HomeMy WebLinkAbout0510992.
3.
4.
A.
Bo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Fire Station- City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
CASE FILES #98-172 AND #98-173 BRADLEY OVERBY REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR
STRUCTURE SETBACKS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN LAND RECREATIONAL USE
IN AN R-1 DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ISLAND VIEW
CIRCLE.
CASE FILES #99-013 AND #99-014 D.R. HORTON REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY
OF PRIOR LAKE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE
PROPERTY KNOWN AS DEERFIELD LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 21, SOUTH
OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC
FACILITY.
CASE FILE #99-024 MARY GORSHE, 4230 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE REQUESTING
VARIANCES FOR BLUFF SETBACK, A FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOT AREA AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE.
Old Business:
New Business:
CASE FILE #99-023 MATHEW PRETTYMAN REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A BLANKET
UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3442 SYCAMORE TRAIL.
CAPSULE PROJECT SUMMARY - CIP PROJECTS.
Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~CAGENDA~AG051099. DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, 'Minnesota'55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
^N EQU^L OPPOR'rUN~TV EMPLOWR
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 10, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The May 10, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue
McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Kuykendall noted part of the audio/video tape did not work during part of the April 26,
1999 meeting.
The Minutes from the April 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #98-172 and #98-173 (Continued) Bradley Overby requesting a
variance for structure setbacks and a conditional use permit for open land
recreational use in an R-1 District for the property located on the south side of
Island View Circle.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 10, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
On April 26, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a conditional Use
Permit for Brad Overby to conduct "Open Land Recreation" on an outlot located in Island
View 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission heard from the public and the applicant.
The public hearing was closed and the item was continued to seek input from the DNR
regarding the shore restoration and the number of docks permitted on site.
Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist suggested the shore be restored with riprap as
permitted without a DNR permit, or an application for a permit for the wall as constructed
be submitted to the DNR. There is no limit on the number of docks on this site.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcminh~n051099.doc 1
However, the site is limited to the mooring of 4 watercrafts at any given time. The DNR
supports an accessory structure being placed on the lot. Only one water oriented
accessory structure is recommended. These concerns have been added to the conditions
of the CUP.
Staff recommended City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with specific
conditions outlined in the Planning Report.
The Commissioners briefly discussed the ownership with outlots.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING IN THIS MATTER.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Heating Statement.
Comments from the public:
Brad Overby, 15901 Fremont Avenue, stated last year two families owned the lot, he is
now the sole owner. Overby's concern was to store his camper on the outlot. Living only
ten houses away, tlis family does not plan on staying in the camper overnight. He would
just like to store it on the outlot and take it camping on weekends. His purpose of having
it on the outlot is because it will not fit next to his house. He is not opposed to visually
shielding the camper with a fence or vegetation. Overby also had photos of the
neighborhood storage. Overby explained the letter he received from the City several
years ago stating he could store the camper on the outlot. Overby explained he has a lot
of money on surveys and permits to address an issue that should not have been an issue.
He has contacted the DNR and is applying for a permit for the retaining wall.
Marie Piette, lives on the second lot from Overby's and sees the trailer every time she
looks out her bedroom window. She wanted the Commissioners to realize Overby's
camper is full size and visually does not fit in the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the seasonal storage.
Overby responded the neighbors store vehicles year
round.
· Pointed out Item #4 of the Conditional Use analysis. This would be a legitimate
parking feature if there was a home on the property. This is not the real argument.
· Not opposed to the camper being on the property.
· Three docks are too much for one property.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 2
· Rye explained if a complaint or violation came to the City regarding the Conditional
Use Permit, the Commissioners would have the opportunity to review before one year
elapsed.
· The DNR does not regulate the docks, but one cannot have more than 4 boats. The
City does not have any jurisdiction.
· Not unreasonable to use the property for year round storage if it meets certain design
criteria in terms of screening.
Stamson:
· Generally supports staff's recommendation.
· Does not agree with Kuykendall's comments on vehicle parking. Concern for turning
every undeveloped lot in the City into an unregulated storage lot.
· Views this as a park.
· This use is for outdoor recreation not a storage area.
· Prefers to see what is allowed in City parks and other recreational facilities.
· Not against the 3 docks - there is 150 feet of lakeshore. The DNR regulates.
· Should be more restrictive on vehicle parking.
Criego:
· Agreed with Stamson and staff's report.
· Does not agree with the number of docks, but not the City's problem.
· Prior Lake has a number of vacant lots with storage, but feels it is unsightly.
Cramer:
· Agreed with staff, Criego and Stamson's concerns on storage for a recreational
vehicle. Should be at primary residence.
· The dockage issue has been addressed.
· The owner is working with the DN-R with the shoreline issue.
Criego:
· With the new Ordinance, it seems that as of May 1, recreational storage should be on
the side or back of the property. Most of the photos the applicant presented of the
neighborhood had storage in the from of the property. It is up to the community to
start flagging those residents.
Kuykendall:
· When is there another piece of property next to a residence for storage that requires
screening? Rye explained the screening requirements were removed during the public
meetings.
· If the applicant is willing to visually care for the storage, it is not unreasonable.
· The issue of dockage should be looked at outside of this matter.
Criego:
· Conditions can be placed on this request.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXmn051099.doc 3
Kuykendall:
· Dockage will become an issue if the City allows it.
· Favors fewer docks.
· The storage could be landscaped and allowed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, DIRECT CITY COUNCIL TO
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
AS FOLLOWS:
1. One water-oriented accessory structure shall be permitted on this site, unless a
variance is granted to the contrary.
2. The allowed shed shall meet all flood proofing and building code requirements. A
building permit is required.
3. The number of sheds and setbacks are subject to any conditions imposed as part of the
variance request (Case 98-172).
4. The existing parking area shall not be expanded or relocated. It may be maintained
including surfacing materials (paving).
5. A revised survey incorporating all conditions placed on the variance and CLIP must
be submitted prior to final CLIP approval.
6. Recreational vehicle parking is restricted to daylight hours and between April 1 st and
November 1 st in any given year.
7. Shoreline improvements (existing or future) must be approved by the DNR. Such
approval must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit for the water
oriented accessory structure.
8. No more than 4 watercraft may be moored or docked at the site at any given time.
Discussion by Commissioners:
· No 24 hours storage of boat on land, but allowed in the water, does not make sense.
· Clarified summer recreational storage.
· As a friendly amendment Criego added "No parking daytime or evening from
November 1 to March 31" to Condition #6. Cramer agreed.
· What is the logic of this proposal that someone should not have recreational
equipment, not even a boat 24 hours a day during the summer months, on land?
· This condition is consistent with the City Ordinance.
Vote taken signified ayes by Stamson, Criego, Cramer, nay by Kuykendall. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-02PC
GRANTING A 9.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 15.3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK TO PERMIT A
WATER ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON AN OUTLOT.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXrnn051099.doc 4
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-03PC
TO DENY A 15.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9.3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE 25 FOOT SETBACK FOR A WATER ORIENTED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The Conditional Use Permit will be heard before the City Council on June 7, 1999.
B. Case Files #99-013 and #99-014 (Continued) D.R. Horton requesting an
amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a zone
change request for the property known as Deerfield located south and west of
County Road 21, south of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Trail and east of the
Ponds Athletic Facility.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 10, 1999 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
D.R. Horton and Deerfield Development filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and a Zone Change for the property located south and west of CSAH 21,
south of Fish Point Road and Wilderness Pond Trail and east of the Ponds Athletic
Facility. The proposal included an amendment the Land Use Plan Map from the current
R-L/MD (Low to Medium Residential) and C-BO (Business Office Park) designations to
the R-HD (High Density Residential) designation on 62.92 acres on the west side of this
property. This proposal also included a rezoning from the current A (Agricultural) and
C-5 (Business Park) district to the R-4 (High Density Residential) district for the 62.92
acres on the west side of the site, and from the A (Agricultural) district to the R-2 (Low to
Medium Density Residential) district for the residual 101.31 acres.
The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public heating on April 26, 1999.
After considerable testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend denial of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. There seemed to be
some consensus some R-2 zoning should be permitted on the property. The Commission
decided to table action on this item to allow the applicant to submit a revised description
of the R-2 location.
Staff recommended approval of the R-1 and R-2 district as presented by the applicant.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXrnn051099.doc 5
Comments from the public:
Bob Wiegert, Paramount Engineering and Design, representing the applicant, supported
staff's report as it addressed the concerned issues from the last public meeting.
Margi Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, was disappointed with the large proposed R-2
district and felt the neighborhood quality of life will be affected. The wildlife and
wetlands are very important to the area. Her impression from the last meeting was there
would be less R-2 district than the new proposal.
Criego questioned what she thought would be a good number. Atwood responded she
would like the entire area zoned single family homes with no townhomes. This R-2
proposal is higher than what was expected two weeks ago.
Kuykendall affirmed it was not.
Kansier repeated the City's original recommendation was the entire acreage be rezoned to
R-2. The density shown on the concept plan was somewhere around four units per acre
overall. In this particular case the R-1 area would allow 3.2 units per acre, the R-2 would
allow 7.2 units per acre and end up with a mix in-between those. Both the R-1 and R-2
districts permit townhouses. R-1 is not an exclusive single family district. Also, the
original proposal included R-4, High Density. This plan is significantly lower.
Criego noted the considerable amount of modification.
Duane Hoffman, 16936 Wilderness Trail, believed according to his numbers, the amount
of R-1 and R-2 districts are coming over the 700 units of the MUSA proposal. Kansier
explained the density. Hoffman felt it was wrong to rezone something without seeing a
proposal. Criego pointed out it was the Commissioners who directed the developer to
bring in a new proposal. Stamson explained the process. Hoffman would like to reduce
the zoning district to whatever the MUSA allows.
Rye mentioned approving the zoning change based on a specific plan can be regarded as
contract zoning which is not permitted under State Law.
Matt Krueger, 16945 Crimson Court, felt the zoning should be changed to R-1. Krueger
questioned what will happen to the sewer with the additional development. McDermott
said there are 2 sewer stubs to this development. The Comprehensive Plan has addressed
how many units can be served by this sewer and that is the maximum allowed. Krueger
questioned what would happen if another parcel was annexed in to Prior Lake.
McDermott explained the sewer would then have to connect to the Metropolitan Council
interceptor at a different location.
Mike Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, said after leaving the last meeting, his
understanding was the buffer would surround the industrial parks. Atwood said this
proposal looks like something the builder is trying to get by with. The homeowners
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 6
agreed with the Commissioners there was going to be a housing buffer to fit townhomes
along the industrial and future industrial park. There would be a flow. This proposal is
not where the neighbors want it to be. Atwood questioned if this is the normal process
for a builder to come in and chip away until there is some middle ground. Criego
responded nothing is normal.
David Edwards, 16966 Crimson Court, said he sensed a great lack of support for the
developer's plan at the last meeting and questioned what changed staff's mind. Kansier
said staff's recommendation was to rezone the entire proposal to R-2. The developer
requested a combination of R-2 and R-4. The staff recommended denial of the high
density and suggested the entire area be zoned R-2 which is consistent with the Land Use
Plan.
Criego clarified the R-2 zone was what the Planning Staff came forward with two weeks
ago. There was a lot of discussion among the Commissioners that varied from that point
of view. It is important not to confuse the two.
Franke Forstner, 5170 Lexington Court, said the Commissioners should be aware a great
number of families with special needs children want to mainstream the children into the
regular school. If the Commissioners allow the development numbers of the proposal,
the school district will be over burdened. She is concerned for the special needs
children's education. She felt if the numbers are increased, the chances of something
going wrong increase. Forstner said she felt townhomes do not belong in the area for
they tend to deteriorate rapidly and attract a certain type of people who create vandalism.
Forstner as a business owner, and the adjoining businesses are concemed for vandals.
Forstner said if there were more single family homes there would be more people like
herself, fairly upstanding citizens. She feels the service calls from police would be kept
down. She would like to recommend the developer form an association.
Kuykendall asked Forstner if she participated in any of the neighborhood meetings or was
familiar with Horton's developments? She responded she did not.
Dan Broderick, 16993 Wilderness Trail, questioned when the roadways would be
designed. Kansier responded when the developer submits a preliminary plat, maybe
sometime in June. Another hearing and notification would go out for the preliminary
plat. Anyone within 500 feet would be notified.
Bryce Huemoeller, attorney for Deerfield Development and John Mesenbrink, has
worked with the property since it was annexed into Prior Lake. Huemoeller explained the
property was originally submitted with low to medium density and approved by the
Metropolitan Council, City Council and the Comprehensive Plan. This is a community
issue set out in the Comprehensive Plan district. It is consistent and necessary for the
area because it is a transitional zone between residential and commercial activity. On
behalf of the land owners he requested the Commissioners make their decision in the
context of the Comprehensive Plan and the low to medium density plan set forth.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 7
Matt Krueger, 16945 Crimson Court, commented after heating Huemoeller say the
Comprehensive Plan indicated the district should be zoned R-1 and R-2. Krueger
recalled at the last meeting the Commissioners felt there should be a small buffer of R-2
between the industry and single family homes. He also felt the smaller amount of R-2
would be appropriate. Why max out the property and congest the neighborhood?
Krueger said he is sure Horton does a good job and said he lived in a townhome. It is a
fun community and a great starter for families. Krueger questioned if this project should
be on this piece of property and stated this area does not need higher density.
Mike Atwood, 16992 Crimson Court, said the Commissioners designated an area north of
County Road 42 for high density and would like to see these townhomes moved to that
area.
The hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· The low to medium density policy for this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
there is no question about it.
· There has been great strides made from the original proposal with more R1 districts.
· The issue of district fairness has been addressed.
· The sewer and traffic will been handled.
· Accept what is presented.
· The Commissioners agreed the principles have been addressed by the developer.
· Commend the developer.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Kuykendall, the developer addressed most of their concerns.
· Last meeting expressed the area should be all R-l; however, in looking at the zoning
ordinance felt this is a good compromise.
· Probably will not support total buildout in R-2 in the future. This is appropriate for
the area.
· There are a lot of natural features, wetlands, etc. in the area designated as R-1, while
the portion designated as R-2 is primarily open land.
· The proposed zoning arrangement is appropriate.
Criego:
· Opinion has not changed, the majority area should be R-1 with a buffer zone of R-2.
· Feels both R-1 and R-2 are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with Iow to
medium housing.
· There should be a smaller buffer area than presented.
· Suggest the area be totally R-1 with a conditional use permit to allow multi-unit
housing.
I: \99fi les\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099 .doc 8
Cramer:
· Felt it is not the perfect zoning request, but it does fall into the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commissioners said everything west ofFish Point Road should be zoned R-1 and
that is the new proposal. The other side of the road should have R-2 looked at. This
plan does address those concerns.
· There will be no R-4 district.
This development will happen in Prior Lake.
Horton's development in Savage is very good and has no fears with zoning R-2 in the
area. Prior Lake's standards will ensure quality housing.
Kuykendall:
· The Commissioners are guided by State Law - questioned the rationale for the new
concept.
· Bob Wiegert, Paramount Engineering and Design, explained the concept came from
the surrounding designs, topography of the land and natural features. The developer
tried to have transitional housing from the north to the south. The natural features on
the property dictated this area should be single family. The City wanted a north/south
major collector, so that was the dividing line. The north was zoned business leaving
the east area with a transitional buffer of R-2. It is a standard design. Fish Point
Road is the dividing line.
· Tovar said Fish Point Road has been laid out in the Comprehensive Plan.
· Supports some R-2 in the area but would like to see less.
Stamson:
· Would also like to see a lower density than R-2 allows. But does not necessarily
mean to cut down on the R-2.
· The developer has to hit the density. The R-1 district has a lot of lake and wetlands,
R-2 is largely open. In order for the developer to make this development work, the R-
1 will be maxed out. Allowing R-2 will give a better density for both districts. The
advantage to having more R-2 rather than none allows flexibility in dealing with the
topography on the other side.
Criego:
· If the Commissioners allocate some of it as R-2, there will be parts of it as high
density. The R-l, through the conditional use permit could have four units under one
roof but does not increase the acreage. The maximum would be around 580 units.
· The road is a reasonable partition point between R-1 and R-2.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE DEERFIELD PROPERTY AS
PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Kansier explained the legal description and division of Fish Point Road.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 9
This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1999.
A recess was called at 8:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 p.m.
C. Case file #99-024 Mary Gorshe, 4230 Grainwood Circle requesting variances
for bluff setback, a front yard setback, lot area and impervious surface.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 10, 1999 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage. The existing structure was more than 50%
destroyed by a fire in January of this year. This application was received prior to the
effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 1999) and is therefore being
processed under the previous Zoning Ordinance. The following variances are being
requested:
A 9.75 foot variance to the bluff setback to permit a structure to be setback 15.25 feet
from the top of bluff rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet [City Code 5-8-
3 (A)].
· A 5.00-foot variance to the front yard setback to permit the structure to be setback 20
feet from the front lot line rather than the minimum required setback of 25 feet (City
Code 5-4-1 ).
· A 5% variance to allow impervious surface of 35% rather than the maximum
impervious surface coverage of 30% [City Code 5-8-3 (B)].
· A 1,070 square foot variance to permit lot area to be 6,430 square feet rather than the
minimum lot area required to be buildable of 7,500 square feet [City Code 5-8-12
(B)].
Patrick Lynch, Area Hydrologist with the DNR, had no objection to the front yard
setback or the lot area variances. However, he suggested the need for the remaining
variances could be eliminated by redesigning the house.
Staff felt hardships were met with respect to the required minimum lot area. A condition
of the variance allows the applicant to maintain a 5-foot side yard setback on one side
with a minimum building separation of 10 feet and a setback of 25 feet from the top of
bluff as written under the previous zoning ordinance. The variance to impervious surface
and the requested setback variances can be reduced or eliminated with a redesign of the
structure.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\n-m051099.doc 10
Comments from the public:
Joe Leher, builder for the applicant, 7586 167th Street, said the existing structure north of
the applicant's property, had several variances granted in 1994. The proposal is 3 inches
above the bluff line. After researching all the alternatives and compromises with the City
the building envelope with a 2 car garage ended up being very small. Leher explained the
proposed home and felt it is not out of proportion compared to the neighborhood. He
feels there is a hardship.
Tovar explained the impervious surface calculations. The lot area above 904 is 6,430
square feet. The variance listed as 1,070 square feet is the proper number. The
impervious surface is over by 305 square feet.
Woody Spitzmueller, 4279 Grainwood Circle, supported the requested variances. He felt
the proposed house is very similar to the original home and harmonious with the
neighboring homes. The parking has always been a problem and this layout is far better
than the existing property. Spitzmueller submitted a letter from another neighbor in
support of the variances.
Lori Peterson, 4255 Grainwood, likes the new proposal and felt it blends in well with the
neighborhood. The street setback will be the same as her home. Agreed with applicant's
proposal.
Commissioner Stamson read into the record a letter from Brian Maciejewski
recommending building on the existing foundation.
The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Agreed with staff on some points.
· Would like to see the impervious surface reduced. Keep the 30% in place. If the
Commissioners grant everyone 5% then there will be a big problem with the lake.
· Regarding the front yard setbacks - would agree to the variance if it improves the
bluff setback.
· The applicant worked hard to follow the DNR guidelines.
· Would like to see how applicant is going to address the impervious surface issue.
Criego:
· Questioned staff on bluff setback.
Tovar described setbacks and the cantilever. Leher
mentioned it was a foot and a half cantilever.
The area has small 50 foot lots. Big impact to the neighbors when moving houses
back and forth. Both neighbors' homes are closer to the lake.
The structure on the left has approximately the same setback as the applicant.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm051099.doc 11
· It was fair to the applicant to want basically the original home which was closer to the
road.
· Stick to the 30% impervious surface. The builder has to come up with a reduction.
Propose the new home not go any closer to the lake than it was. Seems closer to the
lake by a foot and a half.
· The street has congestion problems.
· Approve variance to street, lake variance based on the old structure at its closest
point, require 30% impervious surface and agreed with staff's recommendation with
the 1,070 foot lot area variance.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff with the buildable area variance.
· Does not support the impervious surface, felt very strongly it needs to be 30%.
· Does not support the bluff setback. Should be consistent with the ordinance. Agreed
with staff the hardship criteria have not been met.
· The setback to the street is questionable and would support some leeway in that area.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with Criego on the lake setback.
· Questioned if there was no variance given for the lake side, what would the square
footage be. Leher explained the square footage of the home and design.
· Tovar explained the bluff setback exhibits.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation.
Criego:
· Questioned the 3 car garage. Leher said the garage is 20 x 22 with a small storage
space.
· Tovar explained the applicant could not have a basement with the bluff impact.
· Cannot compare to other properties. This request is not unreasonable to place the
lakeside portion of the new home where the old home was and have the street side
portion of the house further away from the street than it was before. It is not ideal,
but certainly an improvement.
· If a lakeside variance is not granted the applicant has to go back 8 feet closer to the
street than the old home. It is not unreasonable.
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego.
· Applicant made every attempt to keep the existing original foundation while updating
and mitigating some of the setback problems.
· Can not figure how the applicant is going to reduce the impervious surface.
· DNR does not have an objection to the bluff setback.
Kuykendall:
· This can be built within the building envelope. There are other options to fit this
home.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 12
· It may not be exactly what someone wants but a beautiful home can be constructed
without variances.
· Leher explained his problems with design and this proposal is the best they can come
up with.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Mary Gorshe, 4253 Grainwood Circle, pointed out the comparable properties in the
report. Gorshe felt a tuckunder garage does not meet the City height requirements.
Tovar explained how staffmeasures height.
Marv Mirsch, owns a seasonal home on 15432 Red Oaks, said the house on Red Oaks
does not have a tuckunder garage. He feels the Commissioners are forcing the bluff
setback. The house existed for 50 years. He knows the DNR is more concerned with the
screening and vegetation on the hills.
The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.
Continued Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· After heating testimony was more open to granting a bluff setback variance which the
DNR does not prefer but at least open the door to along with the 5 foot front yard
variance.
Criego:
· Grant a 4 foot bluff setback variance, 5 foot street side variance, 1070 square foot
variance to lot area and 30% impervious surface. That gives enough direction to the
builder to develop a package that would fit.
· Regulation is actually 25% impervious surface.
Cramer:
· Comfortable with the lot variance, it is not appropriate to grant a resolution to
something that is not proposed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING A BLUFF SETBACK TO BE NO CLOSER THAN
THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE, ALLOW A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FRONT YARD
SETBACK, ALLOW A MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND ALLOW A
1,070 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT AREA.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn051099.doc 13
RATIONALE: 1) A STRUCTUR~ OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE CANNOT BE
BUILT ON THE FOOTPRINT WITHOUT VARIANCES; AND 2) THE VARIANCE
ON THE STREET SIDE IS LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-023 Mathew Prettyman request for vacation of a blanket
unrestricted easement on the property located at 3442 Sycamore Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 10, 1999 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
In November, 1992, the property owner at 3442 Sycamore Trail filed a registration
proceeding for this property with the District Court. At that time, the City raised an
objection due to the existing utilities on the property. Rather than grant an easement over
the existing utilities, the Court provided for a blanket, unrestricted easement over the
entire property. The purpose of this vacation petition is to remove the unrestricted
easement and to replace it with a defined utility easement.
Staff recommended adoption of Resolution 99-04PC, recommending City Council
approve the proposed vacation of the easement as presented in the Planning Report.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-
04PC RECOMMENDING THE VACATION OF A BLANKET UNRESTRICTED
EASEMENT LOCATED AT 3442 SYCAMORE TRAIL.
Vote taken signified ayes by MOTION CARRIED.
B. Capl)-W[ Project Summary - CIP Projects.
Planning Director Don Rye presented the Planning Report dated May 10, 1999 on file in
the office of the City Planner.
Minnesota Statutes provides all proposed capital improvements be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The summary
describes the CIP process and the funding sources available to the City and expected to
be used in paying for the individual projects. As in past years, the primary constraint is
the availability of money. In previous years, the City share of County road projects took
the lions share of City capital improvement fimds. The proposed CIP still has a heavy
emphasis on roads and streets, but the focus during the next 5 years is on Highway 13
intersection improvements and local street reconstruction.
1 :\99fi les\99pl coram\pcmin\mn051099.doc 14
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· Supports the Main Avenue street lighting. Rye explained the downtown
redevelopment plans and funding.
Criego:
Suggested City Council allocate some funding for each year for downtown.
Cramer:
Questioned Conroy Street improvements. McDermott said she and Kansier met with
a few of the residents and they did not bring up any City interest in any improvement
projects.
Kansier said there are mixed feelings from the area residents.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO REQUEST CITY
COUNCIL SET UP A 5 YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN
AREA.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Recording Secretary ·
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm051099.doc 15