HomeMy WebLinkAbout0712992.
3.
4.
A.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #99-043 Charlotte Roehr is requesting an ordinary high water setback
variance for the property located at 15322 Red Oaks Road.
Case File #99-042 Brian Burkart is requesting the following variances: lot area; road
access elevation; impervious surface and driveway for the property located at 15759
West Avenue.
Case File #99-041 Brad and Michele Lein are requesting a 6.5 foot variance to the
side yard setback for the property located at 3852 Pershing Street.
Case File #99-029 (Continued) Paul and Mary Viereck are requesting an amendment
to Section 1102.1104 of Zoning Ordinance relating to Outdoor Display and Sales
within the C-3 Specialty Business Use District.
Old Business:
Case File #98-070 consider request by Robert Jader for time extension for a variance
previously granted for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\99FILES\99PLCOMM~PCAGENDA~AG071299.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY JULY 12, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The July 12, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Stamson, Criego and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar, Zoning Administrator Steve
Horsman, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Absent
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the June 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:34 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Vonhof read the public hearing statement and opened the public hearings.
A. Case File #99-043 Charlotte Roehr is requesting an ordinary high water
setback variance for the property located at 15322 Red Oaks Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated July 12, 1999 on file in the
office of the Planning Director.
Staff felt all of the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval of
the OHW setback variance with three conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued
until a plan (public or private) is approved to obtain road access at or above the minimum
required of 907.9 or a variance is granted by the City. 2. The survey must be amended to
indicate the screened porch and second story deck meeting the 49-foot OHW setback. 3.
The maximum driveway width cannot exceed 24 feet measured at the property line.
DNR Area Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch, (letter dated July 1, 1999) was not opposed to the
setback variance but recommended conditions of approval for consideration.
1 :\99file s\99plcomm\pcminh-nn071299.doc 1
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, 16670 Franklin Trail, attomey for the applicant, spoke on the hardship
conditions emphasizing the property is unique with 3 lakeshore setbacks where setback
averaging cannot be used. From an undue hardship standpoint there is no building
envelope without a variance. The cause of the hardship is the unique design of the plat
dating back to the 1930's. Huemoeller felt the proposed use is reasonable and consistent
with the neighborhood. It is conservative with respect to the impervious surface. The
new proposal will take the property out of the flood plain. The applicant originally started
the process with staff in 1998, but did not submit an application until after the new zoning
ordinance was adopted leaving the applicant subject to the change of ordinances. The
applicant intends to engage in a private agreement with the City with regard to the road
elevation and improvement. Huemoeller also addressed the driveway and turnaround
issue.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Reviewed the application and agreed the variance hardship criteria had been met.
· Tovar commented on the 24 foot driveway condition.
Stamson:
· Hardship criteria had been met. The property is unique with no legal building
envelope without a variance.
· The proposal is a substantial improvement over the existing structure which is below
the flood elevations.
· The applicant has done a commendable job working within the intent of the
ordinance.
· Support as presented.
Criego:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
· Tovar said the road was a dedicated public road. The driveway is private. The
Private Use of Public Property Agreement would give the applicant the opportunity at
their cost, to improve the road to meet City ordinances and be out of the flood plain.
· The road has to be raised to 907.9.
· Supportive of staff's recommendations and conditions.
Cramer:
· Question for staff: Any concern after the grade is raised? Is the adjoining cabin above
the flood plain? Tovar explained the drainage swale along the property line.
· If the road is improved, does the City look at the drainage? McDermott responded
that they did review the drainage.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299. doc 2
· Needs turnaround in the driveway for safety.
· Supported the variance request, but would like to see the third condition removed.
Applicant Charlotte Roehr commented the hammerhead driveway is in the right-of-way.
She stated she was volunteering to build a longer road for the City rather than a shorter
road to use a turnaround. Roehr said she would compromise a 5 foot strip on her
property for a driveway rather than encroaching on the lake or going below the 904 level
and a nan'ow driveway.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-
11PC APPROVING A 26 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF 49 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
SETBACK OF 75 FEET WITH AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE CONDITION #3
REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY REMAIN AT 24 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO DIRECT STAFF TO
RESEARCH THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO GRANT CHARLOTTE ROEHR A
DRIVEWAY VARIANCE.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. Case File #99-042 Brian Burkart is requesting the following variances: lot
area; road access elevation; impervious surface and driveway for the property
located at 15759 West Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated July 12, 1999 a copy in the
office of the City Planner.
Staff felt with respect to the lot area variance and driveway access elevation variance, the
variance hardship criteria have been met and recommends approval with three conditions:
1. The PID numbers and legal description are combined to create one lot prior to the
issuance of a building permit. 2. A revised survey compliant with all other ordinances be
submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Year round occupancy of the
structure will be permitted upon submittal of an emergency management plan to be
approved by the Police Chief and Fire Chief.
The hardship criteria with respect to driveway width and impervious surface have not
been met. These variance should be denied and a revised survey submitted prior to
approval of a building permit.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299.doc 3
--- Tovar read a letter from Matt Tofanelli in opposition to the requested variances.
Comments from the public:
Brian Burkhart, addressed Tofanelli's letter stating he is moving into the home. Burkhart
came to the City last year and worked with staff to find a plan for his home that would fit
all criteria. He understands the road is private and if he did raise the road it would cause
considerable drainage problems for the neighbors. Burkhart questioned the lot square
footage. Tovar responded the numbers submitted by the applicant were drawn up by his
surveyor. Burkhart went on to say his calculations of lot area would be 6,417. He feels
his home is smaller than the average home on the lake. He is asking for the larger
driveway because there is no parking on the road. Burkhart questioned submitting a plan
for the Police and Fire Chiefs. Tovar addressed the conditions and ordinances explaining
city emergency vehicles would need a plan to be able to get to his home.
John Trulson said he has owned the lot for 20 years and paid taxes for water and sewer.
He does not feel there is a big concern for a plan for emergency vehicles. Trulson said he
has been going to the area for many years with garbage trucks which are the same weight
and never had any problems. Trulson also said he has never talked to Mr. Tofanelli
regarding the sale of the property. The square footage of the lot is 6,416 square feet. The
land between the lot and lakeshore was developed in the 1920's and belonged to everyone
in the development. Trulson feels there is actually over 8,500 square feet with the
additional land down by the water. It would be better to have a larger driveway and park
3 cars on the property. As far as the road elevation, he does not see a decent solution to
the issue. There are other homes on the lake with lower elevations. He suggested a wider
driveway so emergency vehicles can turn around.
Rye responded with the re-calculations of the lot size at 6,416 square feet, the impervious
surface is still over at 35.9 percent.
Charlie and Mary Sunder live adjacent to the property, owning lots 10, 9 and part of 8.
The Sunders explained Matt Tofanelli's concerns with the sale of the lot. Mr. Sunder
talked to Mr. Trulson and Mr. Burkhart about the sale price which was approximately
twice the amount Burkhart bought it for. They do not see the hardships. Their concern
was Mr. Burkhart is a realtor and should have known what the property was worth and
that the lot is substandard. Currently, with the heavy rain, the Sunders have standing
water in their back yard and will only get worse with a higher impervious surface with the
proposed home. Another concern is drainage with existing road and the improvements
already made. Sunders felt Burkhart's home is too large for the lot, pointing out the
neighbor's homes are larger but they have more land. Mrs. Sunder explained the land
location with the neighbor's detached garages.
Criego questioned how long the Sunders owned their home. Sunders responded since
1990. Tovar explained the administrative plat.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299 .doc 4
Georgia Olson owns lots 6 and 19 stated she was present to support the applicant's effort
to build offthe roadway down by the lake. Olson was concerned with applicant's
drainage swale, stating the water would definitely mn into Sunder's back yard as well as
her own. She is very concerned for the runoff and the impervious surface. The back of the
lot is a steep hill with a 10 foot walkway. If applicant develops this property the
walkway will be washed out and will not be able to be used. Olson noted she knows 4
other people looking to buy the property. The "Sale" sign is still up. Burkhart is the
realtor selling the lot. Mrs. Olson stated no one returned her calls when she inquired
about the lot. She expressed concern for the landscape, preservation of the lakeshore and
impervious surface. She also mentioned they would lose their view of the lake.
Mary Sunder clarified the lot price was $329,000.00 with the house.
Brian Burkhart, clarified he originally bought the property for himself, he works for
Anderson Consulting and being a real estate agent is not his main profession. He
explained why he kept up the "Sale" sign. Burkhart is not asking for any setbacks. He
feels he is in the building envelope and there would be less runoff with gutters.
Sandra Tofanelli, 15731 West Avenue, stated everything in the letter by her husband is
tree. She also contacted Mr. Burkhart last year to buy the lot. Her main concern is for
the impervious surface. The neighbors spent over $6,200 to repair the road and
lakeshore. All the mnoffwill wash out the road. She feels the size of the home can be
reduced. The neighbors' homes are built over 3 lots. Four homes will not be able to gain
access if the road washes out.
Brian Nasi, friend of Mr. Burkhart, felt there was no fault or wrong-doing with the lot
price. He believes the home proposed at 2,000 square feet is undersized for the
neighborhood. He pointed out Mr. Burkhart is working with a subdivision designed in
the 1930's with the old standards. Nasi felt the request for a 5 percent impervious surface
variance is minimal. The parking area is reasonable.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Tovar gave the new lot area for a 2,270 square foot variance and a 5.9 percent
impervious surface variance.
· There is a total of 5 variance requests for construction.
· It does not matter if the applicant is a developer or realtor. The concern is for the lot
size and level of variances. The lot has been taxed as buildable.
· Impervious surface is an important issue and should be maintained at 30 percent. The
DNR recommends 25 percent. There are no impervious surface hardships. Will not
support.
· The 8 foot driveway variance is not a hardship. It is not a requirement to have a 32
foot driveway. Reducing to 24 feet would reduce the overall impervious surface.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299.doc 5
· There are no side yard setbacks requested.
· Question to staff- where does the average floor start? Tovar said there are no
proposed elevations or plans, expect it would be between 15 feet and a 35 feet.
house proposed is 3 stories.
· Agreed with the lot size and road being increased.
· The lot width is satisfactory.
The
Cramer:
· Agreed with Criego's comments.
· This Commission is very stingy on impervious surface and runoff to the lake. Where
ever impervious surface can be removed it should be.
· Cannot support the impervious surface and driveway variances.
· The lot area and width variance does meet the hardship criteria.
· Supports the road access elevation variance of 1.55 feet.
Vonhof:
· Value and cost issues are not significant to the Commissioners. The concern is for
the hardship criteria.
· Agreed with Commissioners on the lot area, road elevation and lot width criteria have
been met.
· The impervious surface and driveway width are not met.
Stamson:
· Agreed with staff and Commissioners that the hardship criteria have been met for the
lot area, lot width and road access.
· Given the significant drainage issues on this property, cannot support the impervious
surface or 8 foot driveway width variance.
Open Discussion:
Criego is concerned for drainage on this particular property potentially washing out the
neighbor's property and road.
Rye said there is a requirement, that the applicant submits a complete grading and
drainage plan for evaluation by the City Engineer.
Tovar explained the private road issue and the City cannot enforce the requirements.
Criego felt the City should have some say because of the runoff to the lake.
Vonhof questioned control of the runoff. Rye responded. McDermott said they would
have to wait and see what is submitted. The City cannot place conditions on a private
roadway.
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299.doc 6
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-13PC
APPROVING A 1,582 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT AREA OF
6,417 SQUARE FEET FOR A LOT TO BE BUILDABLE RATHER THAN THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED OF 8,000 SQUARE FEET; AND A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE
TO PERMIT A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 55.8 FEET AT THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH OF 57.3
FEET; AND A 1.55 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW ROAD ACCESS ELEVATION
OF 906.45 RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED ELEVATION OF 907.9 AS
PER THE FLOOD ORDINANCE AND THE 4 CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE
PLANNING REPORT AND SUBMIT A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN WITH
THE APPLICATION WHICH MINIMIZES ROAD RUNOFF AND SEDIMENTATION
PROBLEMS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-14PC
DENYING A 5.9% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF 35.9%
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED ON 30%; AND AN 8 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY WIDTH OF 32.00 FEET RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED OF 24.00 FEET.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
A recess was called at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:06 p.m.
C. Case File #99-041 Brad and Michele Lein are requesting a 6.5 foot variance
to the side yard setback for the property located at 3852 Pershing Street.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 12, 1999
on file in the office of the City Planner.
Staff concluded the variance for a side yard setback and for the required 15' combined
sideyard setback for the garage/room portion of the addition along the west property line
meets the hardship criteria. This shall allow for a minimum building setback along the
west property line of 5.82 feet and a variance of 5.68 feet from the required 11.5 feet per
City Code 1102.405. However, the 6.5 foot variance request for the room portion of the
addition on the east lot line does not meet hardship criteria and should be setback 16.5
feet from the property line, as prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of any
variances should also be subject to the condition that the existing amount of impervious
surface will not increase and the applicant provide grading plans acceptable to the City
Engineer for the treatment of storm water runoff prior to building permit approval.
Comments from the public:
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\n-m071299.doc 7
Michele Lein, 3852 Pershing Street, stated they have been the homeowners for 21 years
and do not have a garage. Applicants are staying within their existing impervious
surface. The Leins have worked with City staff to work out the best possible plan
meeting the city codes and requirements. They feel they meet the hardship criteria with
the addition improving the neighborhood. Mrs. Lein explained the proposal and asked
the Commissioners to consider their proposal.
Renee Siebenaler, 3842 Pershing Street, supported the variance request and feels it is the
best alternative for the neighbors.
Paul Christensen, lives in the neighborhood and said he uses the adjacent walkway and
supports the requests.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Cramer:
· Commend homeowners for looking at all the alternatives including the impervious
surface.
· It is a substandard lot and applicant has made every attempt to meet the code.
· Supports both east and west side yard variances. The proposed addition is setback
from the walkway. It is a unique property.
· It is an improvement to the neighborhood.
Vonhof:
· Originally in favor of staff report, but the applicant made a very compelling point.
The variance hardships have been met and supports both requests.
· The efforts applicants went through is commendable.
Stamson:
· Concurs with Commissioners.
· The variance hardships have been met on both sides of the home.
· The ordinance is not to create a tunnel length affect and allow reasonable air flow.
The 10 foot walkway takes care of that issue.
Criego:
· Agreed with Commissioner's comments.
· Questioned the .8 foot variance. Horsman explained the existing structure and
setbacks.
· Feels strongly the 10 and 5 foot setback is reasonable.
· Hardship has been met with building length.
· Reduce setbacks. The garage entrance would have to be .8 feet less.
1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcminh-nn071299.doc 8
· Mrs. Lein explained the proposed deck plan.
· Recommend approve all variances except variance dealing with the side yards having
a sum of 15 feet.
Open discussion:
Discussed the garage setbacks.
Applicant Brad Lein, 3852 Pershing, explained he is using a substandard 12 foot garage
door.
Cramer is willing to retain the impervious surface trade offto keep the garage. Vonhof
agreed. The variance hardships are met.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A 5.68 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
GARAGE/ROOM ADDITION SETBACK OF 5.82 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 11.5 FEET, AND A .8 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A 14.2 FOOT
COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A 6.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO A 10 FOOT
SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 16.5 FEET.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Cramer and Stamson. Nay by Criego. MOTION
CARRIED.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Case File #99-029 (Continued) Paul and Mary Viereck are requesting an
amendment to Section 1102.1104 of Zoning Ordinance relating to Outdoor Display
and Sales within the C-3 Specialty Business Use District.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated July 12, 1999, on file in the
office of the City Planner.
Staff recommended approval of the Ordinance amending Section 1102.1104 of the Prior
Lake City Code.
Rye and Tovar explained the existing accessory use ordinance.
Comments from the public:
Paul and Mary Viereck, 3465 140th Street NW, Shakopee, pointed out their goals to see
the redevelopment for Prior Lake's downtown. Vierecks felt they met all the
requirements and explained their proposal and expectations. Paul Viereck stated he
attended the recent downtown meeting and was impressed with the attendance. Mr.
Viereck invited the Commissioners to talk to downtown businesses and enforce the
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299.doc 9
ordinances to improve the area. Mr. Viereck felt it is up to the entire community to
improve the downtown area.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stflmson:
Still slightly uncomfortable changing thc ordinance given the downtown committee's
plan not being completed, however what staff has as conditions is appropriate.
· Would like to add two additional conditions. 1) Display area be limited to the
sidcyard and be setback from the leading edge of the building and/or the adjoining
building whichever is less. Only allow in instances where there is buildings on both
lots, so you cannot have a display on a corner lot. 2) Minimize storage and display in
the downtown area.
· Concern for abutting residential districts.
· If this ordinance is in place it is more likely a new business will put the building back
with thc display in the front. It is counter productive.
Criego:
· Staffput together what I was looking for.
· Stamson's concern for display in the front could not occur with staff's condition.
· Happy with staff's report.
· Rye explained the reasons staff came up with the conditions.
· Criego said his concern for the restrictions. Items C and D should be for any
adjoining property, not just residential.
Cramer:
· For the most part support the new ordinance. It will make downtown more
aesthetically pleasing.
· It will set the tone Prior Lake wants to keep businesses downtown and encourage
other business to come to our community.
· In some ways share Stamson's concern, how to limit setbacks. But in Viereck's case,
they have a porch and is acceptable and conducive to the area. Does not want to see
racks in front of other buildings.
· Support ordinance. Would like to see Stamson's concerns addressed.
Vonhof:
· The criteria for the amendment had been met. There is a public need for this and
everyone agrees.
· Look at how ordinances fit into the City's Comprehensive Plan. We want to make it
attractive to come to downtown to walk around and shop.
· Displays cannot block sidewalks.
· Less concerned with having some type of transition zones.
· Agreed going with a more general ordinance. This is consistent with the entire
downtown area.
1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299 .doc
10
Stamson:
, Agreed with Vonhof's compelling argument for downtown displays.
· Still feels strongly on his comments regarding restrictions.
There was a brief discussion on the existing ordinance with limited display and porch
area.
MOTION BY VONHOF SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 99-XX AMENDING SECTION 1102.1104
OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Cramer and Criego. Nay by Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #98-070 consider request by Robert Jader for time extension for a
variance previously granted for the property located at 14962 Pixie Point Circle.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated July 12, 1999 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
Staff recommended approval of the 90 day extension to November 10, 1999.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Be consistent with both variances.
· Tovar explained the 90 day extension procedure.
Stamson:
· Is there a problem with a year extension? Rye said there is no particular problem.
The practice has been the 90 day extension. It is not unreasonable.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-
10PC APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR A VARIANCE PREVIOUSLY
GRANTED (RESOLUTION 98-19PC) TO JUNE 28, 2000.
Vonhof said he does not support the variance but does support the motion.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn071299.doc 11
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Recording Secretary
l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm071299.doc 12