Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062397REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, June 23, 1997 6:30 p.m. 2. 3. 4. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: A. Case #97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Phillip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Rd. A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW. A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS 5. Old Business: A. Continuation of Northwood Oaks Estates Preliminary Plat. B. Review outstanding Zoning Ordinance issues. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: 16200 ~3~r~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota gr3a372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1997 1. Call to Order: The June 23, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson and Wuellner, 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: Vonhof Absent Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Criego Present Wuellner Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The June 9, 1997 Minutes were approved as submitted. 4. Public Hearings: A. Case//97-050 Variance Request by Bryan and Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road requesting: A 20 FOOT ORDINARY HIGH WATER (OHW) SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK OF 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE OHW OF SPRING LAKE (912.8); RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND A NEW GREENHOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI-SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SD-SHORELAND DISTRICTS. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Philip and Bryan Hines who are proposing to remove an existing deck and construct a new, larger deck with a porch and a separate greenhouse. The lot is located on Spring Lake in part of the original Spring Lake Townsite. The house is setback 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) (912.8 feet) level of Spring Lake. The existing deck (24 by 8 feet) extends 8 feet beyond the house, towards the lake, to be setback approximately 39 feet from the (OHW) instead of the required 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck, porch, and green house. A portion of the new deck and green house will extend closer to the OHW and will be located 30 feet from the OHW. Therefore, the applicants MN062397.DOC 1 are requesting a 20 foot variance to the OHW setback to permit a structure setback of 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet. The existing structure is situated in the center of the lot between the street and the lake and towards the east side lot line. The front yard setback is approximately 25 feet. The eastern side yard setback is 7 feet and the western side yard setback exceeds the required 10 feet. On the lakeside, the existing house is setback 47 feet from the OHW and the existing deck extends 8 feet towards the lake to be setback approximately 39 feet from the OHW. The proposed porch will be "lined up" with the existing structure to be setback from the OHW the same distance (47 feet). The proposed deck will be setback 30 feet from the OHW and the greenhouse will be setback approximately 37 feet from the OHW. The legal building envelope shows the proposed porch and deck could be built on the west side of the existing structure. The variance to the setback from the OHW could be eliminated if the applicant moved the proposed additions to be within the legal building envelope. There is approximately 1600 sq. feet available on the west side of the house which would accommodate the size of the proposed addition. The existing deck can be replaced to be of the same size and in the same location without a variance. In a letter dated June 19, 1997, the DNR has recommended denial of the variance as requested. There is a legal building area which will accommodate the proposed additions. The DNR is not opposed to the replacement of the existing deck. Comments from the public: Philip Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road SW, stated two fairly large trees would be destroyed if he built his addition in the building envelope. He felt there was conflict between the Tree Preservation Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hines said his neighbors would prefer to view his trees rather than a structure and felt would be an improvement to his property. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · The existing deck can be replaced. · Concurs with staff's recommendation. The structure is far too close to the lake · Understands the request but there are no hardships. Wuellner: · Supports staff recommendation. The hardship criteria is very straight forward. · The existing deck is well laid out. · Applicant has a larger building envelope and other legal alternatives. MN062397.DOC 2 Stamson: · Questioned previous variances. · Concurs with staff and commissioners. · Reasonable use of the property. There are no hardships. Criego: · Agreed it is important to preserve trees, but also the quality of the lake. · Pollution and runoff is a concern. The staff and DNR agreed. · There are no hardships. · As presented, agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Kuykendall explained a lower level deck would not require a variance. Mr. Hines questioned extending the existing deck to the west and requested continuing the matter to the July 28, 1997 hearing. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 MEETING. Vote signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #97- 053 Variance Request by Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle SW, requesting: A 24% VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 54% 1NSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 30%; A 4 FOOT DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY SETBACK OF 1 FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE; ALL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RI- SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND SHORELAND DISTRICTS Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Brian Mattson proposing to construct a new detached 480 square foot garage and access driveway. There is no existing garage on the property. The existing house with deck is setback approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 9.8 feet from the side property line to the north, approximately 10 feet from the side property line to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 480 square foot detached garage in the rear yard with a bituminous access driveway located along the side of the principle structure to the garage in the back. Existing impervious surface is 28%. The proposed additions will create an impervious surface of 54%. The proposed driveway will be located 1 foot from the property line. The City Code requires a minimum driveway setback of 5 feet from the side yard property line. Also snow storage will be a significant problem for a driveway located 1 foot from the property line. Therefore, the MN062397.DOC 3 applicants are requesting a 24% variance to impervious surface coverage maximum to permit coverage of 54%, rather than the maximum allowed of 30% and a 4 foot variance to the driveway side yard setback to allow a 1 foot driveway setback rather than the required setback of 5 feet. The variance to impervious surface and driveway setback could be eliminated if the garage was located on the existing driveway, or under the deck. In this case a variance to front yard setback would be required. If variances are granted, a reduction of the existing impervious surface by removal of the concrete area should be considered. This has been suggested to the applicant. Verbally, the applicant has stated that he has a great need for the concrete drive and would not be willing to remove a portion or all of it. The DNR has responded to the variance request in a letter dated June 19, 1997. The DNR is not opposed to the location of the proposed garage, but recommended removal of the existing concrete drive to reduce the impervious surface. The DNR suggests a more suitable option of locating the garage on the existing drive, as not to increase impervious surface. This would required a front yard setback variance. As proposed, the staff and DNR recommends denial. Comments from the public: Brian Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach Circle, stated he was originally reluctant to remove the driveway. He is now willing to cut the drive down but would like to leave a reasonable amount of space to the side and front entrance. Mr. Mattson would also remove a 10 x 12 foot shed and also felt snow storage would not be a problem. His neighbor with the adjacent vacant lot told him he did not have a concern with the driveway being one foot from the property line. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · Initial feeling is not having a garage is a hardship. · Impervious surface is too high in the Shoreland District. Wuellner: · Suggested looking at different designs. · Go back to the drawing board and think about removing the driveway. Be creative in designing a garage. Kuykendall: · Look at a tuck-under approach. · There are alternatives. · Support staff's recommendation and recommend the matter be continued. MN062397.DOC 4 Criego: · 54% impervious surface is a real problem. · The City's standard is 30% the DNR's 25%. For the City to go beyond that is probably not going to happen. · Suggested not to exceed 30% impervious surface. · The one foot driveway setback has to be looked at. Mr. Mattson said he would like to continue the hearing. Tovar suggested a driveway easement (5 feet) with the neighbor for snow storage. Sandy Mattson, 16575 Inguadona Beach, said they have looked at many designs. She is concerned for the suggested design which would totally cut off the from entrance. There would be no real exit out of the house except for the garage. It would also eliminate many of the windows. For those reasons they felt building in the back yard would be appropriate. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE JULY 28, 1997 PLANNING MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: A. Case #97- Continuation of Northwood Oaks Estates Preliminary Plat. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report reviewing the preliminary plat hearing from the June 9, 1997 meeting. The revised plans addressed some of the questions asked by the Planning Commission. The staff also reviewed the plans with respect to the conditions listed in the Planning Report dated June 9, 1997. The revisions have addressed some, but not all, of the proposed conditions. Specifically, the revisions did not reduce the length of the cul-de- sac, did not include revisions to the tree preservation or landscaping plans, and did not address the issues outlined in the memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer. The revised plans did change the name of Pond View Lane to Lakeview Circle; however, there is already a Lakeview Circle in the City. The Prior Lake Police surveyed Northwood Road traffic for three days and gave out one citation for speed and one warning. The average speed was 32.5 mph. The outstanding issue in this preliminary plat is still the disturbance of the slopes on this site. This plat has several locations in which slopes of 20% or greater are disturbed, either for the placement of roads and utilities or the placement of homes. While the MN062397.DOC 5 Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically prohibit the disturbance of these slopes, it does state that, whenever possible, these slopes should not be disturbed. The general grading information submitted by the developer indicated the greatest impact on these slopes occurs in the area of Lots 8, 16 and 19. The house locations on these lots are almost entirely within the areas of 20% to 30% slopes. The cul-de-sac for Oakcrest Circle is also within an area with 20% slopes. It may be possible to minimize this disturbance by shortening the cul-de-sac. This would result in a different lot configuration, and might provide alternative house locations on the lots with the steepest slopes. In its recommendation to the Council, the Planning Commission should address the impact of the development on the natural features of the site. Comments from the public: Dan Westergren, Westergren & Associates, explained how they originally tried to extend the cul-de-sac which would lessen the disturbance of the environment. Mr. Westergren went on to discuss the grading and elevations. He feels the custom home designs in this area will fit into the slopes and went on to explain the City acquired the 16 foot easement for sidewalk and utilities. Comments from the Commissioners: Wuellner: · The cul-de-sac is roughly around 550 feet. · Not clear how the developer can bring back the cul-de-sac by 50 feet. Westergren explained the grading. If they extend the cul-de-sac further down the slope it would preserve more of the environment. · Mr. Westergren agreed with staff's recommendation. · Steep slopes and long cul-de-sacs are not what the City needs. Kuykendall: · The cul-de-sac is as much a visual design. Drivers will assume it is a through-street. Whether it is 600 or 500 feet it is confusing. It misleads the motoring public. · Not in favor of cul-de-sacs that long. There are other alternative designs. It is a matter of choice. If the developer cannot get that many lots in, maybe they will have to go with less lots. Follow subdivision standards. · Prefer a re-design of the plan. · Does not favor granting a change in the subdivision standard for a cul-de-sac. Stamson: * Custom grading lots are approved by the engineering department. · Overall, is agreeable with the issues addressed. MN062397.DOC 6 · Custom grading seems to be the best way to deal with the slopes. · Agreed with Kuykendall on the vision problem with a 500 foot cul-de-sac. In this case a longer cul-de-sac would fit in okay. Criego: · Sue McDermott explained the speeding problem is an enforcement issue not engineering's. · There are two parks within a half mile of the development. The developer will have to pay for assessments. · Main concern is to reduce the impact of cutting down trees and getting slopes removed. Would like to keep it as natural as possible. · Having a longer cul-de-sac would reduce the impact on the development. Kansier explained the trade offs between the long and short cul-de-sacs. No variance has been requested by the applicant. · The cul-de-sac should be longer and preserve the slopes. · Agreed with staff on the other issues. · Recommends granting a 600 foot cul-de-sac variance. Open discussion: Kuykendall suggested eliminating the dog-leg design and visually drivers would be able to see it is a cul-de-sac. Mr. Westergren explained the standards are met for the east side (lake side) of Northwood Road. As developers they are locked into the grades. Applicant Kurt Larson, 1450 Killing Ave, Savage, said by pulling the cul-de-sac back it would cut down a number of lots and still be in the steep slope area. Criego's main concern was preserving the slope and preserving the trees. He agreed with staff's recommendations. Stamson said the trail on Lakeview Circle is on the north side of the street. Park Director Paul Hokeness suggested it should be on the south. Kuykendall stated the City has to stay with its standards. It is up to the developer to re- design the plan not the Commissioners. Kuykendall also felt the developers should show design alternatives. He suggested to continue or deny the extension of the cul-de-sac. Wuellner agreed with Kuykendall. The best alternative is to go back to the drawing board and find a plan that fits everyone's goal. Rye said the end of the cul-de-sac would be 30 feet below the street elevation. MN062397.DOC 7 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES WITH CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SEVEN OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH AN ADDITIONAL EIGHTH CONDITION PLACING THE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET SHOWN AS LAKEVIEW CIRCLE. ALSO, RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CUL-DE-SAC MORE THAN 500 FEET AS PROPOSED. Open Discussion: Wuellner stated he was generally against cul-de-sacs. To move it either way out of the slopes is a better plan. Criego felt it was a good development with preservation of the trees. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This item should go to City Council on July 21, 1997. A recess was called at 8:17 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:22 p.m. B. Review outstanding Zoning Ordinance issues - Open Discussion. Discussion on the Zoning Ordinance issues included the following: Language on floor ratio and boat storage. · Lighting · Noise issue - PCA has adopted State rules. Who is going to enforce it? Boat noise is extremely loud. Noise from Green Heights after 10:00 p.m. is a problem. Urban noise is a big issue. · Home occupation has to be reviewed. What can be stored with home occupations? Deliveries to homes. Gross vehicle weight. · Shoreland Ordinance for setback issues. · Common ownership of lots in the Shoreland District. Set up two special zoning meetings. Boat tour set for Tuesday, August 12. Comments from people the Commissioners talked to regarding the image of Prior Lake. Criego: · "Prior Lake - Intown retreat" · "Small town with a lot to do" MN062397.DOC "All day, All night, All seasons" "The resort we call home" · "The get away without the drive" · We should be known as a small community, a residential community, a place to raise a family. Kuykendall: · Emphasize the natural features - trails, lakes, boating, fishing, sailing and parks. · Prior Lake is the #3 bass lake in the State. Casino Topography · Benefit - active healthy lifestyles. · Promote recreation and entertainment Create a real down town · Need to develop a community to take pride in Prior Lake. There is a general feeling of community with traditional family values centered on an active lifestyle. Try to connect the parks, down town and Priordale. Stamson: · Most people said what they would like to see is something to draw them down town. Something is needed for the residents, shopping, restaurants, etc. · The neighborhoods are friendly. Key on: sense of community, neighborhoods, healthy active lifestyle. Schedule to continue for next meeting. New Business: Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN062397.DOC 9