Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041497REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, April 14, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. CASE #97-015 (Continued) Ronn Hechter is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a "fast food establishment" in a B-1 Zone; a 10 foot variance to allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet; and a 63 parking stall variance to allow a total of 87 parking stalls rather than the 150 parking stalls. This property is located on the east side of Franklin Trail, north of County Road 44 (160th Street). B. CASE #97-024 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback from the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) in the Shoreland District. C. CASE #97-025 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance Relating to the structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: A. CASE #97-023 Eagle Creek Villas requesting a vacation of the Holly Circle right-of-way and the utility easements adjacent to Lot 2, 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to allow a 5' side yard setback for existing residential structures in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. 8. Adjournment: AG041497.DOC PAGE I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 14, 1997 1. Call to Order: The April 14, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar, Assistant City Engineer Sue McDermott and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Vonhof Absent Wuellner Absent 3. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 24, 1997, MINUTES. Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 6:32 p.m. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Kuykendall, Vonhof and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. Public Hearings: A. CASE #97-015 (Continued from the March 24, 1997 meeting.) Ronn Hechter requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow a "fast food establishment" in a B-1 Zone; a 10 foot variance to allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 30 feet; and a 63 parking stall variance to allow a total of 87 parking stalls rather than the 150 parking stalls. Planner Jenni Tovar presented a letter from Mr. Hechter requesting withdrawal of the application. Mr. Hechter has revised his plans eliminating the conditional use requirements and variances needed. The public hearing was closed at 6:32 p.m. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 1 B. CASE #97-024 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-8-3 of the City Code and to Section 9.3 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback from the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) in the Shoreland District. The public hearing was open at 6:34 p.m., and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public at attendance. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The public hearing was to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which will change the structure setback from 75 feet to 50 feet on General Development Lakes. This proposed amendment comes at the direction of the City Council in response to a recent variance request. The approval of the proposed amendment would allow for existing and new structures to be located 50 feet from the OHW of Prior Lake or Spring Lake. From an administrative standpoint, the proposed change in the ordinance would reduce interpretations of setback averaging on General Development Lakes. The proposed amendment would also eliminate many variance requests. It would also make the submittal of surveys with building permits less complicated for the applicant. One down side to allowing a closer setback is the visual appearance of the shoreline from the lake. Buildings and structures will be located closer to the water. The building separation will remain the same between side yards. Health, safety or general welfare will not be adversely affected by the amendment. The public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: There are many different issues that need to be addressed. It sounds like the ordinance is being pieced together. My reaction is to consider it all in total in the revised ordinance. Vonhof: · Question to staff: The City elected to have a more stringent lakeshore setback than the DNR. In the research did you find any rationale? Kansier responded staff did not find any rationale. · The report states 5% of the lakeshore would be impacted which would be about a mile of impacted shoreland. · How does this 25 foot extension impact existing structures? Kansier responded it would have the potential to add a 25 foot addition. · The City has to look at the unknown impact on the lake. Kuykendall: · One of the biggest need is to find the rationale for the 75 foot setback. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 2 · Kansier responded staff did not talk to the previous staff or Planning Commissioners but did talk to City Council members who were on the Council when the ordinance was adopted. The City Council could not recall the rationale. · Would like to know the rationale from previous Commissioners and DNR's rationale for the 50 feet. · The two criteria that come to mind is visual impact and drainage (impervious surface). The further away a structure is from the lake the harder it will be for the runoff, if any, to reach the lake. It raises a question to the relationship of impervious surface. · Last year the Commissioners toured the lake and found the important issues were visual impact and screening (landscaping). There should be more trees and/or vegetation between the home and the lake. · 95% of the lake would have the potential to add on. Concerned for the large impact. Stamson: · Preferred the ordinance as written. There is no justification to change it. Just because someone was denied a variance does not mean the City has to change the ordinance. · It is not good policy to change on those matters. · Keep structures as far as possible away from the water. · The DNR ordinance states 50 feet and 25% impervious surface. If the City is using the DNR standards, the impervious surface should be reduced to 25%. · Prefer to leave the setback at 75 feet. Criego: · Agreed with the 75 foot setback and the setback averaging. · It is not fair for the residents who have abided by the existing ordinance and a neighbor comes in and builds 25 feet closer to the lake. The setback averaging satisfies any new neighbor coming into the area. · The existing ordinance is acceptable. · The lake is the City's focal point. Against anything affecting the lake visually or aesthetically. · Agreed with Kuykendall - concerned with the 95% existing homes on the lake. The new homes will take additional square footage. · There are too many variables associated with this ordinance. · Should table and get the whole picture. Open discussion: Kuykendalh · The City has been more restrictive in terms of protection of the lake. It is a major asset to our community. · Landscaping and screening the lake with trees is important. There should be a compromise with the landowner who wants a 25 foot variance. There is a greater public need. If someone wants this, they have to give up something. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 3 · The Commissioners need to know where the setback rationale of 50 feet and 75 feet came from. · Would like to go back and talk to the previous Planning Commissioners and DNR to get the rationale. · It will affect drainage and could have a major impact on the lake. Criego: · There are two visual problems - one looking towards the lake for neighbors and the public walking/driving by. Vonhof: · There is no real compelling reason to change the ordinance. Stamson: · No strong rationale to change. · Open to change to 50 feet with restrictions and conditions. Rye commented some of the lake setback rationale basis came from studies done by the University Geography Department in the late 1960's. They developed number indices related to lake crowding, shoreline density and many other factors. Based on that information the State Shoreland Management Act was passed and the DNR was directed to prepare regulations. Part of the rationale came from the natural environment development compared to the pristine lakes. The general development lakes (like Prior Lake) would never be a "Boundary Water" quality lake. Therefore a lesser standard was adopted. Keep in mind, for a good number of years after the Shoreland Ordinance was passed, variances were routinely granted to allow houses built at 50 feet. While the 75 foot standard was on paper, the defacto setback was 50 feet. Criego: · Combining lots were acceptable so homes were not squashed on the lake. Rye said there are provisions in some of the DNR criteria to relax some of the ordinances. Kuykendall: · Concern for water quality. Fertilizers running off into the lake is a problem. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Contact previous Planning Commissioners and discuss. 2. Contact the DNR and find out their rationale for the setbacks and impervious surface. 3. The Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District should be notified. 4. The Lake Advisory should have input. 5. Concern for visibility with a 50 foot setback and the neighbor having a 75 foot setback. 6. How all this applies to combining lots owned by a common property owner. 7. How does this fit into our floor area ratio? l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 4 8. Why does our current ordinance not suffice with the two conditions we have? - Setback averaging and building requests. 9. What has the history of granted variances been? Need information from '90 to '95. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO MAY 27, 1997. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. C. CASE #97-025 Consider an Amendment to Section 5-4-1 of the City Code and to Section 4.1 of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance relating to the structure setback and the conversion of existing decks not meeting the required setbacks to three season porches. The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Staff Report. On March 17, 1997, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced lakeshore setback. The variance involved the conversion of an existing deck to a three season porch. The Council tabled action on this item; however, in response to the appeal, the Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which might address some of the issues raised by this appeal. This amendment relates to the conversion of existing decks which do not meet the required setbacks to a three season porch. (An amendment to the required setback from the OHWM will also be considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.) This amendment has several implications beyond that of replacing an existing deck. First of all, the amendment applies to all setbacks, potentially allowing decks located within required side yards, rear yards and front yards to be converted to a porch, which in turn could result in porches located within easements (especially in side yards). Additionally, structural requirements for decks are very different than those required for porches or other additions. Many decks, especially older ones, either did not have building permits, or there is no documentation. There would be no way to determine if the structural foundation is adequate for a porch. This amendment is much more far reaching than the provision allowing the replacement of existing decks. The staff recommended denial of this amendment. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 5 Comments from the Public: Patty Maas, 2195 NW 140th Street, stated her concem for the high level of noise on the lake. She though it may be possible that building structures accentuate the lake noise compared to vegetation and trees. Mrs. Maas ask to consider the issue and help reduce the high level of sound. The public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Agreed with staff. · Sees all kinds of problems. Does not agree to change an ordinance based on one denied variance. · This is related to the previous item and should be continued. Vonhof: · Can see the rationale to change a deck to a three season porch. But agreed this is another thing to be considered in tandem with the previous proposal. Both are related to variances. The City has a legal process. · There is no compelling reason for the ordinance change. Stamson: · Opposed the ordinance change. · If the footings have to be changed, a person would completely change the structure. · If a three season porch is okay, why not an addition? · The ordinance is fine as written. Criego: · Agreed with staff's concerns outlined in the report. · This is another way of getting around the ordinance. The City has to address the big picture. · This will allow many people to add on with many problems. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THIS ISSUE TO THE MAY 27, 1997 MEETING. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 6 A. CASE #97-023 Eagle Creek Villas requested a vacation of the Holly Circle right- of-way and the utility easements adjacent to Lot 2, 1-5, Block 2, Holly Court. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report. The City received a petition from Eagle Creek Villas to vacate Holly Circle located south of Cates Street. Eagle Creek Villas constitutes a majority of the property owners adjacent to this right-of-way, owning Lots 2, 3, and 4. Joseph Knoblauch owns Lots 1 and 5. Holly Court was platted in 1977. The road right-of-way for Holly Circle and drainage and utility easements on individual lots within the plat were dedicated at that time. This five lot subdivision is undeveloped and remains in a natural state. Currently, there are no utilities or drainage ways through the right-of-way. Lots 1 and 5, owned by Joseph Knoblauch, are currently in the tax forfeiture stage. Staff felt the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not eliminate a public need. Staff recommended approval of the vacation of Holly Circle with the following conditions: 1. Lots 2, 3, and 4 shall be combined and added to PUD 82-12 Priorview via platting and PUD. 2. A utility easement covering the entire right-of-way be granted to the City. 3. The 20 foot drainage easement along Cates Street will be retained by the City. Comments from Commissioners: Kuykendall and Stamson: · Discussion on the easement and public right of way. Vonhof: · Supported staff's recommendation with the conditions. Criego: Agreed with recommendations and supported the Resolution. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 97- 11PC RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF HOLLY CIRCLE WITH THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance and City Code to allow a 5' side yard setback for existing residential structures in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~nn041497.doc Page 7 Kansier explained the background on this issue. Staff suggested further discussions as part of the special zoning ordinance meetings. Open discussion: Kuykendall: · The Planning Commission had goals and missions a year ago for the community. We should be able to go back to our objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and find the guiding light and keep relating back to our visions and policies. Criego: · The problem the Commissioners always face - the Comprehensive Plan does not always address these issues. Kuykendall: · We want environmentally sound criteria. Then define in the ordinance. Vonhof: The Commissioners deal with equity issues which is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. In the last two years we have been following stricter variance criteria. Some of the decisions are common sense. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CLOSE MEETING. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary l:\97files\97plcomm\pcmin~-nn041497.doc Page 8