The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0927992. 3. 4. A. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case File #99-063 Eric and Amy Frank are requesting the following variances for the property at 3856 Green Heights Trail: a 14.5 foot bluff setback; a 15.3 foot front yard setback; a 4.0 foot lot width; a 405 square foot variance to permit lot area; a 2.3 foot side yard setback and a 2.4 foot side yard setback. Old Business: Case #99-053 Joseph & Carol Morgan are requesting a 19 foot variance to the bluff setback and a 2.59 foot side yard variance for the property at 3868 Green Heights Trail. 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 #99-067 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. New Business: Case File #99-064 Lakeside Manor Association petition to vacate the 25 foot easement for public access to Prior Lake located in Outlot 2, Lake Side Manor. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: rI,,:\99FILF~\99PI~OI~M~CP}.GI~h[DA~G99. 279~. DQC 16200 ~ag~e creek ~ve.~.~., ~nor t~aKe, Minnesota ,55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 1. Call to Order: The September 27, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, 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 Present Kuykendall Absent Criego Present Cramer Absent Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the September 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Ae Case File #99-063 Eric and Amy Frank are requesting the following variances for the property at 3856 Green Heights Trail: a 14.5 foot bluff setback; a 15.3 foot front yard setback; a 4.0 foot lot width; a 405 square foot variance to permit lot area; a 2.3 foot side yard setback and a 2.4 foot side yard setback. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 27, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Plarming Department received a variance application for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on the property located at 3856 Green Heights Trail. The lot is a legal non-conforming lot of record. The lot is currently vacant. 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 had been meet. The side yard setback variances could be eliminated by minimal reduction of the house footprint. The staff therefore recommended denial of these variances. The variance to bluff setback should also be denied as proposed. Modifying the structure in depth such that only the deck encroaches the bluff is a possibility. Staff further recommended removal of the existing non-conforming shed as a condition of approval of the variances. This condition has been included in the resolution. L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCMRquMN092799.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Comments from the Public: Eric Frank, 4643 Grand Avenue, Minneapolis, said he has been working with the City and felt they have made every effort to construct the home and follow the ordinances. It was more suitable to have the house set closer to the street than the lake. Mr. Frank said the extended deck is consistent with the neighborhood. There wouldn't be any additional encumbrance on the bluff. A cabin which was removed created the existing bluff line. Consequently that is where the top of the bluff starts. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Agreed with the staff report in regard to the lot area, lot width and street setback variance. · Questioned the platform/deck. Tovar explained the change in the survey with the deck proposal. · The platform itself would not require a setback variance. · Concern with the side yard setbacks. · Work around the bluff setback. · Difficult time justifying the extra footage with the platform. Criego: · Agreed with Vonhof on the street setback, lot width and lot area variance. · Agreed the side yard setbacks are a problem. · It is not unusual to have a garage in Minnesota. · Infringing on the bluff in this case is probably consistent with the hardship criteria. · Approve all requests. Stamson: · Concurred with the street back, lot width and bluff setback. The hardships are obvious. · Disagree with the side yard setbacks. Pat Lynch from the DNR pointed out the crowding in the area. That is why we put the ordinance in, especially houses with extremely long wall lines. This is a good example. · The rear setback is similar to the neighbor's where there is a natural bluff line. It was altered to begin with. It is a very small lot. · Find a way to work the deck in. · Questioned staff in regard to regulating or making a condition with the deck. Tovar said make it a condition of the approval. · Stamson would agree to the request if it met those standards. Criego: · Sticking with the ordinance, the house would be basically 29 feet wide. It is restrictive to build a home. If something narrow is being sought, then it has to be l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXmnO92799.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 very long in order to compensate for it. This structure cannot be built long because of the bluff and street. It is a catch 22. Suggested reviewing the ordinance. How narrow do we want a house in the community? Vonhof: · Will go along with the conditions for a deck. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-22PC APPROVING A 405 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT LOT AREA TO BE 7,095 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED TO BE BUILDABLE AT 7,500 SQUARE FEET; AND A 4.0 FOOT LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOT TO BE BUILDABLE WITH A LOT WIDTH OF 46.0 FEET, RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM 50.0 FOOT LOT WIDTH REQUIRED; AND A 15.3-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 35.3 FEET. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 14.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 10.5 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 25 FEET WITH THE PROVISION THAT DECK REMAINS IMPERVIOUS. A 2.3 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5.0 FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.3 FEET FOR A SIDE WALL EXCEEDING 40 FEET OF 11 FEET ON THE WESTERLY LOT LINE; AND A 2.4 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 9.9 FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDE WALL EXCEEDING 40 FEET OF 12.3 FEET ON THE EASTERLY LOT LINE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The Resolutions will be brought back for a vote at the October 11, 1999 meeting. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~n092799.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 5. Old Business: A. Case 099-053 Joseph & Carol Morgan are requesting a 19 foot variance to the bluff setback and a 2.59 foot side yard variance for the property at 3868 Green Heights Trail. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated September 27, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. On September 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this property and adopted Resolution 99-17PC approving variances to lot area, lot width and front yard setback. After reviewing the proposal with respect to the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Resolution 99-18PC approving a side yard setback and bluff setback upon certain modifications to the site plan. As directed by the Planning Commission, the house has been moved to the east to be setback 8.41 feet from the easterly lot line and 6 feet from the westerly lot line. The deck has been reduced, and the resulting top of bluff setback is 7 feet. The applicants were present but did not comment. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: Questioned the impervious surface percent. Tovar responded this lot as well as the previous request are under the 30%, therefore, no impervious surface requests were necessary. · Add a condition the deck remain pervious as discussed. · Carolyn Morgan, 16711 Brunswick Avenue SE, agreed not to enclose the deck and stated she did not have a problem with the condition. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego to add the condition of maintaining the impervious surface. Vonhof: · Agreed the condition was warranted. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 99-18PC APPROVING 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK TO PERMIT A STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 7 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BLUFF RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 26 FEET; AND A 2.59 FOOT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8.41 FEET RATHER THAN THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A SIDE WALL EXCEEDING 40 FEET OF 11 FEET ON THE EASTERLY LOT LINE WITH THE CONDITION THE DECK REMAIN A PERVIOUS STRUCTURE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~nn092799.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 B. 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). Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 27, 1999. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this application on September 13, 1999. The Commission continued the hearing since the applicant was not present. The Planning Report, dated September 13, 1999, explains the details of the request. Staff recommended approval of the Zone Change to R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. Also noted was the fact the property is not serviced by sewer and water. Comments from the Public: Attorney Bryce Huemoeller representing the applicants, responded to questions raised at the last meeting. Access to the site would be direct to County Road 82 through an easement that actually has some title problems which can be worked out. The applicants could also talk to the adjacent property owners. Access for utilities would be the same with easements along the west line or through the Glynwater Addition or working with the adjacent property owner. The Comprehensive Plan also allows for R2. A duplex (up and down) would be possible. The applicants can also apply for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and an amendment for the MUSA. This area is undergoing massive changes and developments. Huemoeller felt fimdamentally the R2 district request is contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. Kansier explained the setbacks and building pad for single family and multi-family units. She stated this property does not meet the setback, frontage or width for a duplex in the R2 district. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Felt the surrounding area is R2. Kansier explained the surrounding zoning. · Discussed the possibilities and conditions of R1 and R2 districts. · Agreed with staffthe appropriate zoning would be R1. Stamson: · Agreed R1 is the appropriate zone. · Zoning something that creates the implication that, in order to build in that district a number of variances would be required is inappropriate. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminhnm092799.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Vonhof: · Concurred with Commissioners and staff the zoning should be R1. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURE) DISTRICT TO THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY) DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item will go to the City Council on October 18, 1999. C. 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. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report, on file in the office of the City Planner. On September 13, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public heating for a variance request to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot that does not meet the required minimum lot area in the R-S (Rural Subdivision Residential Use District). The Planning Commission continued the agenda item to the September 27th meeting. Comments from the Public: Applicant Mark Liesener, explained his background in researching the lot and acquiring a building permit, which he confirmed with the City he could. It was not until after he purchased the lot, he was informed a variance for sewer and water were required. Rob Ostdiek, 4510 Jackson Street, said he likes the neighborhood the way it is. He was under the impression it was not a buildable lot 5 or 6 years ago. Is the two acre minimum required for the remaining Titus Second Addition? Kansier explained the vacated road and the existing lots in the addition. She also pointed out if sewer and water came into the area the situation could change. Prior to May 1, 1999, the area was zoned R1 which only required a 12,000 square foot lot. Amy Menke, 4511 Jackson Trail, said she was frustrated because they were told in 1986 and 1990 by the City the lot was not buildable. Menke said they had the option to buy the lot but did not thinking it was unbuildable. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · It is unusual situation. Different information has gone out in the past. · Have to go with what is before us today and the current ordinance in effect. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcminXnm092799.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 · The variance hardship criteria have been met. Stamson: · Agreed with Vonhof. It was a legal lot that existed before the ordinance change. · Without granting this variance there is no use for the lot which would deny the owner any use of his property. Granting of the variance is in order. · The hardship criteria set out by the ordinance have been met. Support request. Criego: · This is straight forward. We just approved the last two variance requests because they were substandard lots based on current ordinances. The State, County and City have been billing and taxing these lots as buildable lots. You can't prohibit the owner from building an appropriate home as long as the standards are met. In this case, it is the septic system. · The previous owner has been paying taxes on a lot of record. · This is no different than any other substandard lot, just bigger. · Approve the variance. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 99- 021PC APPROVING A 52,496 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 34,628 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREA INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OF 2 ACRES REQUIRED TO BE BUILDABLE IN AN R-S DISTRICT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson explained the appeal process to the City Council. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~m092799.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 6. New Business: A. Case File 099-064 Lakeside Manor Association petition to vacate the 25 foot easement for public access to Prior Lake located in Outlot 2, Lake Side Manor. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated September 27, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. When the subdivision known as Lake Side Manor was platted in 1964, a 25' wide easement for public access to Prior Lake was dedicated in Outlot 2. Outlot 2 is owned by the Lake Side Manor Association and is the common area for the residents within this subdivision. There is an access located on the outlot that is gated and signed as a private access. This access was constructed by the association and is not located within the public access easement. The easement is located on the northerly side of the outlot along the side of a fairly steep hill. This petition was also referred to the Department of Natural Resources who is generally opposed to the elimination of any access. Upon proper notification, State Statute 412.851 allows the Council to vacate easement or right-of-way by resolution. The statute also states that "no such vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so ". The proposed vacation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and there is no public need for an easement that is almost impossible to use. The Planning staff therefore recommended approval of the vacation of the unrestricted easement subject to the condition a utility easement be granted encompassing the location of the existing water main. Criego questioned the City Council's 1994 public access recommendations. Rye said he did not recall any of the accesses being vacated. He also mentioned public accesses have to be ADA compliant. It would be extremely difficult with this property. Comments from the public: Brian Nasi, representative of the Lakeside Manor Association, stated staff did an excellent job in highlighting the issues. He pointed out the problems with creating a public access. The Association felt there was no way to improve the access and requested the easement vacated. This issue came up with the Candy Cove street improvements. Nasi said the Association had no plans to change the use of the property. Criego questioned ifNasi had any knowledge of anyone using the access. Nasi replied he did not. The Association was concerned with liability of residents who would try to use the area as an access. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin'umn092799.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · It is very clear State Statute requires two things. First, it has to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and how would we know since the Comprehensive Plan did not explore this particular piece of property. We should take a look at the Comprehensive Plan and study it to see if it is premature to vacate. Secondly, the State also states no vacation would take place if it is not in the public interest. · Vacating this does not change the use of the property. It doesn't save the City any cost in maintaining it. · If it is vacated, the City limits public access. Although it is not being used at the moment who is to say it might be needed in the future. The City or County may have some other use for it. · The DNR makes a strong case in not vacating the access. Once it is gone, its gone. · This case does not meet the requirements. Vonhof: · Agreed with Stamson on the vacation of public property and access. · The City cannot foresee what use this might be. At this point there is no apparent use. · Does not meet the standard. · Feels the public right-of-way should be maintained. Criego: · Questioned who would be responsible if someone was hurt? · Rye said he didn't care to answer a legal question. But if its a public access the City would probably be first in line to get sued. It is no different than a sidewalk or street. · This is a different case, streets and sidewalks are designed for walking. · In vacating this the City is creating a public good by allowing people not to injure themselves if they elect to use it. · If this was designed for public access to the lake, the City would have to put improvements in. Either the City is willing to improve and let the public know there is access to the lake, or vacate it. Open Discussion: Stamson: · Disagree on two parts, the first is the public use may not be access for people. · Its not uncommon for communities to hold land for a purpose that might be coming down the road. A good example is the Spring Lake Park. There are no plans now but long term there will be. · The issue of a law suit is no different than any other property the City owns. · There is not an issue of snowmobiles riding down the hill and not likely to be used for that. · Once you give something up you can't get it back. · Do not see any public interest. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin~an092799.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Criego: · Agreed. Questioned if there was a way to maintain the property but not as a public access. Kansier said the City does not own the property but has a dedicated access. Rye said the dedication occurred through the plat. The City is not the fee owner. All the City has is an easement interest over the 25 foot strip. Utilities could not be mn through it. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL NOT VACATE THIS PROPERTY. Votes taken indicated ayes by Stamson and Vonhof, nay by Criego. MOTION CARRIED. This item is scheduled for a public hearing on October 18, 1999, before the City Council. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Rye briefly gave an overview of the meeting held with the Metropolitan Council on the Comprehensive Plan. The Council indicated the additional material submitted completed the application and the clock has started on the 60 day review. They seemed enthusiastic about the floating MUSA. One concem from the Council was from now to the 2010 they didn't think there was enough acres allocated for medium to high density housing to meet the Affordable Housing Goals that we negotiated with them. The City can fix that by allocating a little more acreage in the 2010 Plan. Overall it was not a problem. The City is working a map for the Comprehensive Plan. November 3rd is the target date for review by the entire Met Council. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Recording Secretary l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\rrm092799.doc 10