HomeMy WebLinkAbout032398REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. Presentation by Councilmember Pete Schenck
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #98-035 Paul and Royceann DesLauriers are requesting a .65 foot variance
t° permit a 49.35 foot lot width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50
feet to construct a future single family dwelling on the property located at 5172 Hope
Street.
B. Case File #98-039 David Berens is requesting a 12 foot variance to permit a 13 foot
front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet for a proposed garage for the
property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
C. Case File #98-032 Consider repealing Ordinance #92-09 which deleted mineral
extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Zoning Districts.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue Capital Improvement Program discussions.
6. New Business:
A. PUD Annual Report
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\98FILES~98PLCOMM~PCAGENDA~AG032398.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.S.E., Prior L~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 23, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The March 23, 1998, 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, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar 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 March 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
A. Presentation By City Councilmember Pete Schenck
Councilmember Schenck gave a brief overview of the intent of the liaison between the
City Council and the Planning Commission. There will be liaisons between all advisory
bodies with Schenck being the direct liaison between the Planning Commission and City
Council.
There was a short discussion on State Highway 13 and MnDOT.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #98-035 Paul and Royceann DesLauriers are requesting a .65 foot
variance to permit a 49.35 foot lot width at the front yard setback instead of the
required 50 feet to construct a future single family dwelling on the property located
at 5172 Hope Street.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 23, 1998, on file in the office
of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application bom Paul and Royceann
DesLauriers who are proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new
single family residence. The lot is 49.35 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front
yard setback. Section 5-8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin~nn032398.doc 1
lot width of 50 feet to be buildable. The existing lot width at the front yard setback is less
than 50 feet requiring a variance. The lot is located in the Condons Wood Dale 1st
Addition subdivision on Prior Lake platted in 1921. The property is located within the R-
1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. There is not a bluff on
the property due to the fact that the slope from the 929.0 elevation to the OHW is not
30% or greater. The applicant does not own either of the adjacent parcels.
The legal building envelope is approximately 34 feet wide and 100 feet deep, resulting in
an area footprint of approximately 3,400 sq. feet. All setbacks will be met. The existing
impervious surface is 45.7%. The proposed impervious surface is 35.7%. Section 5-8-3
of the City Code allows for permits to be issued on sites with impervious surface over
30% which are being altered, which decrease the imperious surface (reducing the non-
conformity). The DNR had no comments on this request.
Staff concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships
pertaining to the lot that the applicant has no control over.
Comments from the public:
The applicant was not present.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· In viewing the lot and staff report, the four variance hardship standards are met.
· Supports the variance request.
· The Planning Commission had, in the past, discussed giving the planning director the
administrative power to resolve these type of width issues.
· Rye explained the new ordinance contains a provision that allows for the discrepancy
between the dimension on the original plat and the field verified dimension. The
amount of leeway is 6 inches which would address the majority of differences.
Kuykendall:
· Agreed with reasons cited.
· Appropriate to approve variance.
Criego:
· Agreed with Commissioners.
· In favor of granting variance.
Cramer and Stamson
· Concurred.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 98-08PC GRANTING A .65 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.35
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm032398.doc 2
LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INS. TEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50
FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #98-039 David Berens is requesting a 12 foot variance to permit a
13 foot front yard setback instead of the required 25 feet for a proposed garage for
the property located at 16345 Duluth Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 23, 1998, on file in the office
of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from David Berens who is
proposing to construct a three car detached garage. The lot is a comer lot 40 feet by 130
feet. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code requires that comer lots maintain the required front
yard along each street of frontage. Therefore, the required garage setback is 25 feet from
the property line facing Duluth Avenue. The requested variance is to allow a front yard
setback of 13 feet rather than the minimum required of 25 feet. The applicant will also
need a variance to lot coverage for the proposed garage. Section 5-4-1 of the City Code
allows for a maximum coverage of 22% (structures only). The applicant is proposing
building coverage of 33.7%.
Lot 23, Cates Addition was platted in 1934. The property is located within the R-2
(Urban Residential District) and is not within the Shoreland district. Section 5-4-1 allows
for a maximum building coverage, including accessory structures, not to exceed 22%.
The house foot print is 40 feet by 24 feet (960 square feet) with an 8 foot by 5 foot entry
(40 square feet) resulting in combined building coverage of 1,000 square feet or 19.2%
coverage. The proposed garage is 36 feet by 22 feet (792 square feet), resulting in total
lot coverage of 34.5%. The maximum size allowed for a detached accessory structure is
832 square feet or the foot print of the principal structure, whichever is greater.
The three stall garage is to be setback 13 feet from the property line facing Duluth
Avenue. This does not leave much room if any, for the stacking of a vehicle without
blocking the right of way. The reconstruction project of Duluth Avenue does not include
a new sidewalk or trail along this portion of the right of way. However, the applicant will
have to work with the Engineering Department to establish elevations and placement of
the new curb and gutter.
Under the proposed zoning ordinance, as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, the maximum lot coverage of structures is 30%. This would allow for
1,560 square feet of building footprint on the lot. Given the existing house is
approximately 1,000 square feet or 19.2% lot coverage, this would allow for 560 square
feet for garage space. A typical garage is 22 feet by 22 feet or 484 square feet. One
could reduce the garage width to 20 feet and still be functional. The proposed setback for
this lot under the proposed ordinance would be 25 feet front yard setback on Pleasant
Street and 15 feet from the side yard facing Duluth Avenue.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn032398.doc 3
The applicant can modify the plan to construct a garage that will meet the requirements of
the proposed ordinance. Such modification could include reducing the size of the garage
to 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep and make the opening of the garage face south. This
would increase the setback from Duluth Avenue to be 15 feet (meeting the proposed
ordinance) and allow space for a tm-around so residents would not have to back onto
Duluth Avenue. The proposed coverage on the lot would then be reduced to 1,484 square
feet or 28.5%.
Even if this proposal is modified as recommended, a variance will be required since the
proposed ordinance has not been adopted. However, modifying the proposal may reduce
the negative impacts of this proposal and justify the variance.
Staffhas concluded that as submitted, the proposal meets two of the four hardship
criteria. A variance request must meet all four of the criteria to be granted. However,
staff feels the site plan can be modified to meet all four of the hardship criteria. A
continuation of the hearing until April 13, 1998 would give the applicant 10 days to
submit a revised plan for Planning Commission review.
Cramer questioned a possible alley site next to the lot and sidewalks.
Comments from the public:
David Berens, stated he agreed with staff's proposal.
Criego questioned the three car versus two car garage. Berens said he was satisfied with
a two car garage and did not want to have to back out on to Duluth Avenue. He would
like to see a 22 x 22 foot garage if possible.
Comments by Commissioners:
Criego:
· Duluth Avenue is busy. Recommends entering the garage from the south rather than
the west.
· Land coverage - would like to keep to a minimum.
· Tovar explained the impervious surface restrictions.
· Stay under the 22% criteria.
Cramer:
· Concur with Criego.
· Same concerns.
Vonhof:
Support the right to have a garage structure.
· Current plan should be corrected. The street is too busy.
· Agreed with Commissioners on lot coverage. Stay with staff's recommendation.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn032398.doc 4
Kuykendall:
Concurred.
Tovar explained the ordinance requirements.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Commissioners.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO APRIL 13, 1998, AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL WITH FINDINGS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #98-032 Consider repealing Ordinance #92-09 which deleted
mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Zoning Districts.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report dated March 23, 1998 on
file in the office of the City Planner.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider repealing Ordinance #92-09, which
deleted mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 (Agricultural) and C-1
(Conservation) Zoning Districts. Repealing this ordinance will re-establish mineral
extraction as a conditional use in these districts.
In 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance #92-09, which deleted mineral extraction
from the list of conditional uses in the A-1 and C-1 districts. This action was the
culmination of a process dating back to early 1991 when the City was party to a
Metropolitan Significance review of a proposed mining operation on the McKenna
property in Shakopee. The Council first enacted a moratorium on mineral extraction
while the issue was studied. The end result was the adoption of Ordinance #92-09. The
reasons for the enactment of this ordinance included:
· The activity is not currently taking place in Prior Lake
· Effective, fair, efficient regulations are not in place
· Qualified evaluators are not on City staff
· Mining and residential development are not compatible uses
When the Council adopted this ordinance, they did not amend Title 9, Chapter 6 of the
City Code which allows Excavating and Filling with a permit issued by the City
Engineer. The end result is these two provisions conflict with one another.
The conflict between the Zoning Ordinance and Section 9-6 of the City Code needs to be
resolved. The proposed zoning ordinance allows mining and extraction as a conditional
use, with several specific standards and conditions. However, that provision will most
likely not become effective until sometime this summer.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm032398.doc 5
The staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and she concurs with the staff's
opinion that the record of decision for Ordinance #92-09 does not support the decision to
remove mineral extraction from the list of conditional uses. The conditional use permit
process is the appropriate mechanism for this use in that it allows for public input in the
decision making process. The current ordinance also includes a set of standards for the
approval of conditional uses.
To resolve this issue, the City Attomey and the staff have suggested Ordinance #92-09 be
repealed, thereby reestablishing mineral extraction as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-
1 districts. Any applicant who wishes to establish this use could apply for a conditional
use permit under the current ordinance. As a provision of any conditional use permit, the
City can include a requirement that any more stringent requirements imposed by adoption
of the new zoning ordinance can automatically be attached to the new conditional use
permit.
Staff recommends repealing Ordinance 92-09, thereby re-establishing Mineral Extraction
as a conditional use in the A-1 and C-1 Districts.
There were no comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
What is the definition of minerals? Kansier explained the difference between extraction
and grading. Normal development activity would not be included.
Rye explained how this issue came up with two incidents off County Road 42. The
current zoning ordinance does not specify conditions in districts, the new ordinance will.
Essentially mineral extraction would be a conditional use.
Kansier spoke on the MUSA areas and designations.
Crflmer:
· It appears this should be repealed to the original ordinance.
· Supportive.
Vonhof:
· Uncomfortable repealing ordinances when the record shows strong opposition. There
was a reason for doing this in 1992. We have large mineral extraction pits near our
city borders. There is a great deal of citizen concern. The uses are permanent.
· This is proper zoning policy, to have some type of restricted use for legal activities.
· Balance the land use and zoning issues.
· Supports. But look carefully on conditional use standards. These are permanent uses.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn032398.doc 6
Kuykendall:
· Is not in favor. It is not desirable in the community.
· There is plenty of land and minerals outside the city limits that would not keep us
from making improvements, public or private. They can be trucked in.
· Will vote against it.
Criego:
· Agreed with Kuykendall except for one point. Thc new ordinance does allow this in
all our districts on a conditional use basis.
· The conditional use allows us to get input from the public.
· Understands what staff is suggesting.
· Agreed with Vonhof. The conditional usc process is long and tedious with input from
a lot of people.
· The process should not be held up.
· Support staff's recommendation to repeal.
Stamson:
· Supports the recommendations on this issue in the proposed ordinance.
· Abstaining from voting. Has a relationship with one of the parties involved.
Discussion:
Kuykendall:
· Go back and revisit what was proposed.
Even if it is a conditional use - he would be
opposed. It is not something the City wants.
· The City can get fill and rocks from neighboring cities.
· Look at the development near Savage's pit.
· Should revisit issue. Does not favor.
Vonhof:
· There are uses we have determined will have an impact on the land uses.
· There needs to be a process for this and with conditions it is not imperative it has to
be approved if it is not the appropriate site or does not meet the performance
requirements of conditional uses.
· The original ordinance's intent was not to have it here. It is not consistent with our
zoning policy.
Criego:
· The last thing the City wants is large pits in our small community. Everyone would
agree to it.
· What we are trying to deal with are some of the minor issues under the conditional
use permits.
· Rye read some of the submittal requirements and conditions for mineral extraction
under the new proposal.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrrm032398.doc 7
Kuykendall:
· Why would the City want a pit?
· Could we restrict this to certain parts of the City?
Vonhof:
Are there possibilities of someone coming into a site and doing minimal extraction
each year?
· Rye said a conditional use permit would be subject to review every year.
· Would they be on-going from year to year?
· Rye responded one would need to know some analysis of gravel deposits in the
County. Prior Lake is pretty limited. Most gravel deposits are along the bluff facing
the River Valley.
· Could it be zoned specifically for this use?
· Rye said "Yes".
Cramer:
· Concerned for the long term affects.
· Questioned renewal after 12 months.
Criego:
· This does not have to be allowed in the City.
Vonhof:
· Water and mineral rights are different since they mn with the land as opposed to a use
on top of the land. It is different, like timber use.
Kuykendall:
· Feels very uneasy with the conditions.
· Need to hear more specifically the conditions.
· Allowable but very restrictive.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL REPEAL ORDINANCE #92-09, THEREBY REESTABLISHING
MINERAL EXTRACTION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE A1 AND C1
DISTRICTS.
Vote taken signified 4 ayes. Stamson abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Continue Capital Improvement Program discussions.
No further discussion.
6. New Business:
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminhnm032398.doc 8
A. 1997 PUD Annual Report
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated March 23, 1998 on file in the office
of the City Planner.
Chapter 5-5-1 I(D, 7,e) of the Prior Lake City Code requires the Planing Commission to
review all Planned Unit Development, (PUD), districts within the City at least once each
year. The Planning Commission is directed to submit a report to the City Council on the
development status of each PUD District in order to monitor the development progress of
each PUD District. In the event City Council would find development has not occurred
within a reasonable time after the original approval, the City Council may instruct the
Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district by removing the
PUD district from the official Zoning Map.
The City of Prior Lake currently has nine PUD districts which are indicated on the
attached PUD Inventory Map. Over half of the PUD's are completely developed. Tovar
reviewed the report with a brief history, site data, current development status and a
recommendation pertinent to the disposition of each PUD.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall questioned The Wilds - Sterling South addition project. Tovar responded the
City is working with the developer on plans.
Cramer questioned what caused Cardinal Ridge to become a PUD. Rye responded there
was significant slopes and vegetation on the site. Part of the subdivision was conveyed to
the City as parks and open space. Vonhof said the philosophy of PUD's at the time was
different, the applicant could get a little more consideration. There was a desire to get
more open areas.
Vonhofwould like to see developments like Windsong. The first section was developed
right away, then staged yearly. He would like to see a chart for each year to track where
the developments are. Did it stall out because of market conditions?
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND KUYKENDALL, TO ACCEPT THE 1997 PUD
STAFF REPORT AND REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH COMMENTS MADE
BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
Rye mentioned Commissioners Kuykendall and Stamson should submit letters of intent
to the City Manager for their planning commission tenn.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXrnn032398.doc 9
Commissioners would like to see a submittal of Jim Albers bluff presentation at the next
meeting.
Vonhof gave a brief update on the City Council zoning workshop. Some comments and
topics included were:
· Storage of recreational vehicles.
· Junk vehicles.
· Allowable encroachments in yards - the current language in the code should be
followed which basically says there is a vertical plain and nothing is going to poke
through that. The recommendation to them, allowed certain things like bay windows
and chimneys, etc. Their take on it is, if it obstructs view or drainage, why allow it?
· Took screening out of storing recreational vehicles. Should have standards.
· Lot combinations - leave ordinance as is. Discussions will continue. There was no
consensus.
· Rye spoke to the DNR on lot combinations - DNR said they will insist on
combination of substantial lots in common ownership. Theoretically the DNR can
enforce that restriction themselves.
The Scott County Planners Workshop is March 31.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Donald Rye
Planning Director
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
1:\98files\98plcomm\pcrainknm032398.doc 10