Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092399REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: A. Case File #99-053 Joseph and Carolyn Morgan are requesting a front yard setback variance and a lot area and width variance to construct a single family house with attached garage for the property at 3868 Green Heights Trail. B. Case File #99-058 Dennis and Ramona Johnson are requesting variances for lot area, minimum building separation, setback from property boundaries and the ordinary- high-water mark for the property at 14530 Pine Road. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: A. Discussion on city survey conducted by Decision Resources Ltd. 8. Adjournment: r~L:\99~FIL ~,.~\99PL~O~IM~CP~F~A~Gg$239~. I~2 16200 ~ag~e ~reeK ~ve. ~.~., e'rior LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999 1. Call to Order: The August 23, 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, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the August 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the public hearing statement and opened the first item. A. Case File #99-053 Joseph and Carolyn Morgan are requesting a front yard setback variance and a lot area and width variance to construct a single family house with attached garage for the property at 3868 Green Heights Trail. The City received a letter from the applicants requesting a continuance of the variance hearing to September 13, 1999. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 13, 1999. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #99-058 Dennis and Ramona Johnson are requesting variances for lot area, minimum building separation, setback from property boundaries and the ordinary-high-water mark for the property at 14530 Pine Road. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated August 23, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm082399.doc 1 The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis & Ramona Johnson for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 14530 Pine Road NE. Five variances have been requested. With respect to the lot area, building separation and setback variances, staff felt all of the variance hardship criteria had been met and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer shall approve the applicants' plan for storm water mn-off and drainage of the proposed improvements. 2. A revised survey compliant with all other Ordinances and Resolution conditions be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The DNR commented the proposed structure is an improvement over the existing structure and impervious surface conditions which outweighs any objections to the applicants' request subject to the conditions of erosion control. The DNR also suggested some landscaping be applied to screen the new structure form the lake. A letter from an adjacent property owner (Sue G. Dirkes, Aspen Colorado) objected to the setback variances requested and was submitted into the record. Resolution 99-19PC was revised to include a 2 foot variance to permit cave and gutter encroachment to within 3 feet of the lot line instead of the 5 foot minimum required in order to allow a 5 foot sideyard setback. Comments from the public: Applicant Ramona Johnson, 13008 Irving Avenue South, Bumsville, said they had owned the cabin since 1970 and have been involved in the community. After conversations with staff, the Johnsons felt they were doing their best to comply with the ordinances and still be able to construct a home. Mrs. Johnson said they will also correct the retaining wall which is partially on the neighbor's property. Lucy Griffith Shepherd, stated her family has owned the property next to the Johnsons since 1917 and have been good neighbors. Their concern for the wall in the past was to keep the erosion under control. Now with the new construction, the Griffiths would like to see Johnson's blocks of concrete removed from their property. Ms. Shepherd presented pictures of the property pointing out the retaining wall. She would like to see the wall taken out and did not object to any of the requested variances. Ms. Shepherd also reported the neighbors are in support of the variances. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminhnn082399.doc 2 Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Questioned staff in regard to building a structure below the street level. Horsman responded it could be done. The street in question meets the requirements. Rye explained the new code is to reflect positive drainage. There are no code issues. * Explained hardship criteria and each case and property is unique. The variances go with the land not the property owner. · The proposed structure is moving back from the lake to a higher elevation. · The wall is a non-conforming structure below the 904 ordinary-high-water mark. A condition of the variance should be removal of the wall. · A structure cannot be built without variances. The hardship criteria have been met. Kuykendall: · Agreed with Vonhof. · Pine Road is a private road. · This is a reasonable proposal and an improvement over the existing structure. There are no hardships to the neighbors. · No objections. Stamson: · Concurred with Commissioners. · Without variances the lot is unbuildable. Support the variances as requested. · Require applicants work something out with Pat Lynch from the DNR. It might be a better measure. Rye explained any work below the 904 would require a permit from the DNR. Criego: · The applicant did a wonderful job in proposing the new structure. It is a small lot and the house meets the hardship requirements. · Applicant took steps to reduce the impervious surface. · Agreed with staff and should approve the requests. · The DNR should help with the reconstruction of the wall. Cramer: · Agreed with all the Commissioners. · All criteria has been met. · Work with the DNR to comply. Open Discussion: Kuykendall pointed out approval of these requests prohibits the addition of a deck. Stamson referred to the DNR's recommendation of removing the concrete wall. Horsman explained that would be taken care of at the building permit stage. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~nn082399.doc 3 · Kuykendall said the DNR's comments also included vegetation screening and should be a condition of the variance approval. There should be riprap control. Add sod and two trees as part of the condition. · Stamson suggested submitting an erosion control and vegetation plan approved by the DNR. · Remove retaining wall. · Must have approval by City Engineer. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 99-18 GRANTING A 3,254 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4,246 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 7,500 SQUARE FEET; A 40.2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 34.8 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF 904 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SETBACK MINIMUM OF 75 FEET; A 12.47 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 12.53 FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 25 FEET; A 19.98 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5.02 REAR YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 25 FEET; A 7.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 7.7 FOOT STRUCTUR~ SEPARATION INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 15 FEET TO ALLOW A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND INCLUDE A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT EAVE AND GUTTER ENCROACHMENT TO WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE 5 FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ALLOW A 5 FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK. The following conditions should also be included: · REMOVE RETAINING WALL. THE APPLICANT SHOULD SUBMIT A PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discussion on city survey conducted by Decision Resources Ltd. The Commissioners viewed a video of the city survey results presemed by Dr. Bill Morris of Decision Resources Ltd. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn082399.doc 4 A discussion and comments followed which included: Creating neighborhoods Opportunities to change · Bypasses · Bike trails and walkways · The feeling of"small town" · Communication between neighborhoods · The overwhelming support for redeveloping downtown. · Prior Lake is a community of neighborhoods - a valuable characteristic. · Streetscaping is a sense of small town. · Good place to raise children and retire. · A suggestion was brought up on educating the residents on zoning and codes through the Prior Lake American. · The City Web page was discussed. · The strong support for the youth center and recreational facilities. Overall, the Commissioners were happy with the community support. Suggestion for a joint City Council/Planning Commission/EDA meeting. Mary Mirsch brought up a joint lakeshore management plan. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Recording Secretary l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm082399.doc 5