HomeMy WebLinkAbout052698REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998
6:30 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-057 Jim Ruzicka is requesting a .46 foot variance to permit a 49.54 lot
width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet and a 34 foot variance to
permit a setback from the top of the bluff of 47 feet rather than the required setback of
81 feet for the property at 16099 Northwood Road.
B. Case #98-052 Tom Vidmar is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake instead of the required 50
feet for the property located at 4307 Grainwood Circle.
C. Case #98-006 Consider Amendment to City Code and Zoning Ordinance relating
to the engineering certification requirements for building permit applications on
properties determined to have a bluff.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-048 (continued) James Nerison is requesting variances for impervious
surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
fL: ~9~FIL~98PI~COId/VI~C~,GFr~DA~G05269,8. I~
16200 r~agle creek ~ve. ~.~., ~'nor t~aKe, Minnesota SS372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-424S
^N EOU^L O[~PORTUr~W EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 26, 1998
1. Call to Order:
The May 26, 1998, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Criego, 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 Absent
Criego Present
Cramer Present
Stamson Absent
Commissioner Stamson arrived at 7:41 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
Correction on page 2, under Cramer, "Agreed with Criego."
The Minutes from the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
amended.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case #98-057 Jim Ruzicka is requesting a .46 foot variance to permit a 49.54
lot width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet and a 34 foot
variance to permit a setback from the top of the bluff of 47 feet rather than the
required setback of 81 feet for the property at 16099 Northwood Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 26, 1998 on file in the
office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Jim Ruzicka who is
, proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence.
The lot is 49.54 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 lot width of 50 feet to be
buildable. The City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in, thus, the
setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the
existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet and requires a variance. No
specific house plans have been drawn up at this time. The lot is located in the Northwood
subdivision on Prior Lake.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 1
There is a bluff on the property. The proposed structure is located 47 feet from the top of
bluff, rather than the required 81 feet. The 81 foot setback is determined where the grade
of the slope becomes less than 18%. Therefore, a 34 foot variance is required.
The survey indicates several easements including a private driveway easement serving the
adjacent property to the south (Lot 88), a 10 foot wide private water service easement
serving the property to the south (Lot 88), and a 15 foot wide sanitary sewer easement
held by the City.
The building envelope, exclusive of any easements, consists of five separate portions of
land. The largest portions are approximately 49 feet by 20 feet (980 square feet) and 14
feet by 160 feet (2240 square feet). The DNR did not comment on this request.
Considering the private water easement does not serve the property to the north (Lot 90),
it could be relocated to the south side of Lot 89 or on the lot it serves, Lot 88. This would
result in a buildable area of approximately 75 feet by 29 feet wide (2,175 square feet) that
meets all of the required setbacks.
If the Planning Commission feels it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate the private
water service line serving the adjacent Lot 88, then the legal building envelope would
appear to be of reasonable size. In this case, staff should be directed to prepare a
resolution of denial with findings. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission feels
hardship exists on the lot as it exists, and the variance criteria are met, then staff should
be directed to prepare a resolution approving the variances. In either case, staff has
concluded the variance request for lot width is substantiated with hardships pertaining to
the lot that the applicant has no control over.
Stamson asked for clarification of the new bluff setback ordinance. Tovar explained.
Comments from the public:
Jim Ruzicka, 16099 Northwood Road, explained his neighbor is not willing to release the
private water easements. He has been working with an attorney for the past 8 months on
this issue. The city sewer line encroaches all the way to Northwood Road and does not
mn on the property line. It is 7 to 8 feet on his property and increases the setback. The
city engineering department has told him to stay as far away from the manhole as
possible. The sewer line is about 25 feet deep. The 18% is totally different - needs a
soils engineer to build where the City tells him where to build. This has been a long
straggle. The bluff ordinance has changed several times. He feels his request is
reasonable as he is moving further away from the lake.
Todd Flom, 16095 Northwood Road, has no problem with the variance request. He feels
the applicants have been through a lot to get this house built. The request is reasonable.
The hearing was closed.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\n-m052698.doc 2
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
Unusual situation with private easements within a variance.
· Hardship standards are met with regard to lot width.
· Bluff setback issue - difficult with the neighbor not willing to release the private
easement rights. Would like to see something in writing regarding neighbor's
response rather than testimony at the hearing.
Criego:
· Agreed with Vonhof on the lot width, it meets the hardships.
· Confusing with the casements - sewer, water and driveway.
· Mr. Ruzicka said he bought the property in 1994. The title shows a shared driveway
but he was unaware of thc private water easement.
· The driveway had been there since the 1950's.
Crflmer:
· Agreed with Commissioners with the hardships on lot width. Also based on
testimony the hardship criteria has been met with the bluff setback.
· Difficult piece of property to work with.
· Recommend approval of the variances.
Stamson:
· Agreed with the lot width hardship being met.
· Hesitate to be forgiving on the bluff ordinance, but in this case a variance is needed to
build. If a variance is not allowed, the property is unbuildable for a new structure.
The advantage to the variance is that it lessens the impact on the bluff. It is moved
away from the lake. The proposed structure encroaches less than the current
structure.
· Supports issuing the variances.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE
A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS BASED UPON THE TESTAMONY AND DATA
PROVIDED AT THE HEARING APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
16099 NORTHWOOD ROAD, GRANTING LOT VARIANCE OF .46 FEET AND
BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 34 FEET BASED ON THE FOUR VARIANCE
HARDSHIP CRITERIA BEING MET.
AMENDMENT BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
DOCUMENTATION THE NEIGHBOR WILL NOT RELEASE THE WATER
EASEMENT.
Criego asked where the garage doors would be facing. Ruzicka said they would face
Northwood Road.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminLmn052698.doc
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #98-052 Tom Vidmar is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot
setback from the ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake instead of the required 50
feet for the property located at 4307 Grainwood Circle.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated May 26, 1998, on file in the office of
the City Planner.
The applicant is requesting a 9 foot variance to permit a 41 foot setback from the OHW
of Prior Lake rather than the required 50 foot minimum setback for proposed deck.
Lot 18, Grainwood Park was platted in 1944. In 1996, the Vidmar's applied for the
following variances:
1. A 5' front yard setback variance to permit a 20' setback instead of the required
25';
2. A 5.57' side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of 4.43' instead
of the required 50.5';
3. A 5.5' variance from the lakeshore setback permitted under Section 9.1(D)2 to
permit a lakeshore setback of 45' instead of the required 50.5'.
Staff had recommended denial of the request because there was an alternative to build a
structure within the legal building envelope. The item was continued by the Planning
Commission to a later date to allow staff time to review the revised plan submitted by the
applicant at the meeting. The Planning Commission never made a decision on the request
because the applicant withdrew the application and met the required setbacks.
The approved plans from the building permit indicate the patio doors to be on the west
side of the house, behind the garage and on the north side facing the lake. The city noted
on the plans that no deck could be built facing the lake. Therefore, the applicant only
placed patio doors facing the lake. The applicants constructed this house with the full
knowledge the closest they could construct their house, including a deck was 50.5 feet
using setback averaging.
The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow a proposed deck to be 41 feet from
the OHW rather than the required 50 feet.
Staff has concluded the variance request to OHW setback does not meet the hardship
criteria. The hardship, if any, was caused by the applicant and reasonable use of the
property exists without the variance.
Comments from the public:
Tom Vidmar, 4307 Grainwood Circle, said he wanted to go back to 1996 with comments
from the DNR stating "the deck is of modest size". Vidmar quoted comments from the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 4
Commissioners agreeing to a suspended deck. He did not come back before the
Commissioners because of constraints by the builders. He ran out of time and was
waiting for the City to pass the substandard lot ordinance with the 5 foot side yard
setback. Mr. Vidmar said the former planner told him to go ahead and plan a deck. He
felt his hardship is that the lot is small, long and narrow. Mr. Vidmar said at the time of
the variance the lake setback was 75 feet. He was under the assumption he could see the
lake when he built on it. The side door was put on as a catwalk. Mr. Vidmar presented
pictures of the neighborhood with lake setbacks much closer than he is asking. Referring
to previous comments from the commissioners two years ago he feels he can have a deck.
Craig Hinz, 3314 Grainwood Circle, explained ifVidmar's deck was built on the side it
would hinder his property values. Also, his view of the lake would be blocked.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Does not remember the exactly what took place at the hearing two years ago. But the
important point is lake setback at the time was 75 feet. There was setback averaging
with the two adjacent neighbors and came up with 50.5 feet. This Commission has
always been stringent on moving towards the lake. Them are a number of
Commissioners who do not agree with the lake setback change to 50 feet. The intent
is to protect the lake both aesthetically and from a water quality standpoint.
· Understands there are other homes on the lake that severely impact both of those
items.
· Does not believe the hardship has been met. Applicant still has use of the property.
· Would not have allowed a deck to be within that 75 foot setback two years ago. We
would have made sure the deck was within the setback averaging.
Cramer:
· Does not believe the hardship criteria has been met. The Commissioners are split on
the setbacks. To go any less than 50 feet does not make it a hardship, especially in
this case. This house was constructed when the setback was 75 feet.
· Cannot agree with this variance.
Vonhof:
· Concurred. The variance hardships have not been met.
· There are alternatives within the legal building envelope.
Stamson:
· Agreed.
Tom Vidmar, 4307 Grainwood, said he understands the Commissioners do not want
people encroaching any further. He feels he is not asking for an unusually large deck and
does not feel he is encroaching on the neighbors. Obviously if there was a problem the
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc
neighbors would be at the meeting. Mr. Vidmar said he tried to work with the City in
building a small house. When the building official approved the doors on the second
floor, the assumption was for a deck.
Criego:
· Going back to notes of March 25, 1996 - explained his comments regarding the front
and lake setbacks.
· Mr. Vidmar said he has a 3 car garage.
MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-
14PC DENYING A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 41 FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE INSTEAD OF THE
REQUIRED 50 FOOT SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED DECK.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Tovar explained the appeal process.
C. Case #98-048 Consider Amendment to City Code and Zoning Ordinance
relating to the engineering certification requirements for building permit
applications on properties determined to have a bluff.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated May 26, 1998 on
file in the office of the Planning Director.
In January, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance #98-01, which established the bluff
setback requirements. The ordinance also established a requirement for engineering
certification that any excavation, fill or placement of a structure on a property determined
to have a bluff will not cause any slope to become unstable, and will not interfere with
adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage, or
adversely affect existing sewer and drainage facilities, stormwater runoff, downstream
properties, wetlands, or bodies of water, or will not result in erosion or sedimentation.
This engineering certification is required before any building permit will be issued on a
lot considered to have a bluff.
On April 20, 1998, the City Council revisited this issue. The primary concerns related to
the potential cost of the required engineering study, the willingness of engineers to certify
the studies, the need for the studies for minor additions, decks or garages, and the ability
of property owners to reasonably comply with the ordinance. After much discussion, as
outlined in the minutes of the Council meeting, the Council determined the potential cost
of the study is not um'easonable. The Council did decide the issues of the willingness of
the engineers to certify the reports and the need for a study for minor additions, decks and
garages should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study.
In discussing this issue with several engineers, it appears some are reluctant to certify the
slope will not fail. This is basically due to the fact there are several factors over which
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn052698.doc 6
the engineer has no control, such as what occurs after the structure has been built. Most
engineers are willing to sign a report with recommendations for construction which
should be adhered to for each particular property on a bluff.
It was never intended the engineer should be held responsible for conditions which
occurred after the site development. The purpose of the certification is to identify any
potential problems on the site, such as soil conditions or structural loads. The preparation
of a report which identifies these conditions and outlines specific recommendations will
achieve this purpose. The staff is proposing the ordinance language be amended to state
the following (new language is shown in bold italics):
On properties determined to have a bluff, the applicant for a building permit
on that property shall provide cng:neenng ....................... v a report
prepared and signed by a ~ professional engineer registered by the
State of Minnesota t,h. at nc. on the impact any excavation, fill or placement
of structures will have on the site and whether the excavation, fill or
placement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will
impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The eng:.nccr
report shall also,,,,.~"~:~'~..j '*'n'~..,~ include the engineer's recommendations so
the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or
adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing
sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of
stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream properties,
wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation.
The owner of the property shall provide certification from a registered
professional engineer that the final grading of the site was completed in
compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations
contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to.
Another issue is the actual need for an engineer's study in all situations, especially for
minor additions, decks or garages. The staff agrees it may be unreasonable to require this
report in some instances; however, each property is unique. To that end, the staff is
proposing language which allows the Building Official, Planning Director and City
Engineer to waive the engineering study for replacement decks, new decks or additions to
existing decks, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet under all of
the following conditions:
· An inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion problems or
conditions.
· There is no history of bluff failure on the site.
· All required setbacks are met.
· The property owner records a bluff indemnification agreement and a declaration of
covenants.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminkmn052698.doc
This language allows some flexibility in the report requirements, but also allows the staff
to require such a report in cases where the bluff stability is questionable.
Staff feels the proposed language accomplishes the purpose of original ordinance, while
allowing some flexibility. Their recommendation to City Council is to approve the
proposed amendment or with changes specified by the Planning Commission.
Questions by the Commissioners:
Criego:
What would happen if the applicant would disagree with staff's review of having the
inspection done by an engineer? How would they appeal? Kansier said it would be the
normal appeal process.
Crflmer:
Engineering okay with certification on the grading? Kansier said "Yes".
If an addition to the house is approved by staff, does that nullify the last paragraph, the
property owner basically indemnity the City when then make the addition? Kansier said
"Yes".
Vonhof:
Questioned the language with professional engineer. Kansier said it should be the same.
Regarding the criteria on page 3, no history of bluff failure on the site, what about the
adjacent property? Vonhofrecommended to expand and include the 2 adjacent lots with
a history of lot failure.
Comments from the public:
Win Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road, said he is applying for a building permit to add
on 4 feet to his existing deck. The ordinance passed in January was great but was over
done for situations like his. He said he likes the new wording with common sense in the
ordinance for minor additions.
Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, wanted to commend staff for attempting to clarify
what he saw as some problems in the ordinance. The City Council acted in haste when
they passed the ordinance. This ordinance was taken primarily from Minnetonka's
ordinance (handed out ordinance to Commissioners). A lot of the verbiage came from
that ordinance. His point was it allowed building on the slope, not with the setback. Mr.
Albers went on to say a while ago he objected to staff's interpretation of a bluff and then
dropped it for a variety of reasons. This ordinance addresses a lot of the issues for people
who want to do minor changes.
Mary Mirsch, 15432 Red Oaks (seasonal address), 2260 Sargent, St. Paul, would really
like the Commissioners to stop and consider what they have in this ordinance. He has 35
years experience working in the defense industry and knows what a safety factor is. He
feels there are three redundancies, first is based on the DNR. The 18% slope cannot be for
l:\98files\98plcomm\pemin\mn052698.doc 8
safety because the City allows a 30% slope for berms. Mr. Mirsch gave his interpretation
of Bret Anderson's (a geotechnical and civil engineer with STS Consultants)
interpretation of what the ordinance should be.
The second redundancy is the engineering requirement. The third is the indemnification
of the City. Mr. Mirsch feels this is beyond fail-safe. He can understand an engineering
report so let him build on a bluff. There are too many requirements in the ordinance and
it keeps coming back and coming back. Why not sit down and figure out what should be
done? His neighbor's house is fairly large but he does not worry that it is going to fall
down. Mirsch said the City is creating an impossible situation and he cannot build his
house.
The public hearing is closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Crflmer:
· This is the first I have seen of the City Council's proposal. The new ordinance
significantly allows more use of the lakeshore land than what the previous ordinance
did. This clarifies what the Council approved earlier. It has been reviewed by
engineers. According to the Council Minutes, Mr. Anderson said in general this is a
good ordinance.
· Recommend Council approve the amendment to the ordinance.
Stamson:
· Do we need an engineering study on all cases? If the bluff is just marginal, if it just
averages just 18% and the house is set back 25 feet, do we need a study?
· Kansier said "Yes".
Vonhof:
· We have discussed this a lot. Prior Lake has a number of vacant properties and open
lands that have significant bluffs on it. It is a big issue.
· This was never considered until recently. It was not an issue brought before the
Commissioners.
· It is important the City have an ordinance to protect the bluffs. We do have a
responsibility to make sure the houses are not falling off the bluff or causing erosion
into the lake or just damaging a bluff. There are other bluffs in the community.
· Previous discussions have been with engineering reports.
· With any new ordinance it might come back for fine ming.
· Agreed with language changes recommended by staff.
· The Commissioners will review this annually with applications coming before us.
Criego:
· The verbiage is fine. It does what it is suppose to do.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn052698.doc 9
· There are deeper problems. This ordinance is hard to explain. We owe it to ourselves
and the public and see if it can be put in terms everyone can understand. And further,
is that what we really want to do?
The city engineers should explain to us again.
· I can not answer all the questions.
· The request for change was established based on a need. Kansier explained the City
Council heard from residents and came back with these two issues.
· In full support of the ordinance because it eases it. But in conjunction with that there
should be something in place to have the engineering department and Planning
Commission go through this.
Stamson:
· Support the changes.
· Agreed with Vonhof and keep an eye on the issue and see how it is working.
Cramer:
· Is the intent to put this in the proposed ordinance being reviewed by the Council?
Rye said this is an amendment to the Shoreland Ordinance and will be incorporated
into the new document.
· Are we reviewing what Council is reviewing? It would make sense to make sure that
when the entire new Zoning Ordinance is approved the correct language will be
incorporated at that time.
· Is the intent to review it again?
Stamson:
· We should not rewrite what we've done. The Planning Commission and City Council
considered this a lot. This is the way to go.
· We should watch it carefully to make sure it does not go into a direction that we did
not intend.
· City Council decided this is the way they want to go.
Criego:
· The Council does not understand the ordinance. This has been brought up a number
of times, either the way it is explained or the interpretation is not understood.
Vonhof:
· Maybe there should be a 30 minute presentation by staff. The difficulty in writing the
ordinance is to cover everything. This is an area we have not covered before. Work
with what we have and go from there. See how it affects the cases.
Tovar said there are two different issues. One is the current ordinance and the
interpretation of that. The city staff can decide where the house goes but the concern is
the safety factor, slopes, soils and weight. The soils vary from lot to lot. We brought this
to the Council because they had the same questions the Planning Commission did.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 10
Cramer:
· Has concern if it is just introduced to the Planning Commission.
Include diagrams within the ordinance itself so it is clearly understood.
Kansier said the diagrams are in the ordinance.
Vonhof:
· The soils speaker should be videotaped and available for viewing by the public and
future commissioners.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AS STAFF RECOMMENDED WITH THE CHANGE ON
PARAGRAPH 2, "THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD PROVIDE
CERTIFICATION FROM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER RATHER THAN A
REGISTERED ENGINEER." AND
MODIFY MOTION BY CREIGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT THE CRITERIA
BE CHANGED FROM "THERE IS NO HISTORY OF BLUFF FAILURE ON THE
SITE" TO "THERE IS NO HISTORY OF BLUFF FAILURE ON THE SITE AND THE
ADJACENT SITES.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO TO HAVE PLANNING STAFF AND ENGINEERING STAFF
REVIEW THE ORDINANCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH
SEVERAL EXAMPLES TO INSURE IT'S UNDERSTANDING AND IF THAT IS
WHAT WE WANT IN THE FUTURE TO BE HELD IN THE NEXT MONTH.
Rye said staffwould not be able to set it up within the next two meetings because of
study sessions on the zoning ordinance with City Council. Mr. Anderson's schedule
would have to be considered as well. The Commissioners decided to discuss this issue at
the next meeting.
There was no second or no vote.
5. Old Business:
A. Case #98-048 (continued) James Nerison is requesting variances for
impervious surface and side yard setback for the property at 14294 Aspen Avenue.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Planning Report dated May 26, 1998 on file in the
office of the Planning Director.
The Planning Commission continued the discussion on this request to gather specific
information regarding the boundaries of the Shoreland District (SD), input from the DNR
on lots located partially within the SD, and the policy relating to use of easements.
h\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmnO52698.doc
11
A map was presented indicating the boundaries of the Shoreland District. Mr. Nerison's
property is located entirely within the SD. The DNR also supports staff's interpretation
that lots partially within the SD must comply with the impervious surface requirement on
the entire lot. The language is specific to include the entire lot. A memo from the
engineering department relating to the use of drainage and utility easements was included
in the report.
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. 5.2% Variance to allow impervious surface of 35.2% rather than the maximum
allowed of 30%.
2. A 0.1 foot variance to allow a side yard setback of 9.9 feet rather than the required 10
feet.
Staff has concluded the variance request to impervious surface can be reduced or
eliminated upon redesign of the structure or driveway and patio. The setback variance
can be eliminated by relocating the proposed porch. The fact the structure is in place has
no bearing on the hardship. If a permit application had been submitted prior to
construction, these issues would have been addressed before any construction had began.
Comments from the public:
James Nerison, 14294 Aspen Avenue, said when he came into the City and asked where
his lot was, staff measured out and told him only the comer of this lot was in the
Shoreland District. Mr. Nerison said if he would have been shown a map and his entire
lot was in there would have been no reason to come in and push this issue. Now the line
has been moved to include his entire lot. At the time his driveway was put in was okay
and should not be an issue. It is a surprise to him that his lot is in the Shoreland district.
He knows now and will take off the roof.
Rick Sheldon, 14300 Aspen Avenue, a neighbor, said he does not have a problem with
the Mr. Nerison's driveway.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Clearly the property is in the Shoreland District. Cannot support the impervious
surface request.
· The one inch side yard is not significant and can be dealt with.
Criego:
· The porch is up at this point.
· No problem with the inch setback. It was built by accident. The hardship has been
met.
· Pretty stringent with the 30% in the Shoreland District. Not in favor of the 35.2%
impervious surface.
1 :\98files\98plcomm\pcmin'u-nn052698.doc 12
· Nerison said he put the structure up without a permit and will take the roof off.
Cramer:
· Criego and Vonhof summed up his feelings. Concur with the side yard setback.
· Can not go along with the impervious surface.
Stamson:
· If the applicant would have applied for a building permit, would the side yard setback
have been caught? Tovar said it would have been caught and not approved. An
inspector would have been sent out and make a determination.
· Tovar pointed out that even with removal of the roof, the applicant would still be over
the 30% impervious surface.
· Agreed the impervious surface hardship has not been met.
· Support the side yard setback in regard to a deck but not a porch. A survey would
have been required.
Criego:
· If the roof is taken off the three season porch then what percentage of impervious
surface is there with the driveway? And when was the driveway added?
· Nerison said he did not know when he put the driveway in.
· Tovar said it was November of'87 and after the impervious surface ordinance was in
place. Nerison would have to come into compliance and staffhas talked to him about
options.
· Nerison said his brick patio is not impervious, it is just bricks laid in sand.
· Tovar said the removing the porch would be at 33.5% impervious surface.
Rick Sheldon questioned how much impact will this have on the entire community of
Prior Lake?
Stamson responded the Commissioners have looked into it and it makes a difference.
The DNR wants the City to be at 25% impervious surface.
Nerison said the fact that the runoff from the addition that goes into an overflow basins
before it goes into the lake, would that have any affect? He is not the only person in the
neighborhood that has an impervious surface problem.
Tovar responded the City works on a complaint basis. Someone filed a complaint and the
City had to investigate and found out Nerison did not meet City Ordinances and enforced
and enforced the complaint. The City does not go out and drive around looking for
violations.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRAMER, DENYING A 5.2 PERCENT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 35.2 PERCENT
RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED OF 30 PERCENT. AND APPROVE A
0.1 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 9.9 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK FOR AN UNCOVERED DECK.
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\mn052698.doc 13
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, felt if the City is going to have impervious
surface for the Shoreland District it should be the same for the entire City. There are
many commercial and residential developments that are outside the Shoreland District but
still drain into the lake.
Stamson responded the Commissioners did look at it in the new zoning ordinance. The
State of Minnesota dictates the restrictions in the Shoreland District. The outlining areas
is being restricted with floor ratios and maximum lot coverage.
6. New Business:
The study session on the new ordinance is Wednesday, May 27, at 5:30 p.m. at the
Maintenance Center.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
l:\98files\98plcomm\pcminXmn052698.doc 14