HomeMy WebLinkAbout112299REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
A.
o
Bo
w
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case File #99-080 Marvin Mirsh, Sr., is requesting a setback variance to permit a
front yard setback less than the required 25 feet for the property at 15432 Red Oaks
Road.
Case File #99-86 Mark Leisener, is requesting a variance to place the lowest floor at
an elevation lower than the minimum required lowest floor elevation of 3 feet above
the ordinary high water level for the property located at 4510 Jackson Trail.
Old Business:
New Business:
Case File #99-085 Larry and Joyce Nickelson are requesting vacation of a portion of
the road right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue adjacent to 15543 Ridgemont Avenue.
Case File #99-087 Neil Boderman is requesting vacation of a portion of the drainage
and utility easement located on Lots 1 - 2, Block 1, Enivid First Addition.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
r.l~: \99~FILE~\99PL~CO~BPCP~F~A~G 11229~.D~C
16200 r~a§~e creek ~ve. ~.r~., rrior t_aKe, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999
1. Call to Order:
The November 22, 1999, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice
Chair Vonhof at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall,
Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer Sue
McDermott, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary Connie
Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Absent
Cramer Present
Stamson Absent
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:32 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Vonhof read the public hearing statement and turned the meeting over to
Chairman Stamson.
A. Case File #99-080 Marvin Mirsh, Sr., is requesting a setback variance to
permit a front yard setback less than the required 25 feet for the property at 15432
Red Oaks Road.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 22,
1999, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Marvin W. Mirsch Sr. for
the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on a riparian lot located
at 15432 Red Oaks Road. The lot includes a bluffwith a required 25 foot setback and a
75 foot setback from the ordinary high-water level. This places the proposed structure at
19.6 feet from the front lot line in order to comply with the bluff and Ordinary High
Water setbacks. The minimum front yard setback is 25 feet.
R:\COUNCIL~PLANCOMMhM INUTEShMN 112299.DOC I
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
City staff felt all of the variance criteria had not been met with relation to the legal
building envelope and alternative designed structures and recommended denial of the
request.
Comments from the public:
Marv Mirsch, (seasonal home 15432 Red Oaks), 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, gave a history of
his lots from the 1950's through 1999. Mirsch said his lot has the highest elevation on
Red Oaks Road pointing out neighboring homes and setbacks. He also gave an overview
and rationale for his proposed retirement home. Mirsch felt it is a "must" for a three car
garage and a hard surface wheelchair accessible care room. In reviewing records over the
past two years at the Scott County Recorder, Mirsch felt his proposed home falls within
the pattern of area custom built homes. Mirsh pointed out DNR Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's
recommendation to approve the variance in his November 17, 1999, letter to staff.
John Geer, 15442 Red Oaks Road, had no objections to the proposed home.
Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, reviewed Mirsch's design and felt the proposal to
go for the front yard setback is better than the lake side. He did not see a traffic problem
with the driveway location on the top of the hill.
The public hearing closed at 6:57 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The applicant maximized the legal building envelope.
· Setbacks from the lake and bluff arc concerns for the Commissioners. Neither of
those areas are being impacted.
· Hardships are met in relationship to the lot. Mainly thc topography of the lot. It is a
unique lot and thc variance is appropriate.
Kuykendalh
· Agreed with Vonhof, adding the applicant presented a very well done proposal with
sensitivity to the community's requirements.
· From a practical standpoint, at the very tightest point it is only 19.6 feet from the
front property line which is plenty of room for a standard automobile.
· Questioned the distance between the property line and what is perceived to be a line
indicating a curb. Horsman responded it is a 10 foot dimension from the curb to the
property line. McDermott explained the curb and encroachments.
· No issues with the retaining wall.
· Support proposal.
Stamson:
· Agreed with Commissioners. The property is unique and the hardships are met.
· Applicant did an excellent job in complying with the ordinances.
r:\council\plancomm\minutesXrnn I 12299.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
· The variance request is minimal.
· It is not a heavily traveled road. No sidewalks.
· Supported request.
Cramer:
· Concurred. The hardship is met by the fact the property is unique.
· Commend applicant for making an effort not to encroach on the setback.
· Supported request.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE 5.4
FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 19.6 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #99-86 Mark Leisener, is requesting a variance to place the lowest
floor at an elevation lower than the minimum required lowest floor elevation of 3
feet above the ordinary high water level for the property located at 4510 Jackson
Trail.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated November 22,
1999, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mark Leisener for the
construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage. The applicant previously
applied for a variance to lot area that was approved by the Planning Commission on
September 27, 1999. Liesener is now requesting a 2.7 foot variance to permit the lowest
floor elevation to be three tenths foot (.3) instead of the required three (3) feet above the
ordinary high water level.
The Acting City Engineer and Water Resources Coordinator have determined, with the
recent flooding, the City should not even consider granting a variance to the 3 foot
separation in elevation, as stated in the project review checklist.
In his November 17, 1999, letter to the City, Patrick Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist,
objected to the lower floor elevation variance because of the increased potential for the
tributary to experience more water in the future.
The Watershed District sent a letter in opposition to the request.
The staff recommended denial of the request on the grounds all required criteria for
approval had not been met and the request is contrary to the City Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. A legal alternative exists to develop the vacant lot without the
variance.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\mn 112299.doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
Upon review for the requested variance, staff determined a second variance will be
required regarding structure setback to the unnamed tributary. This variance will be
published for a public hearing on December 13, 1999. The additional variance has no
beating on this agenda item before the Planning Commission.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Mark Liesener, stated he has been working with the City for almost six
months. He was assured by the Planning and Building Departments a building permit
would be issued. His attorney reviewed the lot and had some suspicion as to whether or
not there would be a permit granted. The attorney contacted the Planning Department
and was assured in answer by a fax, that a building permit would be issued on the lot.
There was no talk of a variance. The building permit was submitted in early August. The
specific level of 803.4 water mark is listed on the survey. That level was picked because
it seemed to be above the high water mark. The Building Department immediately
questioned the high water mark of the drainage ditch. They directed the question to the
Watershed District. He spent about a month working with the City and Watershed trying
to determine what would be the high water mark. The result was a meeting in late August
with city staff, Liesener and his builder where they concluded the high water mark to be
802.9. His question to the City was "Is there anything else that could possibly hold up a
building permit?" Then came the discussion for the septic. He was assured there was no
more requirements. Two months after the building application is in, staff found he is now
in the flood plain. Liesener met with Don Rye and Bob Hutchins on October 15.
Liesener said he became leery when staff wanted him to redesign a new home. He was
shocked when he received the report stating there is yet another variance.
Liesener said it is becoming extremely expensive working with the City of Prior Lake
because of their negligence. He has been lied to by the City, directly and deliberately.
This is not a new lot. It was platted by the City in 1974. He would not object if the City
would have told him in June, July or August, but 4 months later he was told he is in the
Shoreland District. The City's explanation was it did not appear on the map. He was told
he has two alternatives, one is to build a two story house. Liesener said his wife has
rheumatoid arthritis and a 9.5% grade on the driveway can not work. His second
alternative is to raise the existing house which will not fit into the neighborhood. In
reality he feels he has no alternatives. All this flooding information is new to him. It was
not brought up in the earlier variance request. Now, staff has come up with an additional
variance for a 100 foot setback. He does not feel he should be charged for this variance
fee.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· There have been a lot of allegations, a lot of points raised. Can empathize with
applicant's frustration. On the defense of the staff, each item should be reviewed by
staff to respond. Some of the staff is not present. Do not want to delay, but owe it to
the City to respond.
r :\council\plancomm\minutesh-nn 112299.doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
· Points have been raised by the DNR and Watershed District.
· The applicant raised a lot of points.
· Horsman explained the Shoreland District overlay map does not show the area
whatsoever. During a permit review of Liesener's application for a building permit,
staff had an idea there may be an unnamed tributary in the area but it was never
shown on the map. Staff checked with Pat Lynch of the DNR and confirmed this
unnamed tributary was part of the Shoreland District. McDermott said the DN-R
considers it a wetland.
· Kansier explained the Shoreland District is laid out in two ways, a narrative form in
the ordinance as well as a map. When there is a discrepancy one looks at the
narrative for clarification. The graphs are just a graphic representation. Back in 1995
when the maps were originally drawn the tributary was not included. The current
staff did not work for City of Prior Lake at that time and took it for granted the map
was correct. Staff discovered the error during the permit review process. There was a
question of could staff apply the provision of the ordinance that says one has to be
three feet above the ordinary high water mark. That provision is specifically in the
Shoreland District so when staffwas trying to decide if they could apply it or not, the
City looked at the narrative which lists a portion of the tributary. Staff called the
DNR to double check if that area should be included and they affirmed it was.
Kansier stated no staffmember ever intentionally mislead or lied to Mr. Liesener.
Staff tried with the best of their ability, with the information available, to answer
questions and review this proposal. If there is a mistake, staff tries to correct the
situation.
· The City has to correct problems the best way they can and still meet the intent.
· A hardship has been created with the water. There are conditions that have to be met.
· Empathize with applicant and staff.
· Suggest to Commissioners to try to fit this into the intent of the law.
· McDermott said staff contacted the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed to obtain data
for the outlet channel in order to calculate the exact high water elevation. Staffwas
unable to gather that information. Staff asked, but did not receive the information. In
the absence of the information, staff used DNR's recommendation to use the top of
bank as the high water elevation. The report reflects the results.
· The Watershed District is not an agency of the City.
· Recommend the Commissioners do not act on this matter and have the Watershed
come to the next meeting and respond.
Cramer:
· The applicant is owed some sort of an apology. Discussions of the stream came up
numerous times with the first variance. The Commissioners should have picked up
on it. The issue of the high water should have come up at the earlier variance.
· Agreed with Kuykendall. The Commissioners need to hear from the Watershed
District what the concern for future use is. It is not clear what the DNR intent is.
· In some ways the hardship is met, but in other ways the decision can affect the safety
and welfare of a large number of people outside this lot.
· McDermott explained it is part of the Prior Lake outlet channel.
r:\council\plancommhninutes~rnn I 12299.doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
· Encourage staff to get someone from the Watershed District to respond.
Stamson:
· Disagreed with Commissioners.
· Liesener gave an excellent job of outlining the process.
· This is a very serious variance. Building a low floor at an elevation that is prone to
flooding has serious consequences for the homeowner, neighboring properties and the
City in general.
· A flawed process does not wan'ant a variance.
· The numbers have been established. What exactly do the Commissioners need to
hear from the Watershed District? Do not understand what testimony is going to
change the information presented.
Cramer:
· Confused how this issue came about. It was not a significant waterway and now it is
a main waterway.
· How significant is this tributary? What are the affects?
Stamson:
· Does not support the variance. Open to continuing to the next meeting.
Vonhof:
· The applicant has discussed the process since August citing a number of meetings.
· Recommend tabling to the next meeting.
· Direct staff to prepare a report chronologically outlining the process responding in
detail to the issues brought forth.
· Direct staff to request a report from the Watershed regarding the outlet capabilities
and the issues that come up from the elevations. Also include the DNR on the issues.
This should be done by the next meeting.
· Issues have come up that are not in the report. There is not enough information at this
point to make any determination.
· Would like to a decision based on more information.
Kuykendall:
· The objective is to make everything work.
· What is the tributary function. The agencies have to come up with alternatives.
Could it be deeper? Wider? What are other controls?
· Would like the Watershed to come forth with a presentation with sound criteria.
· Allegations have been made about staff and they should be able to respond.
· There are other homes below the water level and who pay through insurance or wet
furniture.
r:\council\plancommXminutesXrnn 112299.doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
Stamson:
· The homes below the ordinary high who have experienced problems are largely what
led to creating this ordinance. That is the point of the ordinance, to end those
situations.
· The Commissioners are being blinded by the process and the experience. Throw that
out and look at the numbers and it would be denied. It is a disservice to the applicant
by dragging this on, giving him the false hope that it would likely pass. Given the
numbers and not the emotion, there is little chance it will get passed.
McDermott pointed out the recommendation from the Watershed District not to allow
this variance. The City has a recommendation from the DNR not to allow this variance
as well. The City's own Water Resource Engineer is also recommending denial. All the
information is present. If the Commissioners want to hear their reasoning in person,
that's fine, but the agencies supplied the information in writing.
Stamson:
· The agencies have stated their reasons why they do not want to recommend approval.
Cramer:
· Stamson made a very good point. It is not necessary to drag this out.
· Main concern is every map available does not show this area in the Shoreland
District.
· Would like to see a map of where this new Shoreland district is and the outlet
channel. How does it effect the neighboring properties in the area?
· Agreed with Stamson, cannot see the Commission granting a variance below the three
foot elevation.
Liesener said the Watershed was extremely hesitant to get involved. He had to get the
outside engineer who works for the Watershed from another source. That engineer is the
one that said it would never get over the bank. At the meeting with City Staff it was
common sense that came up with the 802.9 water level. There was no study done and no
measurements taken. If the Commissioners look at the site they can see the water will not
go over the bank. Liesener said he was comfortable building at this level. At the
meeting, staff was comfortable with the level.
Kuykendall questioned McDermott if the staff had been out to look at the site.
McDermott said she had been to the site, however, she was not at the meeting Liesener
referred to.
Kuykendall suggested a motion to table the matter and have the Commissioners go out to
the site and look at it from a bigger perspective.
McDermott responded that regardless of the elevation, the ordinance still says the lowest
floor should be 3 feet above the ordinary high water elevation.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes~nn I 12299.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
99-25PC DENYING A 2.7 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE LOWEST FLOOR
ELEVATION TO BE .3 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 3 FEET ABOVE THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Cramer and Stamson. Nays by Vonhof and Kuykendall.
MOTION DEADLOCKED.
Kuykendall recommended staff and other public agencies revisit the items raised and
respond to the allegations made. Kansier and McDermott explained the Commissioners
have the legal responsibility to grant or deny variances. The Watershed District provides
information, but has no authority or responsibility in issuing permits or variances. The
staff requested information from the Watershed District during this process and received
what information they had. It may be the Watershed District does not have specific data
on this site. Kansier explained the process.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, RECOMMENDING
COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REVISIT THE SITE
AND THE ITEMS RAISED. CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE DECEMBER 13,
1999 MEETING. AMENDMENT BY CRAMER TO HAVE STAFF PROVIDE AN
UPDATED MAP OF THE SHORELAND AREA. ACCEPTED AND SECOND BY
KUYKENDALL AND VONHOF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
The item will be on the December 13, 1999 meeting.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case File #99-085 Larry and Joyce Nickelson are requesting vacation of a
portion of the road right-of-way for Ridgemont Avenue adjacent to 15543
Ridgemont Avenue.
Applicants submitted a letter dated November 20, 1999, requesting deferral of the matter
to the next Planning Commission meeting on December 13, 1999.
There were no comments from the public.
B. Case File #99-087 Neil Boderman is requesting vacation of a portion of the
drainage and utility easement located on Lots I - 2, Block 1, Enivid First Addition.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 22,
1999, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
r:\council\plancomm\minutes\mn I 12299.doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Enivid First Addition were platted in August, 1990. The plat
dedicated a 10' wide drainage and utility easement along the east lot line of Lot 1, and a
10' wide drainage and utility easement along the west lot line of Lot 2. The property
owner, Neil Boderman, is requesting the vacation of these easements. The reason for this
petition is to allow the future owners of the property to build a building across the lot
line.
The Planning staff recommended denial of this request. The vacation of this easement at
this time is premature. Until a specific development plan is submitted for this site, the
City has no way to determine whether this vacation is in the public interest. If the
easement is vacated, and the lots are eventually sold separately, the City has forfeited the
right to use this area for drainage and utility purposes, if necessary.
Comments from the public:
Attorney David Kirkman represented Mr. Boderman in the application. Kirkman stated
there is a purchase agreement between the Post Office and Mr. Boderman located behind
the Priordale Mall. Mr. Kirkman went on to explain the proposal. Kirkman agreed with
staff it is premature to vacate the easements, but there is a plan well underway. Staff is
correct. Normally a developer would come in with a plan and lot combination; site plan
and as part of the development ask for a vacation of the easement. Due to the unique
nature of the application, the post office has requested the applicant obtain the necessary
vacation. After the easements are vacated, the Post Office will close on the land and
proceed with construction next year. Kirkman suggested the Commissioners approve the
vacation of easements conditional upon the submission of the plans and lot combination.
So if the plans are never submitted or never approved, nothing has been lost and the final
vacation would not be approved. His client is willing to submit a letter indicating that
proposal. Kirkman pointed out there are no utilities in the easement at this time. He then
presented a petition stating he knows it is not legally binding, from over 550 Prior Lake
area residents in support of the proposed site.
Kirkman suggested to the Commissioners if they were not inclined to approve the
vacation, an alternative to continue to the next meeting to give the applicant time to
submit additional information.
Ray Lemley, owner and operator of Hollywood Grill, expressed his support for the
proposed Post Office location. He felt some Prior Lake residents would like to see the
Post Office downtown, however he prefers the proposed location. There is more space
for parking and traffic. The new hardware store will generate more traffic in the
"uptown" area. Lemley is in full support of the Post Office proposal. If it doesn't go
behind Priordale, or downtown, where is it going to go? Let's keep it in the area.
Gayle Ozmet, Prior Lake Postmaster, said it is critical they (Post Office) get into a new
facility as soon as possible and have narrowed it down to this location. They have
outgrown the existing facility. They have at least another year and half to two years to
complete the process. Ozmet said the Post Office conditions will be terrible this
r :\council\pi ancomm~'ninutes'umn I 12299.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
Christmas. She has looked into adding a trailer in the parking lot. There are no other
alternatives but to get into a new facility as soon as possible. They like the location
behind the Mall. Ozmet said the Post Office had spent a lot of time and money toward
investing and drawing up plans for this property and would hate to see this delayed.
Kuykendall questioned how many vehicles does the Post Office own? Ozmet responded
12. Other workers drive their own vehicles. She also stated they need loading areas.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
Initially had the same concerns as staff. However, likes the proposal by the applicant
recommending approval on the condition the site plan is submitted.
· Questioned staff if it is reasonable to have conditions with a vacation. Kansier said
they would check with the City Attorney and set a time limit.
· Recommend City Council approve the vacation with conditions drawn up by staff.
Vonhof:
· Concurred. It would address all concerns.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed. It is best for the community.
It is an excellent location. Although, would
like to see the downtown redevelop faster.
Would like to see staff list conditions with the approval.
Kansier said it was hard to comment. It sounds like the applicant would consider
reasonable conditions pertaining to the combination of the lots as well as the
submittal of a development plan. The City Attorney would be involved. The object
is to protect the City in the event the proposal does not occur.
Cramer:
· Supported based upon the conditions outlined by Kansier and approval by the City
Attorney making sure the lots are combined and the site plan is submitted.
· Put a time limit on.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE VACATION
OF THE EASEMENTS CONTINGENT ON THE STIPULATIONS TO BE
DEVELOPED BY STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Kuykendall questioned the operation of the facility. Ozmet responded semi-trucks come
in at 1:30 a.m., 3:00 a.m., and 6:00 a.m. That does not generally get all the mail in.
Quite often on Mondays or a day after a holiday another semi-track unloads in the
morning. There is a short truck at 3:00 p.m. and a semi-track at 6:00 p.m. to pick up
mail.
r :\council\plancomm\minutes~mn 112299.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
November 22, 1999
Kuykendall expressed concerned for noise. The proposed site is adjacent to a residential
area. Ozmet said they have not received any complaints at their existing site, but it is a
business district.
Vonhof mentioned the proposed loading docks are next to the building where it will
screen some of the noise.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before the City Council on December 20, 1999.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier asked the Commissioners let staff know if they will be attending the December
27th meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
r:\council\plancomm\minutes~mn I 12299.doc 11