Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 10 2011 PC Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, October 10, 2011 1. Call to Order: Chairman Perez called the October 10, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Roszak, Perez, Howley, and Billington, Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Engineer Larry Poppler and Development Services Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approval of Agenda: MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY HOWLEY TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 10, 2011 MEETING AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes, Billington, Howley, Perez, and Roszak. The motion carried. 3. Consider Approval of September 26, 2011 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY BILLINTON, SECONDED BY ROSZAK TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 4. Public Hearings: A. #EP 11-124 Consider an application for a variance request to allow a remodel and an addition to a detached garage. The property is located on the Northeast side of Upper Prior Lake along Lakeside Ave North of Colorado St. and South of County Road 21. Planner Matzke presented the Variance request from Matt Williams to allow a remodel and an addition to a detached garage. The property is located on the Northeast side of Upper Prior Lake along Lakeside Ave, north of Colorado St. and south of County Road 21. The applicant in this case is looking to alter and change the existing garage from a side-loading to a front-loading garage. The applicant would like to expand the garage to add a third stall and add storage area. This will increase the square footage to 1,285 feet. The current setback is 10.5 feet and which would remain the same; however, it is proposed as a front-loading garage as opposed to the existing side-loading garage. The current driveway width is 45 feet at the property line; the proposed driveway width is 48 feet. A variance request to allow the existing side-loading garage was approved in 1976. Given the variance in 1976, the main condition it was approved on was due to the fact that it would be a side-loading garage and there would not be cars encroaching into the street right-of-way. Staff did provide some different options to the applicant for setting the garage farther back from the front property line. These options are somewhat of an inconvenience for the applicant but feasible, and the front-loading garage would allow the garage to meet the front yard setback. The applicant has stated that they do not plan on parking vehicles in the driveway in front of the garage, but staff stated the variance request must be evaluated according to the property situation and not specific property owner. There is not a way of enforcing that future property owners will not park in the driveway in front of the garage. Staff is recommending denial of the variance at this time, since City staff sees that there are some other alternatives. 1 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 Questions and Comments from Commissioners : Howley asked, I don’t know if there is a typo in the first bullet point? To reiterate a 280 sq. foot variance required from the 1,000 sq. foot maximum square footage. The word minimum in stated in the report. Planner Matzke responded, yes, the word should be maximum, 1,000 is the maximum for detached structures. Howley asked, is that footprint or both levels? Planner Matzke responded, that’s footprint. Howley asked, Is the applicant also asking for a 24 foot variance because they want to put a 48 foot driveway measured at the property line and right now it’s 45 feet? Planner Matzke responded, that is correct. It is 45 feet at the property line and it continues 45 feet all the way to the curb right now. The survey measured 45 feet at the curb as of now the angled section is 48 feet. Howley asked, if they kept it at 45 feet would they still need the variance? Planner Matzke responded, yes, they would need one as long as they are over our 24 foot requirement because they are reconfiguring the whole driveway. Howley asked, they already have a variance to have the garage where it is, they are adding on to this existing garage, do they need a variance? Planner Matzke responded, the reason they need it is because of the addition to the side of the garage is at 15.3 feet away, that addition is not 25 feet away. The other limitation that to take into consideration is the possibility of a front-loading verses a side-loading garage. The variance that was approved in 1976 was contingent on the fact that the garage was to be side-loading. Now they are proposing it to change in to a front-loading garage. Howley asked, if they have the exact same garage as they do now and if they were just putting garage doors on the front and leaving the ones on the side, they would have to come in for a variance application because of that fact? Planner Matzke responded, because of the fact that it was approved because of a certain design model that was chosen in the 1976; yes they would need a variance. Billington asked, Larry what are your principal engineering concerns? Engineer Popper responded, just as Planner Matzke indicated, 14 or 15 feet is simply not enough room to park a vehicle forward of the front-loaded garage proposal. Our standard parking stall is 18 feet in length and we can’t control it once it is in that people won’t park in front of their garage. Billington asked, so it is a safety issue, a public safety issue, we have here? Engineer Poppler responded, yes, snowplowing and other street maintenance would be challenging. 2 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:18 p.m. Comments from the Public Matt Williams Owner and Applicant stated, I will address each of staff’s 7 comments. Under part one where it talks about the practical difficulties, the applicant could possibility relocate the garage to the 25 foot setback and have the shop and storage area under the driveway. I was questioning that, underneath the driveway is where you are recommending it? Planner Matzke responded, yes, if the existing workshop had a driveway over the top of it. It is very similar to how the existing garage cement floor hangs over the lower level area. It would be extend that hanging floor below the open air driveway area. Matt Williams stated, from talking to some builders about that concept, to have part of that driveway exposed to the elements and the insulated shop, I would have to insulate the existing floor, all the electrical would have to come out, the whole thing, and then the new wall that is 15 feet back needs to be supported underneath for its load bearing weight. So, in reality the whole shop has to be pushed back to 15 feet to make it work. This means that my whole 16 foot addition I wanted off the back pushes me way over impervious surface. So I guess as far as the hardship thing goes, I know cost isn’t supposed to be an issue but it is. It’s tearing down a perfectly good structure and moving it back and not even being able to do what exactly I want to do because of impervious restrictions. I have no idea how often approvals are given for variances on impervious, I assume not. What I wrote here is the cost to tear down and rebuild a perfectly good structure. The driveway would add much more impervious and I would not be able to add the addition on the back. Under part two and the requirement of the zoning ordinance to eliminate congestion in a public right-of-way and to provide adequate off street parking, our main reason for doing this is safety. Yes, I want to add some additional storage but the reason for turning the garage to a front-loading is that you can see from the pictures where my current cars are parked along the driveway, we have no visibility of cars coming from the west with my suburban and Ford Explorer parked there until we are backing into the right-of-way. Furthermore, my two neighbors to the west say the same thing; they can’t see cars to the east until they get beyond my suburban. We take wider turns to try and make it safer and we end up taking off mirrors and backing into our fence. We bought the house from my in-laws and they said they never liked the maneuvering like that. I think our safety issues kind of trump the safety issues of the plows and such. One of the pictures will show you that there is a no parking sign next to my suburban and that sign has never been hit by a plow and it is 6 inches from the street. It measures 16.2 feet every time I take a tape to it. Yes, it is a short driveway but we do not want to park on the driveway. We want to increase the view for us and our neighbors. I think our safety concerns trump the safety concerns of a plow coming down the road a couple times a year. My car is parked 6 inches from the road now and when I know a plow is coming down I move it over, it’s a common sense situation. We want to add the third stall to get our vehicles off of the driveway and underneath wraps. We know it is an eyesore. I am the only one on Lakeside Ave that parks vehicles in the driveway. I think when you look at those drawings you can see that I will greatly improve the neighborhood appearance but mainly the safety of it all. Pushing the whole structure toward the lake it does get into the steeper slope of the property which increases cost, 3 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 which is a concern of mine, but it does take out two more trees, and we are already losing two trees with this design. I guess what started the whole project is, how can we make our current situation a little bit safer, a little bit more usable? Yes our driveway is falling apart and our wall is fallen apart so we had a lot of reasons for looking into the project. We certainly didn’t want to just replace it with what we had and not improve on the situation. We think we are doing this in a manner that considers a lot of people’s interests. We hope you will reconsider. In my opinion, the things I have heard from the city just don’t seem to hold up on the same emphasis that mine do. The building is not coming any closer to the road than it has been for all these years and we plan to keep cars off the street. That’s why we are adding a third car stall. Barney Dolby (20921 Island Sound Circle, Estero, FL 33928) stated, I would just like to second Mr. Williams concern over safety. With the existing side-loading garage and the parking that has to take place as you see in the pictures up there I have firsthand knowledge of this issue because I have backed out of the garage many times. The view to the east is pretty much unobstructed. But I literally have to get my back wheels on the curb gutter in order to get a view from the west on Lakeside Avenue. It is a significant issue, many times I have had to hit the brakes and pull back on the driveway. I think having the front-loading feature and the addition of the third car garage would clean up that mess and make it much safer for all concern. Troy Beam (4122 Colorado St.) stated, I want to reiterate some of the options they mentioned in the process. I own the two lots on the other side of Lakeside Avenue and we face the Williams’ property. I see the traffic going up and down Lakeside Avenue all the time. People park alongside our property all the time. For that purpose I look at their situation and I think that it will be safer for the community and safer for their family members to be parking in the direction that they will be facing off of Lakeside Avenue. I brought some pictures as I was going through the neighborhood, and this doesn’t seem like any different than some of the other driveways that I have seen throughout Prior Lake Perez asked, Larry, could you describe some of the other situations of the front yard setbacks in relation to garages? Engineer Poppler responded, I don’t know of all the scenarios in town but it is not ideal to have garages that close to the street. I think it is a valid point that when the 1976 variance was originally granted, it was granted to be a side-loaded situation. Another thing is that they probably should not be parking the way they are now by the street; they should be parking up by the garage or away from the street. Troy Beam explained the pictures of the different garages in Prior Lake. Troy Beam stated, I watch Lakeside Ave every day and see traffic going up and down. The situation they are proposing with the front loading garage will be safer that the side loading. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILLINGTON AND SECOND BY HOWLEY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley and Roszak The Public Hearing was closed at 6:24 4 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 Commissioner questions: Howley stated so far we have heard discussion about the setback variance, Mr. Williams, would you care to comment on the 284 square foot over our maximum square footage allowed. Mr. Williams what are some practical difficulties at keeping it at 1,000 square feet? Matt Williams responded, in regards to the additional square footage, I am a little caught off guard. I was so focused on the front-loading garage situation. Some of the square footage is because I want that third stall to further get cars off the driveway, which is not just an appearance purpose but also a practicality of keeping our cars out of the view of people coming in and out of our driveway as well as our two adjacent neighbors. That’s where that additional square footage would be coming from. Howley asked, you have four vehicles; two cars in the garage and two in the driveway? Matt Williams responded, that is correct, we thought about parking our cars on the street but Lakeside Avenue is so narrow that I think my car is more dangerous parked on the street than it is in the driveway Billington asked, Matt have you done a cost/benefit analysis as far as moving the garage back off the street? Matt Williams responded, just ballpark numbers, none of the builders have given me anything in writing. To move it back into the property, it would increase about $50-60K and then comes in the question of the impervious surface. Billington responded, there is a distinct possibility that it is feasible. Matt Williams responded, it would have to be torn down to be done right. Having an exposed driveway with heat coming from below it does not make sense. I would have to still support that roadside wall with some kind of structure and my shop would have to be decreased by 15 feet. Basically it would have to be torn down and built to today’s standards. Commissioner Comments: Billington stated, reviewing the presentation we’ve just had, I don’t think that the project would have a deleterious effect on the surrounding environment. From aesthetics stand point, I think it would be fine. The problem we have is one of the general public safety concerns and a short driveway length and then we have to think about the public safety under the 2030 comp plan. We have to deal with and make sure we are doing what is right for the community. I understand the applicant’s dilemma, but to say that this would meet the standard statutory of practical difficulty would be a bit of a stretch. These are major variances, Mr. Williams, and I think you know that. I am one to speak in favor of almost anything that comes before this body within reason. I think we have a couple of issues here that are tough to swallow. I appreciate your plight, your situation. Howley stated, I am going to generally agree with Commissioner Billington, the findings here for the variances are a bit of a stretch. I think if this thing was a 1,000 sq. ft. so you wouldn’t need a variance, if it were at a 20 foot front setback, I think we could reasonable with something there. I don’t think this is anything but the cheapest way to do it even though it’s a really nice project and would really enhance your property it just doesn’t meet the mustard of the variances criteria. I would love to support it but I don’t think I can. 5 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 Roszak stated, I to would love to support it and understand but my fellow commissioners have summed up the concerns that we all have to be aware of. The public safety concerns, the original variance was granted based on the side-loading garage. I wonder myself why the front-loading garage wasn’t put on to begin with; could it be that the variance wouldn’t be granted? That is why there is a side-loading entrance to begin with. I don’t think we have enough room for a driveway in the front there. Some of the safety issues that you have come up with are valid, I guess if it were my house and I had those safety concerns I would pull in straight and move the cars around. That’s just me. I really agree with my fellow commissioners; we really can’t grant this variance based on hardship. Perez stated I am not going to be too repetitive, we do look at the practical difficulties when looking at variances and the findings of fact are what we base the variance decisions on; there are three of them that are met and the other four are not met. When it really comes down to it they don’t meet the first three variance findings. I agree with my fellow commissioners if there was a way to make it happen, I think we all want to see a win, win situation. This is a difficult one. The biggest one is the 14.5 foot variance for the front yard setback we would just be creating a different issue. Unfortunately I will have to agree with staff and deny the variance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REMODEL AND BUILDING ADDITION FOR A DETACHED GARAGE ON A PROPERTY WITHIN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 5. Old Business: A.None 6. New Business: A. None 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Planner Matzke stated, as the annual Planning Commission Report will be presented to the City thth Council on November 7. You will not have any public hearings scheduled for the October 24 meeting; however, there may be a couple of old business/new business items. We are working with some applicants on those projects currently right now. It remains to be seen if those projects move forward in the next week or two for Planning Commission consideration. There will be a couple of th public hearings on your November 14 meeting. MOTION TO ADJORN BY HOWLEY SECOND BY ROSZAK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. VOTE: Ayes by Howley, Perez, Billington, and Roszak. The motion carried. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Peter Aldritt, Development Services Assistant 6 L:\11 FILES\11 PLANNING COMMISSION\11 MINUTES\MN101011.doc