Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091399REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. A. Bo Co Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case #99-053 (Continued) Joseph & Carol 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. Case #99-016 Douglas Farrell is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of two lots for the project to be known as Farrell's First Addition Case #99-059 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, is requesting a proposed zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Low to Medium Residential) for the property located in the SWl/4 of Section 34, township 114, Range 22 (former Melbourne Larson property). Case #99-062 William B. Lind is requesting a variance to locate an accessory structure between the front building wall and the front lot line for the property at 6082 150th Street SE. Case #99-067 Mark Liesener is requesting a variance to permit lot area of 34,628 sq. feet rather than the minimum lot area of 2 acres to permit an existing lot of record to be a buildable lot. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Reminder: The Downtown Redevelopment Workshop will be held Tuesday, September 14, 1999, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. 8. Adjournment: rL:Y99~FILF~k99PI4CO ~dIM~PC,$GF~A~CO9139,9. DQC 16200 ma§~e c, reeK ~ve. ~.~., t'nor LaKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 1. Call to Order: The September 13, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Absent Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the August 23, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. Commissioner Kuykendall arrived at 6:37 p.m. 4. Public Hearings: The first matter before the Commissioners was Item B, Douglas Farrell's request for a preliminary plat (see page 4), followed by Item A. A. Case File #99-053 (Continued) 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. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 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 on the property located at 3868 Green Heights Trail. The lot is a legal non-conforming lot of record and there is an existing structure on the lot which is to be removed. Six variances have been requested by the applicant. Staff felt the hardship criteria with respect to the lot area, lot width, and front yard setback have been met. Staffrecommended denial to the side yard setback variances which can be eliminated by minimal reduction of the house footprint. The variance to Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 bluff setback should also be denied as proposed. Modifying the walk-out structure to one with a full basement will eliminate the first floor deck and it's 10 foot encroachment towards the top of bluff. A platform could then be built in its place. Staff further recommended removal of the existing non-conforming platform as a condition of approval of the variances. This condition has been included in the resolution. Comments from the public: Carolyn and Joe Morgan, 16711 Brunswick Avenue said they bought the lot 15 years ago with the intention of building a retirement home. Mark Johnson, 2850 East 150th Street, Inver Grove Heights, contractor for the applicants, spoke on the steep elevations suggesting the home be constructed as a walkout. The applicants are also reducing the garage and bringing the house closer to the bluff line, trying to meet all the requirements. The problem is the steep slope. The closest structure to the bluff area would be the deck posts. Johnson said he does not feel they can fit a home within the existing building pad. Vera Benzel, owns a cabin on Lot 2, questioned how close the home will be to the road and pointed out the road is a private drive. Tovar explained the variances. Kuykendall also said the length would be the same as a parked car on the driveway. Benzel said she is supportive of the improvements. Kuykendall questioned the building pad. Tovar explained the existing structure and proposed structure. Staff is recommending a new design with other options. Tovar also clarified the private drive. Mike Mrugalla, 3874 Green Heights Trail, spoke on Morgan's behalf stating he felt the proposal was reasonable. Cramer questioned Mrugalla's setback from the property line. Mrugalla said it was approximately 19 feet. Carolyn Morgan stated they redesigned the home after talking to staff. The problem is the lot size. Morgan said they are trying to work with the City. She also stated it is their retirement home and they do not want to live in a cracker box. Ideally they would like a walkout. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Understands staff's recommendation but is empathetic to applicant's concerns. · The proposed home will line up with the neighbors' in the front. · The DNR fundamentally recognizes it is an established piece of land, physically. That is a is a plus. · Can rationalize going out to where the house is proposed but has reservations about the deck going out too far to the lake. It exceeds the intent of the ordinance. Straggling with the deck more than the structure. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn091399.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, I999 Cramer: · Support staff's recommendation and conditions. · Concern for side yard setback. It is unknown what is going in on the vacant lot. · Regarding the bluff and deck - At the minimum, the setback from the bluff indicate the house structure is okay. Leaning in favor of the variance just for the deck as long as it does not turn into a 3 or 4 season porch. Restrict what is underneath the deck. Do not excavate a patio or pad. · Could lean in favor of support on the deck with the conditions. · The house could be shifted to one side or the other to address the side yard setback. · Tovar responded the owner of the vacant lot to the west will come before the Commission requesting a variance at the next planning meeting. This variance will impact the neighbor. Vonhof: · The 415 square foot variance to permit the lot area width and front yard setback hardship criteria has been met. · Concurred with Cramer's comments that it would be better to move the structure to the east. Would prefer a variance on the east side than the west. · The other impact would be the bluff setback. · The structure cannot be moved any closer to the private drive. It is necessary 20 feet should be maintained between a structure whether it is a private or public road. Stamson: · Agreed with Commissioners on setbacks and the hardship criteria. · Agreed with the staff on the side yard setbacks. Tend to deny, nothing should be closer than 5 feet. · It is likely long walls will be created on the adjacent lot. This is a good example why the ordinance was put in place. · The variance to the front yard setback is obvious. Do not impact the lake side. · Struggling with the impact and encroachment on the lake and what seems reasonable. · The one big difference that is unique about this property is that this one actually does not have a natural top of bluff. It was altered a long time ago with the retaining wall. · Support the house line proposal and some deck. More lenient in this case than any other in trying to protect the natural bluff. Open discussion: Cramer: · Suggested to go ahead and approve the three variances recommended by staff. All the Commissioners are in agreement. Kuykendall: · Flip the floor plan and redesign. · Move the house toward the front, at least the garage. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn091399.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 · Average with the proposed neighboring house. · It is a small lot and the Commissioners have to stay with the standards. · Go along with staff's recommendation. · Propose building a rock retaining wall on the lake to help stabilize. Vonhof: · The actual variance is for 1 foot from the bluff setback. If the deck was removed by half to the west, the setback would increase. · In favor of a lesser variance allowing for a different deck design. Not a 28.5 foot variance as requested. Stamson: · Agreed with Vonhof's proposal to go with a smaller deck. Cramer: · Support the idea of granting a lesser variance in regard to a smaller deck. · Supportive of the lot width. · The side line variances could be reduced by rearranging the home. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99- 17PC APPROVING A 415 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT AREA TO BE 7,085 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED TO BE BUILDABLE OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET [CITY CODE 1104.900 NONCONFORMING LOTS); AND A 3.1 FOOT LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT TO BE BUILDABLE WITH A LOT WIDTH OF 46.9 FEET, RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM 50.0 FOOT LOT WIDTH REQUIRED (CITY CODE 1104.900 NONCONFORMING LOTS); AND A 15.5-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE STRUCTUR~ TO BE SETBACK 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK OF 35.5 FEET (CITY CODE 1102.405 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS). Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRA/VIER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 8.51 FOOT SETBACK WITH A 2.59 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND DIRECT APPLICANT TO REVISE THE SURVEY INDICATING A DECK HALF OF THE SIZE WITH IT BEING ON THE EASTERLY SIDE AND FURTHER DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH THE APPROPRIATE BLUFF SETBACK. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The lake side and bluff variance will come before the Commission on September 27. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn091399.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 B. Case #99-016 Douglas Farrell is requesting a preliminary plat consisting of two lots for the project to be known as Farrell's First Addition. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. Douglas Fan'ell is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the 0.69 acre site located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Femdale Avenue and Hampton Street. The preliminary plat, to be known as Farrell's 1 st Addition, is the site of a single family dwelling at 5286 Hampton Street. Staff felt the proposed preliminary, plat met the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance subject to the following condition: Prior tofinalplat approval, the developer must submit a landscaping plan as required by Section 1007.1 O0 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Comments from the public: Doug Farrell, 5286 Hampton Street, said he wanted to divide the lot so his daughter and husband could build a home. Kansier read a letter from adjoining property owner Sue Dirkes, Lot I Partnership, expressing concern the subdivision is held to the same standards as the surrounding area. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Questioned staff regarding the proposed building footprint. Kansier explained the survey. · Recommended approval of the request. Both lots are legal size with appropriate frontage. Kuykendall: · Agreed it met all the requirements and ordinances. · Comments from the neighbor is appropriate. · Supported the request. Stamson and Cramer: · Agreed with staff's recommendation. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FARRELL'S 1 ST ADDITION SUBJECT TO CONDITION IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~rm091399.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 This item will go before the City Council on October 4, 1999. C. Case #99-059 Eagle Creek Villas, LLC, is requesting a proposed zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Low to Medium Residential) for the property located in the $}FI/4 of Section 34, Township 114, Range 22 (former Melbourne Larson property). Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. Eagle Creek Villas has filed an application for a Zone Change for the property located south of CSAH 82, at the southwest comer of the Glynwater development and at the northeast comer of Arctic Lake. The request is to rezone the property from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-2 (Low to medium Density Residential) District. The Shoreland District regulations also apply to this property. While the property meets the minimum lot area for a duplex, it does not meet the minimum lot width at the front building line and at the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The required 200' setback from the Ordinary High Water Elevation will almost eliminate a buildable area for a duplex. This parcel cannot be subdivided, and will allow the construction of one single family dwelling. The adjacent property is currently being developed with an R-2 townhouse development. The uses permitted in the R-2 district are also consistent with the adjacent property. Minimum lot area, width and setback requirements of the Shoreland District will apply to this parcel, and the only permitted use based on these minimums is a single family dwelling. Staff recommended approval of the Zone Change of the property to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Rye explained tax forfeiture properties and procedures. Comments from the public: The developer was not present to address any questions or concerns. Richard Lindman, 15880 Arctic Circle, expressed concern for the raised level of Arctic Lake. Any development along the lake would result in runoff and a higher water level. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Concurred with staffto change the zone to R1. It is next to a larger tract of single family homes. The designation fits better. 1 :\99files\99plcornm\pcmin\nm091399 .doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Cramer: · There is questionable access and lake level concern. · Deny rezoning request at this time. Cannot support anything at this time. The applicant is not present. Vonhof: · Concurred with Cramer, there is no need to rezone at this time. Kuykendall: · Concurred with staffto rezone to R1. · Does not want to deny because there are still issues that need to be addressed by the developer. · Either table or continue. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1999. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. D. Case #99-062 William B. Lind is requesting a variance to locate an accessory structure between the front building wall and the front lot line for the property at 6082 150th Street SE. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 1999. William Lind has applied for a variance application for the replacement of an existing detached garage and concrete pad for recreational vehicle parking. The property is a Riparian lot in the Shoreland District. The DNR had no objections to the request. Staff determined all hardship criteria had not been met. There are other legal alternatives and recommended denying the variance request. Comments from the public: William Lind, 6082 150th Street, did not disagree there was adequate space on the lot for an additional garage. Mr. Lind presented pictures of the existing structures and explained his proposal. His concern is the elevations from the house to the existing garage and the runoff problems he has experienced. Adding an addition to the garage or home would create additional problems. Lind said both he and his wife were in sales and it was important to keep their cars in good working condition. They have 3 cars and a 2 car garage. His proposed garage will have an appealing design. John Guzman, 1700 126 St., Blaine, Western Construction, the builder for this project, explained his concern with rebuilding and repairs to the existing garage. Guzman felt l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm091399.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 there was a significant drainage problem. repair with the expenses being significant. He also said the existing garage is in need of Connie Lind, 6082 150th Street, said when they purchased the property 4 years ago they planned on adding on to the garage. She pointed out an article in the Parade of Homes indicating a 3-car garage was almost standard for any home on the lake. Kansier read the ordinance pertaining to repairs of a structure. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · The Commissioners have had similar requests in the Shoreland district. · It is a deep lot and a different situation. The ordinance was designed to prevent someone from putting an accessory structure in front of their house on a standard lot. There is a great deal of distance between the residence and street and it is not unreasonable to have a detached garage. This is the only building on the lot for storing vehicles. · Variance hardships could apply in this matter. Especially in reference to the first hardship criteria which talks about the dimension of the lot or topography. The hardship criteria has been met. Kuykendall: · It seems more reasonable and added value to have a garage closer to the home. · It is a nonconforming use. The intent of the ordinance has sound rationale behind it. It would add more value to the neighboring properties to keep the garage closer to the home. · Cost is not a hardship. · Agreed with staff there are other alternatives. Want to hold firm. Stamson: · The applicant did a great job in redesigning the garage. · It is not an um'easonable use. The use of the garage in that space is not um'easonable. However, the variance hardships are not met. · Support staff's recommendation of denial. Cramer: · Understands Vonhof's concern with the lot depth as a hardship. · It is a Riparian lot. People think the lakeside is their front and the road their back. More inclined to support based on that hardship alone, but there is a large lot area to build. · Should address this issue at another time. · Appreciate what the applicant is trying to do, cannot support the request based on the lack of hardship. · Support staff's recommendation. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm091399.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, I999 Rye reviewed the Commissioners' conversations which proposed the ordinance. There was a brief discussion between the Commissioners on the ordinance and the hardship criteria. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-20PC DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY GARAGE TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING WALL AND THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD BASED ON THE COMMISSIONERS' FINDINGS THAT THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET. Vonhof said the ordinance fails in this particular case. He fully supports the City's zoning and regulations and explained why it falls short of what the ordinance is meant to do. Stamson agreed the zoning fails but did not create a compelling reason for a variance. Kuykendall disagreed stating the ordinance is in place and this matter does not fit the legal hardship criteria in any way. There was a brief discussion on the ordinance and hardship criteria. Vote taken indicated ayes by Kuykendall, Stamson and Cramer. Nay by Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier explained the appeal process. E. Case #99-067 Mark Liesener is requesting a variance to permit lot area of 34,628 sq. feet rather than the minimum lot area of 2 acres to pertnit an existing lot of record to be a buildable lot. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 13, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Planning Department received a variance application from Mark Liesener to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot area requirement in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential Use District). Liesener is requesting a 52,496 square foot variance to permit a lot area of 34,628 square feet rather than the minimum lot area of 2 acres required to be buildable in an R-S District. Titus Second Addition is not in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is not served by public sewer and water. A private well and septic system are required and must meet all applicable standards for private systems. 1:\99fi les\99pl comm\pcmin\mn091399 .doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Staff believes the variance criteria has been met with relation to the pre-existing lot of record and the current ordinance for minimum lot size. The staff recommended approval of the requested variance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling subject to the following condition: Prior to construction, the applicant must obtain all necessary permits, including permits for the private well and septic system. Comments from the public: Mike Hayes, the builder of the project, represented the applicant, said the applicant bought the property thinking he could build on it and found out he couldn't. All the setbacks and other City ordinances are met. Hayes agreed with staff it was a hardship. Amy Menke, 4580 Jackson Trail, said she is against the variance because the area is rural and the City should maintain the 2 acre requirement. The Menkes did talk to Mr. Liesener on two different occasions and told him that sewer and water would not be available based on their information from the City. Menkes said they wanted to buy the lot but did not because they were told it was not buildable. She felt there were no hardships and Mr. Liesener was very aware he could not build on that lot. Rob Ostdick, 4510 Jackson Trail, felt the Commissioners should stick to the ordinance and deny the variance. Ostdick questioned how close the septic system would be before it would go into the creek. And when did the 2 acre minimum become an ordinance. Rye responded the ordinance went into effect in May 1999. Greg Henning, 13171 Henning Circle, said his main concern is the septic system leaking into the watershed district. There is a 15 acre parcel on the other side of the creek. Henning also said Jackson Trail was vacated around 1985. This property falls within Titus Second Addition. Chris Ostdick, 4510 Jackson Trail, said her concern was for the septic system and the watershed district. The other concern is the disclosure issue when Liesener bought the property. There is no hardship. Rye pointed out the septic system tank constructed on the site has to comply with the County's ordinance subject to their inspection. Beyond that, the City does not have any information on the impact on the creek. Mike Hayes pointed out Scott County would make sure the well and septic system would be in place. The house would be on one side of the creek. Amy Menke said the lots west of the vacated road would not be near the creek. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcminh-nn091399.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: · Appreciate the neighbors concern for the septic system near the creek but that concern is for Scott County. · Believes there is a hardship because of the way the property was platted before the ordinance was in place warrants a variance at this time. · Supports the request. Kuykendall: · Agreed with Cramer there is a hardship, not made by the property owner. · This first step in the process is that the septic has to be taken care of by Scott County before there would be a building permit. · The issue is hardship criteria for a buildable lot. Whether or not the applicant had prior knowledge is hearsay. · Work with the facts in front of us. Rye said the question of knowledge as to the status of the building may be material to the discussion. Consider continuing the matter and have the applicant speak for himself. This would also give staff some time to do some legal research on the Commissioner's ability to grant or deny a variance. Stamson: · Agreed with Rye, prior knowledge that the lot is unbuildable is very material to the discussion. · Support continuing the matter for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to come in and address that issue and question the applicant. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1999. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Reminder: The Downtown Redevelopment Workshop will be held Tuesday, September 14, 1999, in the City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminh-nn091399.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 1999 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Recording Secretary l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\nm091399 .doc 12