HomeMy WebLinkAbout111097REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1997
6:30 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Old Business:
New Business:
Case #97-105 Prior Lake Baptist Church requesting a 37.5 foot variance to
permit a steeple height of 72.5 feet instead of the permitted 35 feet for the property
located at 5690 Credit River Road.
B. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a .28 foot varaince to permit a 49.72
lot width at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet to be buildable for a
single family dwelling for the property located at 16091 Northwood Road.
C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning
Administrator relating to the definition of a bluff in the Shoreland District.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~CAGENDA~AG 111097.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
1. Call to Order:
The November 10, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Stamson at 6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Cramer, Kuykendall, Stamson
and Vonhof, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Cramer Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Absent
Vonhof Present
Stamson Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
THE OCTOBER 27, 1997 MINUTES WERE ACCEPTED AS PRINTED.
4. Public Hearings:
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. Case #97-105 Prior Lake Baptist Church requesting a 37.5 foot variance to
permit a steeple height of 72.5 feet instead of the permitted 35 feet for the property
located at 5690 Credit River Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the Staff Report dated November 10, 1997.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Dennis Batty and
Associates, on behalf of Prior Lake Baptist Church, who is proposing to renovate the
existing facility and construct a 6,442 square foot addition for use as a sanctuary and
multi-purpose room and a 1,792 square foot addition for classrooms, and the addition of a
new front entry. The proposed spire is 72.5 feet high. Section 5-4-3 of the City Code
allows for a maximum height of 35 feet with the exception the Board of Adjustment may
grant a variance to height regulations if the structure is a church spire. In this case, the
Planning Commission is the Board of Adjustment.
Generally, the Planning Commission reviews variance requests as they meet four specific
hardship criteria. However, in this case, Section 5-4-3 of City Code specifically states
the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance to height regulation if the proposed
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMXPCMINWiN 111097.DOC 1
building setbacks are increased one foot for every additional foot of height or if the
proposed structure is among other things a church spire.
There are no specific hardship criteria to review. Therefore, the Planning Commission
can review the variance request to some other unspecified hardship criteria or can
approve the variance because it is a church spire and the City outright allows for
variances for church spires.
Staff has concluded the height variance request is substantiated because it is permitted
upon approval by the Board of Adjustment with or without justification of hardship
findings.
Comments from the Public:
There were no comments from the applicants.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof.'
· No comments.
· Supports the motion.
Kuykendall:
· Supports the resolution.
Cramer:
· Concurs with commissioners.
Stamson:
· Agreed.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-19PC GRANTING A 37.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A
STEEPLE HEIGHT OF 72.5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALLOWED OF 35 FEET FOR THE PRIOR LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH.
Vote indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #97-109 Hillcrest Homes requesting a .28 foot variance to permit a lot
width of 49.72 at the front yard setback instead of the required 50 feet to be
buildable for a single family dwelling for the property located at 16091 Northwood
Road.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCM~N 111097.DOC 2
The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes who is
proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a new single family residence.
The lot is 49.72 feet wide at the 25 foot minimum required front yard setback. Section 5-
8-12 of the City Code requires substandard lots have a minimum lot width of 50 feet to be
buildable. Because the City Code does not specify what measurement distances are in,
the setbacks and other numerical ordinance requirements cannot be rounded. Thus, the
existing lot width at the front yard setback is less than 50 feet requiring a variance. No
specific house plans have been drawn up at this time. However, all setbacks will be met
as well as imperious surface coverage. The lot is located in the Northwood subdivision
on Prior Lake.
Staff has concluded the criteria are not met.
Comments from the public:
Applicants were present to answer questions.
Winston Simonson, 16807 Northwood Road, questioned the lot ownership. Chris
Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes said the applicant, Paul Lemke signed a purchase
agreement.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· The lot has a large square footage, but an unusual configuration.
· Believe the hardship criteria has been met. It looks like a survey error.
· Grant the variance.
Kuykendall:
· Questioned the dimension of the lot at the property line. Tovar responded it was
49.67.
· Supports the item.
· Suggests adding a provision to round up to the nearest foot.
Stamson:
· This variance meets all four criteria.
Cramer:
· Meets criteria.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION 97-18PC GRANTING A .28 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 49.72
LOT WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25
FEET TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINWIN111097.DOC 3
C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning
Administrator relating to the definition of a bluff in the Shoreland District.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997.
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the
Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action
was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a
proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the
definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staff's interpretation of those definitions. In a
letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staff's interpretation and is providing their
interpretation of the same definition.
Staff's conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant
to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the
top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average
slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top ofbluffmust be part of the bluffby
definition.
The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staff's interpretation stated in
Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997.
Comments from the public:
Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes
highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there
is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He
knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can
be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying
to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two
neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope.
Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes.
He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained
he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was
hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake.
Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a
9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot
setback, Prior Lake 30 feet.
Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they
promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively
adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from
greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shoreland Rules definition.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMLPCM1NhMN 111097.DOC 4
Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the
survey. There is quite a grade to the front of the house compared to the back. He feels
the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no
matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The
Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor
refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback.
Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staff's interpretation opposed to his interpretation
of the bluff with the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition of the top of
the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest
50 feet segment to the toe of the bluff that has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels
it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition.
The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative
ordinance.
Vonhofpointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines.
Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul,
presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the
DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude
from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a
50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluffarea.
Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion.
Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows
flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition.
The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Kuykendall:
· The definition is defined in the Shoreland Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance
and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance.
· The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone.
Stamson stated the discussion is if staff's interpretation is correct.
Kuykendall:
· Staff's interpretation is correct.
· Will recommend to redefine the definition.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMMLPCMINXaMN111097.DOC 5
Stflmson:
· At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this
evening believe staff's interpretation is clearly correct.
· The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top of a bluff
is.
· The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR.
Cramer:
· The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible.
· The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where
their home slides into the lake.
· People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff?.
· Staff's interpretation is correct.
Vonhof:
· Concurs with staff and Commissioners.
· It should not be that hard for residents and staffto interpret. The intent is to have
bluff protection.
· There is a second issue to deal with after this motion.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS
OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative
impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the
ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and
meet the objectives.
Vonhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions.
Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concem
is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the
DNR has become loose in their definition.
There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria.
Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top of the bluff.
Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present
to City Council. Until it is changed, staff's recommendation will follow the ordinance.
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMINXMN111097.DOC 6
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO
STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR
COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE
ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL
REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT
MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET.
Vonhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still
be a process but could be determined administratively.
Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical
solution.
Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the
end of the week.
Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of"traffic calming" on Highway 13. The
Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the track traffic routing by the State to County
Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and
21 to alleviate traffic.
Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in
State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will
force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic.
This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance.
MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY
13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE
POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING
NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US
IN WORKSHOPS.
Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
8. Adjournment:
CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M..
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM~PCMIN~N111097.DOC 7