Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes REGULAR sC.~UNClL MEETING AGENDA 16200 Eagle Cr~el~/~;enue . . Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 DECEMBER 15, 2003 7:00pm Fire Station No. 1 JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION The City Council and Planning Commission will conduct a joint work session from 1pm - 6:45pm at the Lakefront Park Pavilion on the following topics. * McCombs Economic Development Study (lpm-3pm) · Discussion on Potential Zoning Ordinance Amendments (4:30pm-6pm) This meeting is open to the public. 121503 A) B) C) D) E) F) G) CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC FORUM: The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length. Items to be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to City govemmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1, 2003 MEETING MINUTES: CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately. Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category. Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report Consider Approval of Building Permit Report Consider Approva! of Animal Warden Monthly Report Consider Approval of 2004 Cigarette Licenses. Consider Approval of 2004 Renewal Massage Therapy Licenses Consider Approval of Resolutions with Findings of Fact (1) Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission to Deny a Front Yard Setback Variance for the Construction of a Single Family Dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road (Hines); (2) Overturning the Decision of the Planning Commission and Approving a Rear Yard Setback Variance for the Construction of a Deck on Property Located at 14624 Oakland Beach Ave. (Van Pelt); (3) Overturning the Decision of the Planning Commission and Approving a Rear Yard Setback Variance for the Construction of a Deck on Properly Located at 2830 Fox Run NW (McCoy); and (4) Approving a Private Use of Public Property Agreement to Allow vcww.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 aB 10. 11. 12. for the Encroachment of a Deck in a Rear Yard 10 foot Drainage and Utility Easement (McCoy). H) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving Common Interest Community Plat for Deerfield Condominium. I) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving Common Interest Community Plat for Timber Crest. J) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Full and Final Payment to Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. for the 2002 Improvement Project and Estate Avenue Lift Station Improvements. K) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Full and Final Payment to Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. for the CSAH 42 Watermain Improvement Project (City Project 02-01). L) Consider Approval of Liquor Licenses for St. Michael Church for their Annual Gala Dinner including (1) Temporary Consumption and Display Permit, and (2) Temporary 3.2 Liquor License. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PRESENTATIONS: NONE. OLD BUSINESS:: A) Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting 2004 City of Prior Lake Budgets and Certifying Final 2004 City of Prior Lake Property Tax Levy to Scott County Department of Taxation, B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute the Standard Professional Services Contract with WSB & Associates for 2004 Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. C) Consider Approval of a Resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report and Setting a Public Hearing Date for the 2004 Street Reconstruction Project. D) Consider Approval of a Resolution Accepting the CSAH 82 Geometric Layout (City Project 03-03). E) Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan for Property Located in Sections 4, 10, 11 and 12, Spring Lake Township (Case File 03-132). NEW BUSINESS:: A) Consider Approval 6f a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Outdoor Storage of School Buses on Property Located on Welcome Avenue. B) Consider Approval of an Amendment to the Prior Lake Zoning Map Re-Zoning Approximately 19 Acres from "A" (agriculture) to R-4 (high-density residential) on Property Located North of CSAH 42 West of Pike Lake Trail and South of Pike Lake (Case File 03-125). C) Consider Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Add Language to Clarify the Definition of a Bluff (Case File 03-132). D) Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing WSB and Associates to Provide Professional Engineering Services and the Execution of a Standard Professional Services Contract for the Potable Water System Comprehensive Plan Update. OTHER BUSINESS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: ADJOURNMENT 121503 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 1, 2003 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present were Mayor Haugen, Cou'ncilmembers Blomberg, Petersen, 7ieska and LeMair, City Manager Boyles, City Attomey Pace, Public Works Director Osmundson, Planning Coordinator Kansier, Planner Kirchoff, Finance Director Teschner and Administrative Assistant Meyer. PUBLIC FORUM: The Public Forum is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the City Council. The Public Forum will be no longer than 30 minutes in length. Items to be considered as part of the Council's regular agenda may not be addressed at the Public Forum. Topics of discussion are also restricted to City govemmental topics rather than private or political agendas. The City Council will not take formal action on issues presented during the Public Forum. Boyles: Reviewed the procedure for the public forum. No persons were present to speak at the Public Forum. APPROVAL OFAGENDA: MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 17, 2003 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Blomberg, Zieska and LeUair, the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Resolution 03-198 Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. (C) Consider Approval of Resolution 03-199 Electing the Non-Waiver of Statutory Municipal Tort Liability Limits and Declining Excess Liability Insurance Coverage. (D) Consider Approval of Resolution 03-200 Approving Common Interest Community Plat No. 1131 (Timber Crest Park) Fourth Supplemental CIC Plat. (E) Consider Approval of Resolution 03-201 Authorizing Fund Transfers Necessary for the Ring Road Phase 2 Improvement Project (Five Hawks / CSAH 23 / TH13).. BOYLES: Reviewed the Consent Agenda items. Hau.qen: Requested removing Item (B) - Consider Approval of Resolution 03-199 Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax952.447.4245 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Removal of No Parking Signs from Huron Street West of Fish Point Road. Haugen: Asked the City Manager to clarify the rationale for removing the signs. Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report and the process involved in making the change, indicating that a request had been made to remove the No Parking signs since the high school moved. Residents were notified and no one opposed the proposal. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND B.Y BLOMBERG, APPROVING RESOLUTION 03-198 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FROM HURON STREET. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Peteresen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Truth-in-Taxation Hearing for Proposed 2004 City Budgets Boyles: Reviewed the proposed 2004 budgets and its impacts upon the taxpayer in 2004 in connection with the staff report. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. No persons were present to address the Council. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMair: Pleased with the budget that is proposed in that the City has recovered from the cuts in state aid, that there are no reduction in City services, and that the City will continue to move toward its 2020 Vision. Blomber,q: Commented that in a time when money is tight for many people, it is important to hold the City property taxes in line when possible. This budget allows the addition of an economic development position which is very important in planning for the future of Prior Lake. Councilmembers agreed with the comments of LeMair and Blomberg. No further formal action was required. Consideration of the final budget will take place at the December 15, 2003 regular meeting. Public Hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Construction of a Single- Family Dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road (Hines). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, advising of the Planning Commission's recommendation that a reasonable use is available for the property without relief from ordinances and the granting of the variance is a convenience. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 Blomber.q: Asked if the required shoreland setback is 75 feet, and if averaging has been used to reach the conclusion that a 50 foot shoreland setback is acceptable, which already provides the applicant some relief. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Petersen: Commented that with the proposed reconstruction of CSAH 12, he was hesitant about providing any lesser setback given the cimumstances, on the front yard. At this point, supported the Planning Commission recommendation, unless other information is presented during the public hearing. LeMair: Asked the front yard setback. Also asked if the rear pomh is within the 50 foot shoreland setback. Kirchoff: Advised that the required front yard setback in an R-1 zoning district is 25 feet, unless the averaging provision of the ordinance is applied. In that case the front yard setback can be an average of those setbacks within 150 feet of the property, but not less than 20 feet. In this case, averaging is used and the minimum front yard setback would be 20 feet. Advised that the survey shows that the porch is proposed to be 50.1 feet from the OHW of Spdng Lake. Zieska: Commented that averaging can also be used on the rear yard, but cannot be less than 50 feet. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Dean Gavin (attorney for Mr. Hines): Submitted a position paper in reference to the appeal dated November 26, 2003. In reference to the reconstruction of CSAH 12 indicated that the County Engineer has advised in writing that granting the variance would not adversely impact the road reconstruction project. (Referenced Exhibits B, C & D of the position paper). Also noted that neighboring houses are approximately 9 feet and 6 feet from their respective lot lines. Clarified that the variance requested is to allow the house to be 13.6 feet from the lot line. Believed that the artificial shallowness of the ordinance creates an undue hardship upon Mr. Hines. Did not believe there is a factual basis in the record to support the findings in the proposed resolution paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8, referencing off-street parking, impacts upon the CSAH 12 reconstruction project, public safety, and unreasonable impact upon the character of the neighborhood. Commented that the building permit was approved, but has not been issued. The plan approved required the house to be moved 11 feet to the west in order to have a side loading garage. The issue of the garage has apparently no been fully resolved and thus the permit has not been issued. Based upon this set of circumstances, believed granting the variance was appropriate. Phil Hines (2719 Spring Lake Road): With respect to the off-street parking and the garage, advised that the Planning Department and Building Dept. have advised that his vehicles will not be able to make the tum into the garage area for the side loading garage. LeMair: Asked if the architect and builder were aware that they designed a building that won't fit within the setback requirements. Hines: Advised that many of the features were reduced in size in order to minimize the impacts the structure would have on the lot. Having a lakeside deck or porch is essential for lakeshore properties, and standard depth of a house is 28 feet which we meet. A 24 foot garage does not fit on the lot, which is the reason for the 19 foot garage. The rear porch is 12' x 12'. Advised that he lived in the property prior to demolition. The comparison being made with the other new construction in the neighborhood is that in measuring from the OHW mark to the center of the road are the same depth from the lake. The City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 road right-of-way abutting his property is greater than that property. That property is also a non-conforming lot and did not have the same constraints. Zieska: Asked why the vadance request isn't for a lesser lakeshore / rear yard setback. Hines: Advised that he was told that the City would not grant a vadance from the lake setback so it seemed more likely that a front yard variance would be granted. In order to have the right proportion from building cost to land cost, it makes more financial sense to move the structure toward the road rather than closer to the lake. Also believed that a front yard setback is less invasive that a rear yard setback. Blomber.q: Asked where the garage will be. Hines: Advised that the garage is in the same location and that the whole house has been shifted to the west. Instead of entedng from the front, the garage loads from the side. Neither of the vehicles currently owned can pull into the ddveway and make the turn into the garage. With the 6 foot variance, the garage could be re-designed to be front-loading. LeMair: Asked why a rambler style home was chosen, given that they take up a larger footprint. Hines: Commented that this style was the most cost-effective per square foot given the walk-out lot. A two story structure poses other issues. Hauflen: Asked the interior living space of the structure. Hines: Believed it to be approximately 3600 square feet plus the garage. MOTION BY ZIESKA, sECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Zieska: Asked the square footage of the building. Kirchoff: Corrected testimony given by advising that including the garage, the square footage of the building is 4500 square feet. The transcript indicates that the footprint of the building is 1800 square feet. Also advised that this lot is just over 12,000 square feet. If created today, it would need to be 15,000 square feet to be conforming. Blomber.q: Commented that in an attempt to accommodate the needs of the applicant, front yard and rear yard setback averaging has been applied. Believed there is not a hardship in requiring a slightly smaller structure. The house used as a comparison was on a non-conforming lot and thus under a different set of circumstances. Did not believe a variance is appropriate in this case. Petersen: Asked why the garage .can't be entered from the front. Kirchoff: Clarified that the building permit submitted in September that has been approved but not picked up has a front loading garage, but no rear porch. The plans showing the end-loading garage and rear porch was a second submittal and has not been approved. Without the deck, the structure can be moved back 12 feet and then accommodate the front loading garage. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2002 LeMair: Agreed with the comments of Councilmember Blomberg in that minimum setbacks have been applied. Believed that a property owner giving his architect parameters to design an acceptable home within the ordinance guidelines should be something that can be accomplished. Did not believe there is hardship. Hau.qen: Commented that he is having difficult seeing any hardship given these cimumstances. Hines: Advised that a preliminary plan was submitted with the variance request without the deck on it in order to facilitate the process of having the structure reviewed for compliance. It was never the intention to build a house on the lake without a deck. Kirchoff: Cladfied that two permit applications have been submitted. The first was submitted showing no rear porch and a front-loading garage and has been approved for a building permit. The second was submitted adding the pomh and showing a side-loading garage which has not been approved. Zieska: Commented that this is already a non-conforming lot. Did not believe it is right to grant a variance to further push the limits of a non-conforming lot. Believed the variance request is for convenience rather than hardship, noting that the applicant has submitted a survey without a deck that has been approved so a house can be built. Second, the applicant indicated that he requested a front yard setback because it would be easier to get than a rear yard, further indicating the variance is one of convenience. Third, the applicant advised that a rambler style was chosen rather than a two-story because it was more cost-effective per square foot. This also indicates convenience rather than hardship. Lastly, the applicant indicated that the home needed to be larger given that it is a lakeshore property in order to financially balance the cost of the lot to the cost of the home. Did not believe the reconstruction of CSAH 12 was relevant. Based on the circumstances in this case, believed the variance request was for convenience. Hau.qen: Agreed that the hardship criteria do not appear to have been met. Supported the Planning Commission decision. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8. Pace: Commented that it is often difficult for staff to sort out the findings from the discussion articulated at the public headng. The Council has articulated clear findings, but another option would be to direct staff to prepare a subsequent resolution for subsequent Council 'consideration. Zieska: Asked if there is an issue with the 60-day rule. Kansier: Did not believe timing was an issue. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE VARIANCE AND STRIKING FINDINGS #7 AND #8 FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition on Property Located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE (Case File #03-134) Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 LeMair: Asked the definition of the "reserve area". Kirchoff: Explained that the area is private park or common area for the Oakland Beach area homeowners. The building setback from that area is 25 feet. Zieska: Asked if the difference between a deck and balcony is that a deck has ground support and can therefore be a larger structure. Kirchoff: Confirmed. Blomber.q: Asked the size of the proposed deck. Kirchoff: According to the survey, the proposed deck size is 12'x24'. Hau,qen: Asked if standard building practices are that a door and ledger board are installed when no deck is permitted. Kirchoff: Commented that logically it makes sense that if a door and ledger board is incorporated, a deck would follow. It is misleading for a property owner. Mayor Haugen declared the public headng open. Tom Van Pelt (14624 Oakland Beach Ave. SE): Thanked the City staff and Councilmembers for their efforts to find a solution to this issue. Commented that the first variance application was by a prospective buyer, and upon denial of the variance, he believed the City should have required the builder to re-submit plans. The building inspection could also have required the door removed and replaced with a window. It is misleading to a buyer if a door and ledger board is included. He purchased the home after its substantial completion from the outside. It seemed from a reasonable standpoint, a deck could be added. LeMair: Asked if 12 feet of land can be bought from the Oakland Beach association. Van Pelt: By its bylaws, the Association property cannot be sold. Zieska: Thanked Mr. Van Pelt for his attempts to work this issue through staff. Blomber,q: Asked if the applicant had been told that a deck could be constructed. Van Pelt: Advised that the contractor said a deck could be constructed. Steve Vespested (14662 Glendale Ave.): Commented that aside from ordinances in place to protect property, the uniqueness of this property is overlooked. Did not believe allowing a variance of this type adversely impacts the neighborhood, the City, or the common area. Believed common sense should prevail and that the City was negligent in not requiring that the deck door be changed during the inspection. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. LeMair: Believed a mistake has been made, but did not believe it is the City's responsibility to regulate these types of circumstances. Commented that it appears that the neighbor's deck is closer to the lake that this one would be. Was not 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 certain a balcony would be a feasible option. Would be in favor of allowing a variance but would like to see the stairs reconfigured as to not further encroach the setback. Zieska: Empathized with the VanPelts, but the record and past practice indicates that no deck should be permitted. This house was constructed within the past 3 years. Did not believe there is any material change from the first two times variance applications had been submitted. Suggested that the City further review its ordinances to require that house plans for new construction include a footprint for a deck, or not allow homes to be built up to the rear lot line. Supported the Planning Commission denial. Petersen: Agreed with Councilmember LeMair, and would support a small variance in this case because the property abuts a common area rather than the lake setback. Blomber.q: Asked if the City can tell a builder not to include patio doors. Kansier: Advised that under the building code, a patio door is considered a large window. Under the zoning ordinance, a balcony is not considered a rear yard encroachment. Blomberg: Pointed out that the record indicates that a deck would not be added to the home, that the City was responsible in its action, and that a variance should not be granted on that basis. Did believe that a variance is warranted on the basis that this property is peculiar in that it abuts a lakeshore common area, does not encroach upon an adjacent residential lot, and still meets the 75 foot shoreland setback. Just as she supported a similar proposed ordinance amendment, she also supports this variance. Haugen: Discussed having rules vs. using common sense. Ordinances are in place to guide property as a whole. Concemed with having builders advise prospective homeowners that decks are permitted when in fact they are not. Commented that there is enough argument to the contrary and gray area in application of the hardship criteria. Believes the ordinance should be revisited. Supported the variance. Zieska: Asked Councilmember Blomberg if the rationale is that the rear yard setback can be smaller due to the open reserve area. Commented that there is a lot of emotion involving the fact that there is a door and ledger board. What happens when builders start constructing homes without a deck, but with a patio door?. Blomber,q: Advised that she supported the variance, and the ordinance amendment that was considered several weeks ago, because the private common open space could not be built on. In those cases, believed it acceptable to build up to the rear property line. Believed that a distinction can be drawn between variance applications that abut common open space but still meet the other required setbacks such as the shoreland setback, and homes that are constructed in general. Hau.qen: Repeated that Councilmember Zieska's concerns are the very reason he believes the ordinance needs to be discussed further so that builders are required to indicate decks on the building footprint. Blomber,q: Repeated that this property is unique in that it abuts a common area, and that is the rationale for using the variance tool in this cimumstance. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Kirchoff: Clarified that the vadance proposed in the staff report is for a 12'x24' rectangular deck. It was not the deck submitted by the applicant. Any style deck would need to be constructed within that 12'x24' footprint. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 Pace: Asked what distinguishes a deck from a balcony. Kansier: EXplained that a deck requires supports to the ground where a balcony is cantilevered from the house. Also noted that as long as the design of the d~ck fits within the granted setback, it can be any style. VOTE: Ayes Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeUair, Nay by Zieska, the motion carried. The Council took a bdef recess. Consider Approval of an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for the Construction of a Deck Addition 2830 Fox Run NW (Case File #03.131). Kirchoff: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Blomber,q: Asked for a definition of a "villa" style home. Kirchoff: According to the PUD, villa homes are single family attached or detached homes on smaller lots. On this home, there are no lower level patio doors. Blomberq::Asked if the golf course will always be a golf course. Kirchoff: The golf course use can be changed through an application for amendment to the PUD by the owner and approval by the City Council. Petersen: Asked the size of the proposed deck. Kirchoff: Advised that the proposed deck is smaller than the old one, approximately 14'x20'. Pace: Clarified that the intended use of the City's Private Use of Public Property Agreement was not to prospectively allow construction within an easement, or a waiver of the City's right for infringement into an easement. LeMair: Asked if there was ever a permit issued for the deck. Kirchoff: No permit was issued. The staff cannot tell when the original deck was constructed and has assumed that the deck was included after issuance of the certificate of occupancy since it was not included on the survey for the house. Mayor Haugen declared the public headng open. Jim Bates (attomey for the applicant): Advised that the proposed deck does not protrude further than the initial deck. Also advised that the lot size is .46 acres. Submitted a letter dated November 28, 2003 from him to the City Council on his interpretation of the state standard for variances. Further noted that State statute allows City's the variance tool to provide relief for property owners from the strict application of the ordinance. Noted that the UcCoys bought the property with the initial non-conforming, illegal deck and that the excessive impervious sun'ace existed at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Clarified that the door faces to the rear of the house even though it is on the far east side of the home. There is no significant impact upon adjacent neighbors and indicated that the golf course representatives do not 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1,2003 oppose the vadance request. Believed these circumstances provide a practical difficulty in achieving a reasonable use of the home. Petersen: Advised that the old deck looks much less than 14 feet. Bates: Advised that he has seen the old footings. Blomber.q: Asked for clarification of Mr. Bates reference to a 5 foot setback. Bates: Explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, a 1994 City Council resolution showed a rear yard setback for properties adjacent to golf course fairways was changed. The setback for the villas was 5 feet, and for 1/3 and ~ acre sites at 15 feet. The plats for the villas do not show drainage and utility easements at the backs of those lots. The single family homes sites provide a 10 foot utility and drainage easements. It appears that a standard was established as a matter of policy that rear yard setbacks adjacent to the golf course could be as little as 5 feet. Also believed that the encroachment of the deck into the easement could be addressed through a Private Use of Public Property Agreement. Blomber.q: Asked if a smaller deck is an option in order to accommodate the easement. Bates: Advised that if the easement is accommodated, the actual width of the deck at one point is 5 feet. Tim McCoy (2830 Fox Run): Advised that the deck existed when he bought the house and replacement was required due to its condition. The County advised him that as long as there is no building, repair was permitted. Did not believe that reducing the deck size to 5 feet at one point would accommodate reasonable use. Created a nice house from a neighborhood eyesore. Believed not having a deck is a hardship. LeMair: Asked about the condition of the footings for the initial deck. McCoy: Advised that the footings that were removed were only 18 inches deep and the deck was sloping toward the house. Being "in the trade" he proceeded to remove the bad footings. Not all of the footings have been removed. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Blomber.q: Asked for clarification as to the setbacks. Commented that for properties abutting open space she could justify a variance, but there is an issue with the easement along the rear property. Because of the easement, she will support the Planning Commission decision. Petersen: Believed this issue is similar to the last variance application in that the property abuts the open space of the golf course. The easement may never.be used. Supported the variance. Zieska: Asked if vacating the easement is a possibility. Kirchoff: The easement is being used for drainage purposes. Zieska: Because the property is located in a PUD, there is some flexibility. He can live with the 5 foot rear yard setback, but would like to see the side yard encroachment eliminated. Also believed the Private Use of Public Property Agreement can be used with respect to the rear easement. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 LeMair: Agreed with Councilmember Zieska and that a reasonable solution can be found so that the property owner can accommodate his deck. Hau.qen: Agreed with Councilmember Zieska. Blomberq Asked if a deck size of 12 foot x 16.5 feet accommodates the door. Zieska: It would with some creative design. Asked Mr. McCoy if maintaining the side yard setback could be accommodated. McCoy: Advised that the survey h'as been altered somewhat and there is very little room to accommodate the door. Blomber.q Asked why the Council is considering allowing the rear yard variance and not a side yard. Zieska: The rationale is that the side yard infringes upon a neighbor and the rear yard only infringes upon the golf course open space. Pace: Advised that any infringement into an easement requires a Private Use of Public Property Agreement and requires indemnification. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO DIRECT STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND GRANTING A VARIANCE INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT SETBACK WITH NO VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REQUIRING A PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AGREEMENT INDEMNIFYING THE CITY. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, Nay by Blomberg, the motion carded. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation by Norex Corporation Regarding Their New Facility Ron Haberkorn: Discussed how happy Norex is with its new facility and thanked the City for its support. Noted that as a result of support in Pdor Lake, ihey decided to maintain their old building and re-lease the space to new Prior Lake businesses. Advised that their commemial construction and taxes will contribute to the on-going betterment of Prior Lake. Viewed a brief video tape of the new facility. Advised there are 62 offices in the building all with outside views. Publicly thanked Bob Barsness of Prior Lake State Bank, Mayor Haugen and the City Council, City staff for all their help and patience, and the citizens and people of Prior Lake. As a token of appreciation, presented Mayor Haugen with a $20,000 contribution toward a downtown fountain/aerator and landscaping for the business park entry monuments. Hau.qen: Thanked Mr. Haberkom, his family, and the Norex team for their contributions to the City. It is important to invest in our current businesses in order to attract new ones. OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Contract and Approval of a Resolution Approving the Final Plat and Development Contract for Crystal Bay. Kansier: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Blomber,q: Asked if all the decks are where they are supposed to be. 10 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT December 1, 2003 Kansier: Advised that all the townhomes have decks and meet the required setbacks. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-203 APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN TO BE KNOWN AS CRYSTAL BAY. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 03-204 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR CRYSTAL BAY TOWNHOMES. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Hau,qen: Commented that there were a number of issues addressed for this development during numerous neighborhood meetings. Pointed out that there is always some emotion involved when change takes place. Complimented the developer on his communication efforts with adjoining neighborhoods. Believed the resulting development plan is responsive to the concems with landscaping and impacts upon the lake, while meeting the desires of the developer for an upscale development. NEW BUSINESS Consider Approval of Volunteer Firefighters Request for Improved Pension Benefits and Amended Bylaws of the Prior Lake Fire Department Firefighters Relief and Pension Association. Zieska: Advised that since he is a member of the volunteer fire department and treasurer of the pension relief association, he will be abstaining from the vote on this item, but would be happy to answer any questions. Boyles: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Zieska.: Added that City Council authorization is required as guarantor of the pension benefits, but the Relief Association has been very fiscally prudent in its expenditures and investments. Discussed growth of the investment over the past five years. LeMair: Asked for clarification as to the City's financial contribution. Zieska: The City would not experience any additional financial contribution, only in the event that the Relief Association has some fallout in its investments, since the City acts as guarantor. MOTION BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY BLOMBERG, TO APPROVE REQUEST OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS FOR AN INCREASE OF $700 PER YEAR IN PENSION BENEFITS AND AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF AND BENEFIT ASSOCIATION ACCORDINGLY. VOTE: Ayes, by Haugen, Blomberg, Petersen and LeMair, the motion carded. Councilmember Zieska abstained. OTHER BUSINESS ' ou.~~ With no other comments from Councilmembers, a motion to adj The meeting adjourned at 10:40pm. Frank Boyles, City Manager Kelly Mey/u,,t", Re~'rding Secretar~ 11