
percentage. The intent was for a three car garage. The issue was to redraft and not delay
another two weeks.
Horsman responded it would be very difficult to get pavement to the third car garage with
the 36% impervious surface.
Rye stated the original Motion should be modified to be consistent with the Resolution.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE
OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 MEETING PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 38% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE WITH THE
CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TO THE CITY A REVISED SURVEY
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN092401 .doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
IDENTIFYING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REMAINING AND ALL
CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE MET INCLUDING THE
CONDITION THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.
Horsman explained the additional impervious surface and his discussions with the
Department of Natural Resources regarding the dockage.
Lemke commented this clarifies the Motion from two weeks ago.
Vonhof stated he believes the variance criteria in this matter are not met and this specific
condition has been created by the property owner and will not support the Motion.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Atwood, nays by Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Discuss infiltration systems and engineered runoff management.
Criego recommended continuing this matter to another meeting.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesLMN092401 .doc 10