HomeMy WebLinkAbout040896REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1996
7:00 p.m.
6.
7.
8.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent: Resolution 96-11PC (Tremaine Variance)
Resolution 96-10PC (John Schoeller/Carol's Furniture)
Public Hearings:
4.A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SECTION 5-4-1, OF THE
CITY CODE AND SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE 83-6 PERTAINING TO SETBACKS; TITLE 5, SECTION 5-5-8,
SECTION 6.8 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-06
PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS; AND SECTION 5-7 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND SECTION 7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COSTS.
4.B 96-026 - MURIEL ROUNAVAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 16594
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE: STREET AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE
REQUESTS.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
16200 ~9{21~rek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota ~,9872-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 8, 1996
The April 8, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman
Kuykendall at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Wuellner,
Vonhof and Kuykendall, City Planner Don Rye, Assistant Planner Michael Leek and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
ROLLCALL:
Criego Present
Wuellner Present
Vonhof Absent
Loftus Absent
Kuykendall Present
Commissioner Vonhof arrived at 7:05 p.m. and Commissioner Loftus arrived at 7:06 p.m.
Note change of spelling on Commissioner Criego's name on pages 11, 14 and 16.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO APPROVE MINUTES.
Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Kuykendall. MINUTES
APPROVED.
CONSENT AGENDA: RESOLUTION 96-11PC (Gene Tremaine Variance)
RESOLUTION 96-10PC (John Schoeller/Carol's Furniture)
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner & Kuykendall: MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4.A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SECTION 5-4-1, OF THE CITY '
CODE AND SECTION 4.1 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6
PERTAINING TO SETBACKS; TITLE 5, SECTION 5-5-8, SECTION 6.8 OF THE
PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-06 PERTAINING TO HOME
OCCUPATIONS; AND SECTION 5-7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE ~
SECTION 7 OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COSTS.
Assistant Planner Michael Leek presented the information from the Staff Report dated
April 8, 1996.
MN040896.DOC PAGE
Amendment Permitting One 5' Side Yard Setback and Permitting Replacement of
Non-conforming Decks: These proposed amendments grew out of the 1995 variance
summary report. As the Commission has observed in various discussions, the granting of
one 5' side yard setback, particularly on non-conforming lots of record in the Shoreland
District, has become fairly commonplace. The proposed amendment provides for a
minimum structure separation for health, safety and welfare reasons.
Similarly, the granting of variances to permit replacement of non-conforming decks has
become commonplace. In 1995, the City Council passed an ordinance which permitted
such replacement without a variance everywhere but in the Shoreland District. The
proposed amendment would allow replacement in all districts.
Home Occupations: The proposed amendment would simply make home occupations
permitted, accessory uses in the residential zoning districts, without need of formal
administrative or Planning Commission review. This is viewed as desirable, particularly
in light of the increasing numbers of people wishing to engage in reasonable occupations
out of their homes. The criteria is still quite stringent, so that occupations like small
engine, auto and marine repair would probably not qualify as permitted accessory uses.
The Commission could, in fact, enumerate types of occupations which it feels would not
qualify as permitted home occupations.
Reimbursement of Costs: As development steams toward the City, the types of projects
have become, and will continue to be, quite complex. The City's current fee structure
cannot keep up with the costs incurred for complex projects, particularly those requiring
additional attorney or consultant services. The proposed amendment would gi~e the City
Manager discretion to require reimbursement in certain cases.
Comments from the audience:
Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail, had a concern in Section 4. lB of the Ordinance and felt
the same deck elevation should be addressed as well. He felt there could be problems if
someone raised a ground level deck.
Comments from Commissioners:
Loftus:
· Vast difference in some of the issues.
When the City has a number of the same
requests for variances and grant 5 yard setbacks each time common sense would tell
us to make a general rule of this. As long as the separation between buildings are a
certain distance - will be supportive.
In the discretion of the City Manager - If the City Manager feels there has to be a
number of additional reviews I can understand the necessity of an ordinance.
The Home Occupation issue is a revamping of what home occupation as been. This is
not a standardization. In the existing Ordinance the City has allowed at least one
MN040896.DOC PAGE2
employee who does not reside at the residence to come to the home. This would be a
major change. Has difficulty with this change.
Supportive of side yard setback and reimbursement of City costs.
Vonhof:
· Supportive of 5 yard setback as it stands.
· Question to staff regarding ~ecks - Docs that apply to any setback if it was a
nonconforming setback? Leek said it would apply to any setback.
· One problem the City could have would be with past records. People will bring in the
original survey which does not show a deck and will say it exists and there's no
permit or paperwork. There should be some language to say it was a legally
recognized structure by the City. Leek responded if the resident was not able to
document its existence then the City should not allow reconstruction.
· Rye suggested inserting the word "legally" between "deck" and "existing".
· Home Occupation Permit process - Under these criteria someone could put a sweat
shop in a residential area and it would be legal under this criteria. The City or
Planning Commission should retain some control.
· Reimbursement for City Costs o Good idea. Is the City going to run into any legal
problems for cost?
· Rye explained it is a normal procedure. The City could get into the middle of a
project then realize they need 40 hours of the City Attorney's time to unravel
something. At that time the City takes a pretty good hit if they are not able to recover
the costs. It is costs the City would not routinely cover in circumstances where an
environmental or traffic study or a consultant is required. It goes beyond the normal
fee schedule.
· Leek pointed out the Ordinance would provide a notice of those anticipated additional
costs and an estimate of those costs would be provided as soon as possible so the
notice issue is taken care of as well.
Wuellner:
· 5' side yard setback - question on impacting new developments.
· Leek responded it would have an impact on all new developments.
· Not comfortable with this. The Commission granted 5' side yard setback variances
for substandard lots. If someone has a reasonable size lot what is the sense in just
giving a 5' side yard variance? If the intent is to make it easier to develop a
substandard lot he would support. Would like to see it rewritten to apply only to
substandard lots (in terms of width).
· Support the home occupation revision.
· Reason for adding the 10% of the flooring? Leek said there is a trade off
contemplated. Right now there is a specific permit, cost and process. Looking at the
home occupations historically there are a number of home occupations the City does
not know about or are inconsistent with what the City would grant. For example
there are a number of small engine repair businesses in residential areas which is not
appropriate. In exchange for "making it easier" to get started in a business, on a small
MI~96.DOC PAGE3
scale, the provision is intended to somewhat restrict the way in which that home
occupation can be operated so if it expands beyond the appropriate the applicant
should start looking for a business district location to operate.
Criego:
· On the deck issue - There are situations where decks come right up to the side line
boundary. That deck will ro~t away and under this Ordinance it can go back up the
way it is.
· Leek said under this draft ordinance it could. In fact trader the Ordinance right now
outside the Shoreland District it could.
· Shoreline? Leek responded right now the code is written in such a way a person
cannot replace a deck within the a shoreland district that is nonconforming. Under
this proposed ordinance it is a blanket provision that would apply to all existing decks
meeting the criteria whether they are in the shoreland district or not.
· Rye brought up the issue of building code limitations and distance from the property
line. Typically it would require a two or three foot setback. The City will verify with
the building department.
· 5' setback o agree with other Commissioners. Approved on mainly substandard lots.
Feel uncomfortable to allow any development go beyond the 10 feet. Like to see
wording changed.
· Home Occupation - It seems very limiting. Understand logic but should have
additional wording or change the 10%. It does not need to come before the Planning
Commission or Staff.
· Reimbursement for city costs - As a City we are trying to promote development in
our community. Under this request we would be charging the developers an extra
amount of money. There is too much discretion to the City Manager.
· It shows anti-development. Will not support with the proposed language.
Kuykendall:
· Reimbursement Issue - disagrees - It represents good management process. This is
not a problem. Any business knows if they try to push something through they know
they will have to pay the additional fees. Supports the reimbursement issue as is.
· Home Occupations - Do not use a percent. Agrees with Criego. Floor area excludes
garage.
· Rye explained the Ordinance does not include accessory structures.
· Retail sales produced on site - could encourage warehousing and distribution. Hate to
see that allowed on site.
Kuykendall:
· No opposition with discretion of Planning Director. Could add additional verbiage,
something relating to the discretion of the Planning Director.
· Rye stated from his perspective it is an option he would not want in the Ordinance. If
it is going to be subject to some review then the City should continue with the present
procedure. Otherwise make it a permitted use because each application would be
MN~40596.DOC PAGE 4
challenged. Two-thirds of the home businesses do not come into City Hall. If
someone starts to repair motorcycles in their garage and the neighbor complains the
City has a basis to deal with it. 98% of the occupations operate within the Ordinance.
Vonhof:
* Agrees - Question if the City has a complaint that applies within the ordinance but
not within the intent of the Qrdinance. Rye said the language in the proposed
Ordinance represents the experience of a number of communities. This language is
fairly standard in its application.
Leek suggested language "or any other nuisance factor shall not be discernible at the
property line." In case there is some nuisance factor the City has not thought about that
may arise.
Loftus:
· Nobody mentioned a clerical person such as a bookkeeper coming to a home. Some
person coming to the residence to do work. Where do the other businesses sit that
have an existing business? Would like to see a "go slow approach". As a
Commission we should try a pilot program. We should try to apply it, not hurry it
along.
Criego:
· This is not a major issue. Delaying it does not resolve it. Add the 1 employee with
the home occupation.
Kuykendall:
· 5' setbacks - Should only apply to substandard lots.
OVERVIEW:
· ITEM ON DECKS - insert the word "legally" between "deck" and "exists on the
date."
· REPLACEMENT DECK OF THE SAME SIZE - insert "location" and
"configuration of the deck at the time, etc."
· CHECK BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS - Rye said Staff will look at the
building code and determine whether or not there are specific setback requirements
for a deck in that circumstance and if not, provide a provision which would not to
allow construction up to the property line.
· SIDE YARD SETBACKS - Only related to substandard lots with respect to width.
Some subdivisions are presently approved for substandard lots. Reference as lots of
record prior to 1987.
· HOME OCCUPATIONS - Supporting as long as language is added to limited to one
employee and #G. Objectionable to noise, etc. Limit to a maximum amount of 300
sq. feet or 10% whatever is greater.
MN040896.DOC PAGE 5
· REIMBURSEMENT COST TO THE CITY: Manager make a recommendation to
City Council for Council action.
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY WUELLNER, FOR STAFF TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.
Vote taken signified ayes by L0_ftus, Wuellner, Criego, Vonhof and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairperson Kuykendall closed the public hearing.
4.B 96-026 - MURIEL ROUNAVAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 16594
INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE: STREET AND LAKESHORE VARIANCE
REQUESTS.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Muriel Rounavar who
proposes the construction of a new house with attached 3-car garage on the subject site,
which is legally identified as Lots 6 and 7, "INGUADONA BEACH", Scott County,
Minnesota. The applicant requests 3 variances; 1) a 17.5' lakeshore variance to permit a
lakeshore setback of 37' instead of the 54.5' feet permitted under the lakeshore setback
averaging provision of the Shoreland Ordinance, and 2) a 5' front yard setback variance
to permit a setback of 20' instead of the required 25'.
Michael Leek presented the information from the Staff Report dated April 8, 1996. Staff
concluded reasonable use of the property can be had, and legal alternatives exist to
accomplish the applicant's objectives and thus the Ordinance criteria had not been met.
Patrick Lynch, III, Area Hydrologist of the Department of Natural Resources submitted a
letter of objection to the requested variances stating he does not feel an adequate attempt
to design a structure which considers the lot constraints and required provisions of the
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance had been made.
Comments from the public:
Bud Waund spoke on behalf of the applicant and the current owners of the property. Mr.
Waund handed out information packets to the commissioners and went on to explain the
proposal and changes. He said he met with Staffand was told of the new Shoreland
Ordinances and realized the proposed home was too large for the lot. According to Mr.
Waund's calculations and compromises the house does fit into the building envelop.
Staff did not previously view the revised plan and calculations.
Muriel Rounavar, 16037 Northwood Road NW, lived on Prior Lake for 5 years and
owned lake property in Michigan for almost 30 years. She is aware of ecology and the
environment and is not trying to put a white elephant on the lot. She feels she is not
lV~040896.DOC PAGE6
asking for the world just asking to be fair and would like to see her home on this
property.
Bill Brastad, 4808 1 lth Ave South, Minneapolis, stated they bought the property 42 years
ago and at the time the property was in Spring Lake Township. It was a summer cottage.
All the neighbors have turned their summer homes into year round homes. He would like
the applicant to have the home s_he really wants. He has been at other hearings and
applicants were granted several variances. He is urging for a fair setback from the lake so
the buyer's home will not have to be back further from the rest of the neighbors.
A recess was called at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m.
Comments from Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· Clarification from the staff and applicant's lakeshore measurement. Leek read
Ordinance Sec. 9.3D2 regarding setback averaging from the Ordinary High Water (O-
H-W) mark or 50 feet whichever is greater, and further explained the measurements.
· Measurement from lakeshore - Leek explained the 904 O-H-W measured from the
adjoining lots. There is a specific survey that shows the 904 O-H-W elevation.
· Cannot see where the hardship criteria has been met especially with the building
envelop.
Wueilner:
· Cannot disagree with Vonhof. The law is very exact.
· There is no choice but to deny the request. The hardship criteria has not been met. A
home can be built within the envelop.
Criego:
· No further comments.
Loftus:
· Leek explained the average lakeshore setback.
· Rye said the operable dimension is now a setback of 37 feet.
· The neighbors are closer to the lake because of existing va_dances and circumstances.
· Question of property being a substandard lot in the Shoreland District. Leek stated
the lot exceeds, 10,000 sq. feet which is substantially larger than the 7,500 sq. feet
which is buildable without a variance under the Shoreland Ordinance.
· The slope is not a location issue.
· Mr. Waund said they are proposing a triple garage. Also a neighbor is interested in
buying part of the adjoining Lot 8. If applicant sold part of the lot, she would be able
to build the house she designed. They could shift the house on the lot.
· Leek said there are a couple of issues related to that and pointed out the lakeshore
measurement. Selling part of the lot is shrinking the building envelop. It would also
MIq040896. DOC PACE 7
require an administrative land division where variances would be required. The
process would have to be approved by City Council. There are many variables being
talked about.
Kuykendali:
· Based on the information there is a buildable area of 40 feet by approximately 75 feet.
· Waund: The new plan for ~_e house is proposed at approximately 2,900 sq. feet
including the garage.
· Leek asked what is the proposed finished lower level of the house be.'? Mr. Waund
said where between 2,200 and 2,300 sq. feet.
· The Commission has to work within the variance hardship standards. The applicant
can put a reasonable one story house as well as a two story house on the lot.
Muriel Rounavar said she wanted a one story as a retirement home and wants all living
space on one floor. She doesn't feel the neighbors would like a two story house.
Bob DeMarse, 16576 Inguadona Beach Circle, said there is probably not a legal lot size
in the area. The applicant would make a reasonable improvement to the area.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO DENY THE APPLICATION
BECAUSE OF FINDING A LACK OF DEMONSTRATED HARDSHIP UNDER THE
ZONING ORDINANCE CRITERIA UNDER RESOLUTION 96-12PC.
Discussion: The Commission has to follow the restrictions and ordinance. The. applicant
can build a very nice house within the building envelop. This does not prohibit the
applicant from building a home. The DNR is also stating there is not a hardship.
Vote taken signified ayes Vonhof, Criego, Wuellner, Loftus and Kuykendall. MOTION
DENIED.
Commissioner Kuykendall closed the pubic hearing.
A recess was called at 9:29 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:31 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Joint Meeting with City Council on May 20, 1996. Chairman Kuykendall will draft an
annual report.
There was a short discussion on Planned Unit Developments.
Don Rye briefed the Commissioners on a letter from the Met Council regarding the
Comprehensive Plan.
MN040896. DOC PAGE 8
MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND WUELLNER TO ADJOURN.
Vote taken signified ayes by Loflxts, Wuellner, Criego, Vonhof and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Don Rye
Director of Planning
Come Carlson
Recording Secretary
MN040896.DOC PAGE9