Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121001REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. A. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: Public Hearings: Norling Resolution Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of CSAH 21, ½ block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcag~ndaXAG 121001 .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, DECEMBER 10, 2001 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the December 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and Stamson, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, City Engineer Sue McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Absent Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the November 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: A. Case #01-080 David and Rachel Norling - Variance Resolution 01-020PC Criego asked to discuss the hardship requirements for a variance of this sort. Criego: · This applicant is requesting five variances. Commissioner Criego stated he firmly believed variance number 2 (the 1.5 foot variance to permit a structure side yard setback of 8.5 feet) and variance number 5 (a 214 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface area of 2,394 square feet - 32.9%) had not demonstrated the proper hardship requirement. · The main topic at issue is a three car garage. Historically this committee indicated a two car garage is a reasonable use. The applicant indicates there are multiple adults and requires a three car garage. It is not uncommon to have an adult population with three cars or more. If the Commissioners allow a three car garage to be built here, we are basically saying - If a family has three cars or three adults or more in a household a variance could be given to exceed the parameters of the side yard setbacks as well as the impervious surface. · Historically the Commission believed the impervious surface should be a very strong requirement to maintain. The DNR requires 25% impervious surface. The City and members of the Planning Commission have felt that is not enough, 30% is acceptable. So the Commission has already exceeded what is recommended by the DNR. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .doc 1 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 · Criego asked the Commissioners to reconsider this Resolution and disallow numbers 2 and 5 of the variance requests. Atwood: · Agreed the impervious surface is a big issue. This is not an enormous amount. · Asked Criego to explain the side yard setbacks. Criego responded that any variance had to meet the criteria for hardship. The hardship here is that they cannot build a three-car garage and that in itself is not a hardship. There is a requirement for an entrance into that garage area so there is no reason why it can't be a two car garage plus an entrance. To have a three car plus, requires a variance and there is no hardship other than there are multiple adults - not a hardship. With the extended garage as well as the extension on the lake side, they exceed the impervious surface by 214 feet. · Agreed at the last meeting that an extended family was a choice the applicant made. The ordinance should not be reflective of applicant's choices. Did have a problem with that issue at the last heating. · Agreed the impervious surface was too high. Stamson: · Was not at the last meeting, but in reviewing the Minutes, the Commission failed to provide any Findings to support the hardship criteria. · In my six years on the Commission, the Commissioners have never found that failing to have a three-car garage warranted a hardship. · Shocked this was the recommendation directing staffto prepare a Resolution. · Fully agreed with Commissioner Criego. · Horsman and Criego stated the staff report did not recommend approval on those requests. · Questioned if directing staff to prepare a Resolution compels the Commission to pass it. Rye responded it did not. If the Commission wants to reconsider it, a Motion should be made by someone who voted in favor of it. Atwood: · Questioned if this could be continued until Lemke would be present. · Criego questioned why. Atwood said out of diversity and that he certainly knows the lot well since he lived there. Criego: · It is clear there are no hardships for variances 2 and 5. No one in this group could prove there was a hardship. Unless someone can indicate the hardship, I have a hard time approving this. Will consider if convinced. Atwood: · Agreed she had a hard time with the side yard setbacks. They do not meet the hardships. · After reading over Commissioner Vonhof's comments, agreed the requests do not meet the hardships. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Rye pointed out the 120 day time line will run out by the next meeting and some action will have to be made. Atwood: · Questioned the process. sufficient. Rye responded the majority of the quorum would be Criego: · So the question is, is the Motion of accepting this Resolution that has been prepared the next motion that takes place? Atwood: · Questioned the process if the Resolution was not approved. Back to the drawing table? Rye responded failure to pass this Resolution does not automatically constitute denial of the variances so it would have to be an affirmative motion to deny the variances. Criego: · Questioned if it was possible to deny the Motion and then go forward with a new Motion allowing certain variances to this particular application such as requests 1, 3 and 4. Rye said you could approve some of them. The Commission can approve variances 1, 3 and 5. · Then the new Resolution has to be written up and come before the Commission for approval? · Kansier said they could alter the Resolution before them. · That is the best solution. · Rye said it was up to the Commission. Stamson: · Can the Commission pass it at that time? part of the Resolution. Rye said the Commission would be passing MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ACCEPTING RESOLUTION 01- 020PC WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: DELETING VARIANCE REQUESTS #2 AND #5 IN THE DOCUMENT. #2) A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 8.5 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES, RATHER THAN MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 FEET AS REQUIRED FOR THE SUM OF SIDE YARDS ON A NONCONFORMING LOT OF AT LEAST 15 FEET. #5) A 214 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,394 SQUARE FEET, RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AREA OF 2,180 SQUARE FEET AND ACCEPT THE REMAINING PART OF THE RESOLUTION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'uMN 121001 .doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Stamson stated the Commission approved the Variance Resolution with numbers 1, 3 and 4. The appeal period is 5 days. Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting. 5. Public Hearings: A. Cases #01-062 & #01-063 Merlyn Olson Development is requesting consideration for a preliminary PUD Plan and a preliminary plat consisting of 5.003 acres to be subdivided into 32 townhouse lots on the property located on the south side of CSAH 21, one-half block north of Colorado Street, directly west of Duluth Avenue and east of West Avenue. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated December 10, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. This site consists of a total of 5.003 acres ofunplatted, vacant land. In July, 2001, the Planning Commission approved an exception to the minimum 1 O-acre requirement for a PUD in order to allow the developer to move forward with this application. This action does not guarantee approval of the PUD plan, in whole or in part. The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on November 13, 2001. At that meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several concerns raised by the staff. The Planning Commission also heard testimony from several residents of the area opposed to this project. The Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow the developer to address the issues raised at this meeting. Staff raised 12 issues in their report. At the meeting on November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission raised 6 concerns - density, traffic, storm water calculations, sidewalks, County Road 21 improvements and a more creative design. The overall design of this project has not changed. Kansier also presented the Planned Unit Development Criteria and Findings along with staff's 11 conditions of approval: 1. The developer must provide a design for a right-in/right-out access at the intersection of Duluth Avenue and Racine Street. 2. The unit identified as Lot 1, Block 7, must be located at least 30' from the 100-year flood elevation of the NURP pond, or it must be eliminated. 3. The 10' strip of land shown as a road easement for CSAH 21 must be dedicated as right-of-way. 4. A sidewalk connection to the public sidewalks along CSAH 21 and Duluth Avenue must be provided. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXMN 121001 .doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 5. Homeowner's Association documents and covenants, specifically addressing the maintenance of the private street and other common space, must be provided with the final plans. 6. A lighting plan for the private streets must be provided. 7. An irrigation plan must be provided with the final plans. 8. A drainage and utility easement must be provided over all of Outlot B. 9. The plat must identify the drainage and utility easements over the wetlands and storm water ponds. 10. The items outlined in the memorandum from the City Engineer, dated August 1, 2001, must be addressed prior to the final plat. 11. All necessary permits from other agencies must be obtained prior to any grading on the site or prior to final plat approval. Mr. Pat Corkle of SRF Consulting Group, the City's consultant, presented the Traffic Report. The report indicated with the construction of the proposed project, all key intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS (Level of Service) A. The worst approach would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in the year 2005 with existing geometrics and traffic control. Atwood questioned the times of the rush hour. Corkle stated it was from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Criego questioned the impact of the right-in, right-out on Duluth Avenue pushing the traffic out on West Avenue. Corkle responded with the number of trips it would still work adequately. There may be a little more delay, but it would still work. Corkle confirmed the traffic numbers did not produce any volume of any significance. Comments from the public: Applicant Merlyn Olson, thanked all parties involved in this project for their quick response. He was in favor of the fight-in/right-out access on Duluth and Racine. If the setback to the pond does not meet the required 30 foot setback they would be able to put one of the other units in and comply. They are asking for a special consideration for less than 20 feet between the buildings. In the process of narrowing the street and moving the buildings away from County Road 21 to give a ten foot easement, they moved the two- unit building, which is next to Duluth Avenue, which will help with sight lines. Olson said they can comply with all 11 conditions. Aaron Halling addressed the three concerns raised by the Watershed District. All issues have now been met and will resubmit their application. Lyaman McPherson, 16282 West Avenue, felt there had been no apparent change to the project. There are further concerns raised especially the 10 foot easement to County Road 21 and should technically be removed from the calculations. Even if the zoning L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminutesXMN121001 .doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 allows 7.2 units per acre, nothing states the Commission is compelled to accept the maximum amount per acre. Suddenly 32 units are squeezed in between single family homes. The developer is requesting variances between the building to make them fit. McPherson stated he would not spend $195,000 for a house that he couldn't walk on a sidewalk to get out of. His calculations indicated the developer's proceeds from the units fight now would be $5.9 Million. If reduced to 24 units they would receive $4.32 Million. He did not feel the neighbors have to put up such a drastic change and suggested a lower density. Mike Gundlach, Prior Lake City Council, said the townhomes were proper for the property but did not feel the current project is a good use for the land. The first problem is that it does not meet the City's requirement for a PUD. There are some acreage issues and obviously they will have to get some variances to get a PUD. Not certain that is a good use of a PUD. Does it meet the purpose of a PUD? Which means that the City and the builder trade off for some clustering of homes to get some open space. Can the objective be met without a PUD? In this case there is a private road where a variance can be approved in some cases. Not sure if the density can be met with or without a PUD. Can the setbacks be met without a PUD? If the Commission decides a PUD is not appropriate in this particular context, if in fact, the Commission does decide a PUD is appropriate, what are the tradeoffs? We need to ask what the tradeoffs are. There is not a lot of open space. What would this look like without a PUD? Has that been explored? Why do we have the PUD process and where did it come from? Bill Jacobson 4385 Racine Street, questioned the traffic study. The study does not state what time of year. The heavy use of West Avenue is in the summer. West Avenue is packed with fisherman and traffic to Captain Jack's. It is difficult getting out on County Road 21. Despite what the study indicates there is no easy access. Another issue brought up last meeting is the extra parking. Visitors will be forced out in the street. There is no other place in Prior Lake that has a development like this proposal. This development will be packed in like sardines. Variances would have to be granted to even make this proposal work. There are no hardships for this density. The developer says he will meet the conditions, but we don't see them today. Asked that the matter be delayed until all the issues are in place. Not against development but the number of units in this space is creating a precedent for Prior Lake resulting in additional traffic problems and changing the whole nature of a residential area. Criego asked Bill Jacobson what his recommendation would be for the property. Jacobson responded a group home for handicapped but knew that is not a priority. He believed a development could take place without an added 250 cars coming out on two streets. Not against the development oftownhomes but the number of units and density is too much. He would like to see more open space. JoAnne Brandstedter, 4452 Colorado Street, does not personally know about the fishing and parking problems on West Avenue, however she does face St. Michael's School and there are considerations of the rush hour other than the weekends, school hours and Wednesday nights. The rush hour is not necessarily with the traffic study hours. Her L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 121001 .doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 other concern was for her property as well as her neighbors with the standing water and flooding. Landscape will take a long time to mature. She was interested in fencing around the project. Brandstedter felt there was a lot of fancy number crunching without changing the project. Pat Heaney, 4642 Pleasant Street, had questions on the traffic study. Where and when did the study take place? The consultant states the access area on West Avenue and County Road 21 is easy to see. As a jogger Heaney goes out of his way to avoid that area. St. Michael's is expanding and does not know how they are going to handle the traffic. Would like a discussion on the half acre of possible park. Maybe that area could be used for some aesthetic purposes upon entering the downtown. Is it accurate if this project could be developed other than a PUD, would 5 to 7 units be removed? In looking to the future, I hear a lot of plans for Main Avenue and County Road 21, as prudent developers the City needs to look at this area. County Road 21 is only going to get more and more crowded. Richard Keeney, 16102 Lakeside, was concerned with this development fitting into the neighborhood. Questioned if the development could fit into the land use district. Keeney went on to explain the Conditional Use ordinances. Felt a better use of the land would be for duplexes. Merlyn Olson, the developer, commented on the remarks and comments: The development is below the required density and meets all the requirements. · The required open space is 19,800 square feet - they are providing 83,639 square feet. · Regarding the Council Member's comments: This property could not be developed unless it was a PUD. Without a PUD, a public street would be a minimum of 32 feet wide with a dedicated right-of-way of about 60 to 66 feet and a common setback of 30 feet. The setback from the County Road would be another 30 feet. · Comments about clustering the buildings: Olson responded he spent years coming up with a design for a PUD. It is the only design that works for the area. · Parking space - the requirement is 2 spaces per unit. There are 64 spaces plus an additional 11 along the street. · They did request a variance to the PUD. Ten acres is the requirement, but they came before the Planning Commission several months ago and were approved. · The traffic study - the LOC (Level of Service) in the area is "A". "A" being the best, "F" being the worst. It is a very good rating for serving this area. · The storm water issue: There is a storm water collection basin in the area. Their design for the street will control the runoff. · Parkland: Staff felt the property would not be suitable for parking and the developer will contribute money for parkland in other areas. · The last gentleman spoke of the development as a Conditional Use Permit. They are not planning on a Conditional Use and are within the guidelines, which allow for a more dense use of the property. · They will preserve as much of the natural topography as possible. The buildings are designed to fit in the topography of the area. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 121001 .doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Stamson: · When the Planning Commission agreed to a PUD process, it was partially because the Commission recognized it was a narrow lot and difficult to develop. Private streets address that. Questioned why the developer needed a variance between the buildings. · Merlyn Olson responded that in the process of moving the buildings - the area became shorter. In accommodating that change they did use some space. They are going to pull the height of the building down. He is trying to work with the City. Dan Willgohs, 4432 Colorado Street, said at the last meeting the density was 5.03 acres. Kansier explained the density calculations. His concem is the traffic with seasonal traffic being higher. At times it is difficult to get on County Road 21 from West Avenue. The parking and high density were also concerns. Bill Jacobson, questioned Kansier regarding the 10 feet right-of-way not being taken into consideration for density. Kansier explained. It was Jacobson's understanding that County Road 21 will be expanded by 10 feet. By this procedure it is allowing another 10 feet off County Road 21. He also felt the traffic study was not done during the real use of the area. Sue McDermott clarified the traffic numbers were taken in August of 2000 on Colorado Street and West Avenue over a two day period. Mike Gundlach, Prior Lake City Council, questioned if it is possible under City Ordinance to get a variance for a private road. Kansier said a PUD is the only way to develop a private road in the City. Gundlach asked Kansier to explain the setbacks. Pat Heaney clarified that parkland can mean a passive strip of land, it does not need to be a playground. A strip of green space is also appealing to the eye as you come into Prior Lake. The developer's opinion is that a PUD is the only way to use this land. There is a healthy debate on that. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Kansier explained the modifications as part of the PUD. One of the purposes of a PUD is to allow some flexibility and design. For that reason the ordinance does allow certain modifications to conventional requirements such as setbacks. Under a PUD process it is not a variance as the Commission is used to seeing. It does not have to meet the hardship criteria under a PUD. It is up the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council to determine if those modifications are appropriate for the site. Kansier explained the private street verses a public street is not the width of the traveled roadway. It is the right-of-way, the area normally used for snow deposit, mail boxes, etc. On a public street of this size, normally the City would require 50 feet of right-of way. The Ordinance allows anywhere from a 28 foot to a 32 foot wide traveled road surface. On a private street, easements can make up the difference that would allow for small L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 121001 .doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 utilities and snowplowing. The affect of the private versus public is the setbacks. Setbacks are measured from the right-of-way line on a public street. The private streets are measured from the curb line. That is the major effect. Anther thing the private street does is reduce the impervious surface. As far as parkland, the ordinance requirement is 10%. The City cannot require more than that. The Parks Department has looked at the site and from the City's perspective, a half acre is just too small. The City is then required to develop it and then maintain. It is just too small, not cost effective. A development of this size would contribute over $52,000 cash in lieu of land. The money is used to develop other area parks. Stamson questioned what other modifications are requested besides the private road and the setbacks. Kansier responded from this development that was it. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: This land needs to be developed and the use oftownhomes is probably the appropriate buffer between the single family homes and a very busy county road. Believed a PUD is fight for this application. In the PUD process, it should be a two- way process where the developer shows a positive to make the property work in with the rest of the community or to provide some benefit to the citizens. The City's responsibility is to provide modification, bending of the standard rules of the PUD process to maybe allow tighter housing or smaller streets. The developer has taken advantage of the PUD asking the smaller roads, setbacks and density. · Questioned Merlyn Olson what the advantage of this PUD is to the citizens of Prior Lake. It is just a row oftownhomes. Olson said he is making the availability of affordable homes. It is difficult to purchase a new home in the price range of $165,000 to $195,000. It is a good way to develop the land between the road and single family homes. It would not be feasible for any kind of single family. · Criego - why did you elect to have so many homes in this project? Olson responded he looked at the density available and used that as a guideline. · If the Commission does not feel the fights of the PUD were used properly, the developer has to go back and do it traditionally which could create 5 to 7 less homes. The intent of the PUD is not to maximize the land, the intent is to make it better for the community as a whole. Olson said his response would have to be in the financial area, basically homes are on one side of a private street and all of the services go along the private street corridor where there is a considerable price to put that infrastructure in. If he can't get the number of units proposed it will be difficult to make it financially feasible. · Overall a PUD is the fight use of the property. But the density is too much for the area. The property should not be maximized. There needs to be more benefit to the City than lower price housing. $165,000 to $190,000 is not lower price housing. There are other townhome developments in that price range that have a very nice appearance. · Based on what is before the Commission, would not approve this PUD. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXMN 121001 .doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Atwood: Concurred the PUD makes the criteria. The density is out of line and agreed with Mr. McPherson to reduce to 24 units. With less townhomes it could become unique which is part of the PUD give and take. · Couldn't agree more with the residents with the seasonal traffic impact. The school has a tremendous impact. The school does not start until 9:00 a.m. So the traffic study between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. truly does not reflect the neighborhood traffic patterns. · Opposed to the right-in, right-out access. The sight lines on Duluth to County Road 21 are far from good. · The Commission is not compelled to grant the full density. The density has been maximized and green space has been minimized. Not in favor. · The water infiltration concerns are going to be resubmitted and am interested to see if they pass. · Questioned Kansier about the access on Duluth Avenue. City Engineer Sue McDermott said the Engineering Department originally suggested removal. The Public Works Director felt the access was necessary for emergency vehicles. · If the density was less the issue may be resolved. · This plan should be redrawn to create a more unique plan than just a row of townhomes; cut off the access to Duluth Avenue and add a cul-de-sac. · The neighbors are not against the development but would be pleased with a lower density. Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners this property should be a PUD, however, this plan does not meet the standards and justification for a PUD. It is very close. The density is okay as far as the ordinance goes, but the PUD in this process was used to maximize lots. Would like to see less density for this project. It is not the intent of a PUD. · There needs to be a larger separation between buildings. · Concern was eliminating access to Duluth. If a person lives in the development and doesn't have access to Duluth and is going to the County Market/Holiday end of town, they will have to drive through the Colorado Street neighborhood. The idea is to move the traffic directly out to the collector street and keep it off the residential streets. Otherwise, a couple hundred trips are added to Colorado. Duluth is a collector street and designed for higher traffic. The impact of closing Duluth is a massive negative for Colorado and Pleasant. · Seasonal traffic is different issue. The traffic is steady throughout the year. This development is not going to change the traffic. · The fishing issue is not part of this development, the problem occurs in the same area. · Overall this needs to be revisited and do a better job of justifying the PUD. The criteria have not been met. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXMN 121001.doc 1 0 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Criego: · No matter what this development is, the issue of traffic is going to come up. We have to believe the traffic study as it will not change the seasonal traffic. If the developer comes back with less townhomes, the same traffic issues are going to come up. The main issue is that this project does not conform to the PUD criteria. It does not give the community enough for what it is requesting. Atwood: · In reading over the traffic study - there is no way Duluth Avenue can handle that traffic. · One of the concerns of the neighbors is the times of the study do not reflect the tree traffic of the neighborhood. Because of the school, there are more buses and parents in the area. · Regarding the street lighting nan'ative by the developer - The developer said he would mount the lights on the building but did not see it on the plans. · Another question is the additional 11 parking spaces. Blocks 6 and 7 will not conveniently be able to access those spaces. · Kansier said the City requires decorative and adequate lighting. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on January 7, 2001. A break was called at 8:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m. B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 10, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek, Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 1,260 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 3,567 square feet (46.4%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet (30%). L:\01 files\01 plancomm\0 lpcminutesWIN 121001 .doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 On October 8, 2001, the Planning Commission granted a variance for an impervious surface coverage area of 38% (Resolution 01-011PC). This variance allowed the applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38% coverage area. The applicant has since received an engineer's report on the need for the lakeside patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structure foundation. The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter of recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio (cap) for soil stability. The Department noted the absence of calculations in the letter to support their recommendation for the cap. However, without conducting an analysis of the subject site, the Engineering Department does not support nor dispute the applicants engineer of record. The Department does suggest there are alternative methods to stabilize the soils and retaining wall thereby eliminating the patio cap and the impervious surface coverage area. The Department Of Natural Resources submitted comments for this report. In short, the DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the City Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the patio cap is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfaces can be eliminated in their place. The staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicant's variance request for 46.4% impervious surface area as the request does not meet all of the hardship criteria due to existing conditions on the nonconforming lot of record, the approval for a building permit to construct the existing structure with a 30% impervious surface coverage area, and the recently approved 38% impervious variance. In addition, the City Engineering Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the soils that would not result in additional impervious surface. Stamson questioned the assumption is going from 30% to 38% to finish the driveway. Horsman said the 38% granted was to allow the applicant to have the driveway. What came up after the fact was the letter to allow the patio. Stamson clarified that if the Commission denies this request, the applicant can still have the 3-car driveway but has to remove the patio. Criego questioned if the City Engineer came up with any recommendations. Horsman responded the City Water Resource Coordinator looked at it but did not submit a response in writing but in discussions did recommend improving the existing retaining wall or replace it to stabilize it to do the job it was intended to do and then by plantings, sod or other vegetation allowing an impervious area should not dis-stabilize the soils in that area. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN 121001 .doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 Comments from the public: Allison Gontarek, representative for D. Mark Crouse, distributed a response generated by the engineer based on the staff report. One of the points in the staff report is that there were no calculations done. According to their engineer it is a water problem in this situation and not a calculation issue, it is more of keeping the structure safe from erosion. Mr. Crouse did go ahead and create the impervious surface without a variance relying on wrong information, however he did not create the hardship or the practical difficulties of this lot. He was permitted and did expand and raise the existing footprint to comply with the elevations requirements. Gontarek spoke to Lani Leichty (Water Resource Coordinator for the City of Prior Lake), who did not have a specific alternative but to possibly use drain tile and correcting the retaining wall. Both of the suggestions also have problems. The applicant suggested using alternative management runoff methods. The amount of impervious surface that is going to increase on the patio is not much. Gontarek is not disputing the variance should have been applied for but felt this was a reasonable use. They could not get the patio information for the first variance request. Mr. Crouse will correct the problems but does not want to jeopardize his home. He would like to work with the Planning Commission and come to a reasonable decision. Gontarek also said Lani Leichty felt the Watershed District requirements are becoming more of an issue. The public hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: · Not in favor of the request. The request is a gross number to be dealing with. · Supported staff's recommendation to deny. Criego: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. Stamson: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. The intent of thc impervious surface regulations is to prevent water runoff from the lake. · This patio was built specifically to run water to the lake. It is direct conflict with the intent of the Ordinance. · There also seems a resistance to remove the concrete and a retaining wall that was not built appropriately, which is another lake water issue. · Other agencies familiar with the property feel there are alternatives to protect the building structure yet not defy the Ordinance or its intent. · It is an economic issue is not a hardship. · Supported rejecting this variance. L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXaMN 121001 .doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2001 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01- 025PC DENYING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman stated the applicant has 5 business days to appeal. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Criego requested a workshop for the Planning Commission. Rye said that was the intent with the new commissioner on board. Stamson stated the City was looking for applications for a new commissioner. Applications are available from Administration before December 18, 2001. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Come Carlson Recording Secretary L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN 121001 .doc 14