Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1025992. 3. 4. A. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999 Fire Station - City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Case File #99-075 Ryan Contracting is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for grading, filling, land reclamation and excavation at the property located on the north side of McKenna Road about 1/4 mile north of CSAH 42 in the south 1/2 of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. Case File #99-078 H & H Land Development is requesting an amendment to add 1.53 acres to the original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development. C. Case File #99-082 Consider the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: · An amendment to Section 1101.501 (3, c) and (3,d) extending the sunset provision to allow the conveyance of existing nonconforming lots under common ownership. · An amendment to Section 1101.501 adding subparagraph (4) allowing the waiver of the minimum lot area and side yard requirements to subdivide a lot with an existing two-family dwelling under specific conditions. · An amendment to Section 1104.202 (3,a) deleting the language allowing a deck addition, other than a replacement deck, that does not meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. · An amendment to Section 1104.308 (2) to allow setback averaging for additions to existing structures in the Shoreland District. · An amendment to Sections 1109.602 (5), 1109.603 (4) and 1109.604 (2) to remove the need for a hold harmless agreement when issuing permits for which a certificate of survey is not required. Old Business: New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: rL: \99]FILF~L09PI420~IM~PC/~E~[DA~G.10259~. IX~C 16200 hague creek ~ve. ~.e., ~'nor i~aKe, Minnesota S5372-1714 / Dh. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424S AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999 1. Call to Order: The October 25, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stamson at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Cramer Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Correction: Page 4, Comments from Stamson, add "However", the proposal was not unreasonable. The Minutes from the October 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting were approved as corrected. 4. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first hearing. A. Case File #99-075 Ryan Contracting is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for grading, filling, land reclamation and excavation at the property located on the north side of McKenna Road about 1/4 mile north of CSAH 42 in the south 1/2 of Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 25, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. On September 29, 1999, an application was received for the excavation of sand and gravel from property located in the SE ¼, Section 22, Township 115, Range 22. The legal notice was published in the Prior Lake American on October 9, 1999. On October 14, 1999 it came to staff's attention the legal descriptions submitted by the applicant were incorrect and hence, the legal notice was incorrect. On October 15, 1999 the Planning Department received the correct legal description and republished on October 23, 1999 for the November 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Because a notice was L:\99FILES\99PLCOMMXPCMINWIN102599.DOC 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 published for October 25, 1999, staff recommended opening the public hearing and continue it to November 8, 1999. There were no comments from the public. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO NOVEMBER 8, 1999. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #99-078 H & H Land Development is requesting an amendment to add 1.53 acres to the original Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 25, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. H & H Land Development has applied for an amendment to the Windsong on the Lake Planned Unit Development. The property is located west of CSAH 21 and south of Lords Street. The area to be added to the PUD is located along the east boundary of the existing PUD plan, immediately adjacent to Prior Lake at the southerly end of Edinborough Street. The primary effect of this amendment is the additional boat slips. The proposed outlots provide a common open space that is not easily accessible or very useable space. Staff felt the proposed amendment was consistent with the existing development of the Windsong on the Lake PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 11 additional boat slips shall be permitted. The Developer must provide a copy of the revised DNR permit allowing the additional boat slips to the Planning Department. 2. There shall be no filling or grading on Outlots A, B or C, Windsong on the Lake Third Addition, without the issuance of a separate filling and grading permit. Any alteration to the existing vegetation on these outlots must also be consistent with the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Comments from the public: Ralph Heuschele ofH & H Land Development, the developer, said it was not easy to get a 90% consent approval from the homeowner's association. A significant amount of money is in escrow to make sure the work (landscape) is completed. Heuschele addressed the grading. He also spoke of an oral agreement with the DN-R in regard to Outlot A remaining natural. Heuschele felt improving access to Outlot A would not necessarily be productive. DNR Hydrologist, Pat Lynch stated in his September 28, 1999, letter the DNR would like to maintain some control in the process. Kuykendall questioned the retaining wall on Outlot C. Heuschele said it was fight on the property line. The DNR and homeowners would like to see it removed and re-landscaped similar to the rest of the development. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599 .doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 The public hearing Was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · This is the third time this has been before the Commission. With 90% consent of the homeowners, he does not see a problem. Kuykendall: · Agreed with Vonhof. Criego: · In full agreement with Commissioners. · Keep Outlots A and B as natural as possible. Cramer and Stamson: Concurred with the Commissioners. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. C. Case File//99-082 Consider the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: · An amendment to Section 1101.501 (3, c) and (3,d) extending the sunset provision to allow the conveyance of existing nonconforming lots under common ownership. · An amendment to Section 1101.501 adding subparagraph (4) allowing the waiver of the minimum lot area and side yard requirements to subdivide a lot with an existing two-family dwelling under specific conditions. · An amendment to Section 1104.202 (3,a) deleting the language allowing a deck addition, other than a replacement deck, that does not meet the setback requirements in the Shoreland District. · An amendment to Section 1104.308 (2) to allow setback averaging for additions to existing structures in the Shoreland District. · An amendment to Sections 1109.602 (5), 1109.603 (4) and 1109.604 (2) to remove the need for a hold harmless agreement when issuing permits for which a certificate of survey is not required. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 25, 1999, on file in the office of the City Planner. 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599 .doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 The purpose of the public hearing is to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the amendments were initiated by direction of the City Council. Other amendments have come to light with applications and situations which may require some changes in the language. Comments from the public: Mike Hodgens, 2306 West 52nd Street, Minneapolis, was concerned with the first amendment's grace period not being long enough to notify homeowners in case transactions need to be made. Wes Mader, 3470 Sycamore Trail, stated several of the amendment items he discovered from applicants having difficulty trying to get building permits. It appeared to him, the City had not accurately captured the intent in the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to the November extension date, Mr. Mader explained there were two provisions for subdividing lots. One was to subdivide 150 foot lots to 75 foot lots granting a 6 month grace period. The 50 foot lots did not have a grace period, which was not consistent. The Council was not clear in their discussions on how they felt. He did not feel any rigid consensus on the Council as to the time line. Council was going to leave that up to staff. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: No problems on the setback requirements. · The hold harmless issue is reasonable. · Questioned the deck additions. Over the years there have been inconsistencies. A number of people have come before the Commission where certain standards have been used to guide. Now the City is looking at a change. When does it stop? Needs more clarification. · Personally not that concerned with the encroachment to the lake. · More concerned about inconsistencies and application standards. If approved, will this issue be back again in 6 months? Maybe the Commissioners need more supporting rationale. Stamson: · Support the Hold Harmless Agreement. It is an issue the Commissioners agreed to let go. · Support setback averaging and deck additions. Staff's rationale make sense. · Support subdivision of lots with existing duplexes. · Regarding the conveyance of non-conforming lots - his recollection is when the Commission discussed this, the intent was not to extend the ordinance 6 months for 50 foot lots. That was the rationale the 6 month extension for the 75 feet came into effect. There was a lot of discussion by the Commissioners, however the majority felt the rules should take place immediately upon publishing. The Commission came 1 :\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599 .doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 up with the 75 foot width and 12,000 square foot lot size as the numbers used because they are legal lots and balance with the rest of the city. Someone with three lots could split it equally. It was never the intention of the Planning Commission to allow subdivision or conveyance of 50 foot lots. Does not support. Criego: · Recollects when the workshops with City Council took place on whether it should be short term or a grace period, there were mixed opinions. Felt it should be extended. Concern for deck on the 15% was the added information provided in the last ordinance. · Kansier said it has been in the Shoreland Ordinance since 1995 and had nothing to do with the ordinance change this year. · Did not remember this being a concern in the past. Rye explained it was a concem raised at the recent Council workshop. Some of the councilmembers felt with the setback averaging and replacement of the existing decks there was enough latitude. This would give an additional benefit by further encroachment to the high water setback. · Agreed with the Commissioners on the Hold Harmless and setback averaging. · In regard to deck additions, does not feel strongly one way or another. Fifteen percent on a deck is not that much. · Agreed with the subdivision of lots as it relates to the conveyance of non-conforming lots. It should be extended to January 31 or February 27. It is not enough time for people who want to do something with their property. · Position with the 75 foot lot issue has not changed. The DNR indicates that a 75 foot wide lot at the lake is satisfactory. It is the City that imposed the 90 feet. Kansier explained it is 90 at the front lot line and 75 feet at the ordinary-high-water. · Should go with a less stringent measurement. The 90 foot width on the street side will prohibit development. Cramer: · Agreed with Commissioners' comments on the hold harmless, setback averaging and deck additions although open to discussions on the deck addition. Some concerns with decisions the Commission have made in the past. · Support subdivision of lots with existing duplexes. · After being on the Commission for 2 years, it has been a rather divisive issue between the Commissioners regarding the sunset provision on non-conforming lots. It does seem to make sense to have the sunset clause coincide with the other clause of a timeline to January 31. That should put an end to the issue. Vonhof: · Having been on the Commission for a while and through the process of re-writing the zoning ordinance, changes were anticipated. There would be unintended impacts. · Agreed with Commissioners on the Hold Harmless Agreement, setback averaging in the Shoreland District and deck addition. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 Suggestion for sunset provision - rather than go with a date from 60 days from the date of passage, to go with a date set by the City Council. It would be consistent with staff's recommendation to allow the same amount of time. Open discussion: Criego requested comments from the other Commissioners on the 75 foot issue. Stamson's recollection was the DNR requires 75 feet at the lake and 90 feet at the street. That is why it was passed that way. If those are not the DNR numbers, he would be open to discussion. The City should not be more restrictive than the DNR. Rye said that is true with the DNR numbers, because if not, the City would have stayed with the 86 feet. Kuykendall requested obtaining the exact information from the DNR. Stamson agreed. Vonhof suggested staff bring this issue back. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE 99-XX AMENDING SECTIONS 1101.501, 1104.202, 1104.308, 1109.601, 1109.603 AND 1109.604 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE WITH THE CHANGE ON THE SUNSET PROVISIONS FOR THE CONVEYANCE ON NON-CONFORMING LOTS TO HAVE A DATE 60 DAYS FROM ENACTMENT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. Discussion: Kuykendall: · The ordinance was enacted May 1, and so far nothing regarding the deck issue has come before the Commission. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Reminder of the Downtown Redevelopment workshop Tuesday, October 26, at the Fire Hall beginning at 7:30 p.m. Creigo suggested bringing back the issue on side yard setbacks for building lengths in excess of 40 feet. Creigo explained the existing ordinance. He felt the City was restricting building on smaller lots which will bring in many requests for variances. He did not feel there would be a tunnel effect. l:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599 .doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1999 A brief discussion followed on the rationale for the ordinance. Kuykendall brought up the Lake Advisory's recommendation for natural vegetation along the lakeshore. Rye responded it was not a done deal. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Recording Secretary 1:\99files\99plcomm\pcmin\mn 102599.doc 7