HomeMy WebLinkAbout1126012.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A.
A.
B.
8.
9.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda: None
Public Hearings: None
Old Business:
#01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to the
Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; cave encroachment; building
wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the property
located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail.
New Business:
TIF District 3-1 Resolution
Election to fill vacancy in Chair position.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\O 1 files\01 plancomm\01 pcagcndaLa~G 112601 .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, NOVEMBER 26, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the November 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke and Vonhof,
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording
Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Absent
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 13, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings: None
6. Old Business:
A. #01-080 David and Rachel Norling are requesting variances for setback to
the Ordinary High Water Mark; front yard; side yards; eave encroachment;
building wall to side yard and impervious surface to construct an addition on the
property located at 15239 Fairbanks Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
At the October 22, 2001, public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff
report, heard comments from the applicant and discussed the variances requested. The
Commission determined a revised survey with additional information was needed to
make a decision, and continued the public hearing to the next scheduled meeting date.
On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission again continued the public hearing
until the November 26th meeting date because the additional information and revised
survey had not been submitted in time for review by the staff. The new information
required on a revised survey included the existing 15' sanitary sewer easement granted to
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 112601 .doc
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
the City of Prior Lake, and correct information regarding the existing structures
dimensions, setback to the OHWM, and the proposed addition's dimensions.
The revised survey depicts the actual proposed setback of 63' to the OHWM, not 50' as
originally submitted. Therefore, the Variance request for a structure setback to the
OHWM is not required. In addition, the applicant has revised the building plans and
reduced the eave projection from 22-inches to 1-foot which reducing the encroachment
Variance request to 1-foot. The applicant is now requesting the following Variances:
1. A 4.77-foot variance to permit a 16.53-foot structure setback to a front property
line, rather than 21.3-feet as required by setback averaging.
2. A 1.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 8.5-feet from the side property
line, rather than minimum setback of 1 O-feet as required for the sum of side yards
on a nonconforming lot of at least 15-feet.
3. A 1-foot variance to permit an eave and gutter encroachment to within 4-feet from
a side lot line, rather than the minimum required 5-feet.
4. A 2.6-foot variance to permit a building wall 66-feet in length to be setback 5-feet
from a side lot line rather than the minimum required 7.66-feet for building walls
over 50-feet.
5. A 256-square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,436 square feet (33.5%), rather than the maximum allowable coverage area of
2,180 square feet (30%).
The staff believed all of the variance criteria had been met with respect to some type of
front setback variance such as a 2.77' variance for an 18.53' front yard setback, which
provides for a 22' deep garage. A legal alternative building site does not appear to exist
on the lot to allow for a garage addition because of the location of the existing structure
on the nonconforming platted lot of record.
In addition, the staff felt the garage and room additions could be redesigned and reduced
in size to eliminate Variance requests 2 - 5. Therefore, the variance hardship criteria had
not been met with respect to #4 of the variances as proposed by the applicant. Staff
recommended denial of those requested variances.
Criego questioned Horsman on the front setback averaging. Horsman explained 150 foot
front averaging, which is different from the side yard setback averaging of the adjacent
properties.
Comments from the Public:
Applicants David and Rachel Norling, 15235 Fairbanks Trail, were present. Rachel
distributed and read her interpretation of the variance hardships. David submitted a
petition from neighbors in support of their request. David also explained how he has
made sacrifices and reductions in his project to meet city requirements. The Norlings felt
they have met the hardships.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\0 Ipcminutes'uMN 112601 .doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
The public hearing was closed at 6:58 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Questioned variance #4 regarding the building wall length. Horsman explained.
· Lemke stated he originally owned this home. The grade of the lot drops well below
the street.
· Explained the entryway and parking problem.
· Agreed with staffthat some of the hardships had been met.
· Can't compare other variances but these requests are consistent with the
neighborhood.
· Not sure what the hardship is for the second variance. Believed it is because it is a 50
foot lot.
· If the neighbors did not care about the variances, he didn't either.
· Felt the same about the fourth variance regarding the building wall length; the
hardship is the small lot.
· Supported all five variance requests.
Atwood:
· Appreciated the give and take of the applicant.
· Agreed with Lemke on the first variance request.
· Interested in the side yard request.
· It is a nonconforming lot.
· The mother living with the applicant is a choice made by the applicant.
· Not totally opposed.
· Concerned for the side yard request.
Vonhof:
· Staffdid a good job. The applicant did a good job providing information.
· The lot is narrow and some of the challenges are setup by the streetscape.
· The variance criteria have been met in this case due to the topography of the lot.
· The two adjacent structures will still maintain a 15 foot separation.
· Basically the structure has been modified substantially.
· Explained how each variance request is based on that particular lot. Neighbor's
variances cannot be compared.
Criego:
· Has never seen so many variances on one property.
· Questioned applicant if he was going to remove the side yard deck. The applicant
responded they would and the stairs on the south side would also be removed.
· Questioned staff on removing the deck to decrease the impervious surface. Horsman
said it was not included.
· Questioned why the variances changed from the original request. Horsman said the
survey company revised the information.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminute sWiN 112601.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
· No problem with the first variance. There is a hardship.
· Problem with the impervious surface above 30%. This expansion brings it beyond.
· If this were a new development would the Commission give all these variances?
· Two car garages have always been accepted.
· Not an adequate reason for a variance.
· Modify the amount of addition.
· Norling explained the 5 foot side yard variance setbacks they received in 1993.
· Okay with variance//3 - Not expanding beyond what exists.
· Opposed to the second variance. It is not necessary. The hardship criteria have not
been met.
· Disagree with approving variances 2 and 5.
Atwood:
· Asked for clarification on impervious surface. Kansier said it would be 32.9%.
Lemke:
· The addition is mostly deck.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCES.
Open Discussion:
Criego:
Make sure the Motion contains the conditions there will be no deck on the north side and
the impervious surface will be reduced per Commissioner discussions.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY VONHOF TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES INCLUDING THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE COMMISSION.
Vote indicated ayes by Atwood, Lemke and Vonhof. Criego nay. MOTION CARRIED.
7. New Business:
A. TIF District 3-1 Resolution
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 26,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On October 15,2001, the City Council adopted a resolution approving in concept the use
of tax increment financing (TIF) to assist in the development of a senior housing project
near Five Hawks School. The project will consist of 54 units of senior housing. Plans for
this project were previously approved as part of the Creekside Estates PUD. Subsequent
to that, the Council directed that a TIF District be established and a Tax Increment
Financing Plan be developed.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 112601 .doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
11/26/01
Staff concluded the Creekside Estates 54 unit building project is consistent with ~
development goals and policies of the City. The TIF Plan proposed for the project is also
consistent with these goals and policies as it provides a means for the project to proceed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Questioned the 3 buildings on the PUD. The only building included in the TIF is the
54 unit? Kansier explained the TIF statutes and the Commissions' role to decide if
the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
· No problem adopting.
Lemke, Atwood and Vonhof agreed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
024PC.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Election to fill vacancy in Chair position.
After a brief discussion, Atwood nominated Stamson as Chairman, Lernke seconded.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Lemke nominated Criego as vice-chair, second by Vonhof.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier stated the City Council will be presenting awards to outgoing Advisory Councils
at their December 3 meeting.
Vonhof thanked the Commissioners and staff for their hard work.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Planning Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 112601 .doc 5