Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0909962. 3. 4. 5. 6. A. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1996 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: Old Business: New Business: Case #95-080 ADRIAN AND ROBYN PORTER, REQUEST THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R- 1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT AND IDENTIFIED AS 3019 FAIRVIEW ROAD: A 32' VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CR 81 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85' SETBACK B. Case #96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS, REQUEST A 19 FOOT VARIANCE.TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY ROOM AND DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE. C. Case #96-082 CHAD AND TINA PAVEK, REQUEST A 22 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 63 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD Case #96-083 DONALD KEMPER REQUESTS A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED l0 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD. Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: 16200 ~k Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota ~3~72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 9, 1996 1. Call to Order: The September 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Acting City Engineer John Wingard and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Stamson Absent Vonhof Present Wuellner Absent Kuykendall Present Cfiego Present 3. Approval of Minutes: Chair Criego ordered the approval the August 26, 1996 Minutes. 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: A. Case #95-080 ADRIAN AND ROBYN PORTER, REQUEST THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT AND IDENTIFIED AS 3019 FAIRVIEW ROAD: A 32' VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 53' SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF CR 81 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85' SETBACK. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 9, 1996. Applicants are proposing to construct a 22' by 24' detached garage on the property located at 3019 Fairview Road SW. The proposed garage is located to the south of the house, with access from Fairview Road. It has a 53' setback from the centerline of County Road 81 (Sunset Trail). The hearing notice referenced a variance to impervious surface on the lot to insure all necessary variances would be considered at the same time. The staffhas since determined the gravel driveway on this site is not included in the impervious surface. Without the gravel driveway, the impervious surface of the lot, including the proposed garage, is 26.8%. Therefore, a variance to the impervious surface of the lot is not required at this time. It must be noted a variance to this MN090996.DOC PAGEI provision will be required if the applicant wishes to pave the existing driveway. The staff concluded the size and topography of the lot, along with the location of the existing dwelling, are a hardship outside of the applicants' control. In addition, there are no other legal alternatives for the location of the garage. Recommendation was to approve the requested variances. The Commissioners discussed impervious surface. Comments from the public: Robyn Porter, 3019 Fairview Road SW, stated they had no intention of blacktopping the driveway. The driveway is presently two-thirds covered with grass and applicants are not aware of any water problems. Comments from Commissioners: Kuykendail: · Applicant said they want the garage to store their car. Vonhof: · The variance hardship standards are met in regard to the setback from the county road. · The applicant attempted to impact the minimum size and utilize as much of the existing driveway as possible. · Access is not off Sunset Trail. The garage structure is below the road grade. · No impervious surface issue. · Support variance. Criego: · Agree with Vonhof on variance request. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL ,TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT BASED UPON THE FACT THE FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA ARE MET. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case #96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS, REQUEST A 19 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF PRIOR LAKE OF 56 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY ROOM AND DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 3827 ISLAND VIEW CIRCLE. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 9, 1996. The applicants are proposing to construct a 14' by 18' family room addition with 8' by 12' decks on either side to the south side of the existing dwelling. The proposed additions have a lake shore setback of 56'. The applicant is therefore requesting a MN090996DOC PAGE2 variance to the 75' lake shore setback. The lot is 135' deep (to the ordinary high water mark on the short side), 92' wide on the north end, and 125' wide along the lake shore. The existing dwelling, built in 1982, is located at the north end of the lot, 71' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation. The current setback of the house is nonconforming, based on the standards in the current ordinance. Section 9.3 A of the Zoning Ord_inance requires a setback of 75' from the Ordinary High Water level. Under Section 9.3 (D, 2), this setback may be reduced to the average setback of the structures on the adjacent lots, or 50', whichever is greater. In this case, both of the houses on the adjacent lots are setback further than the proposed addition. Staff and the Department of Natural Resources recommends denial to the request. Comments from the public: Dick Cross, 3827 Island View Circle, stated their request for the variance was to add on to a small home. Mr. Cross pointed out corrections in the report - Construction is a 16' x 18' room. The report also stated both houses on the adjacent lots are set back further than the proposed addition. Applicant presented an aerial view of the peninsula and the neighboring homes. The existing home has a 12' x 24' deck. The addition would be 4' from the deck. With the addition, the impervious surface would be 18.6%. Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · Mr. Cross showed the neighbor's survey with their new deck addition. · Side setbacks are 22.5' and the other side is 11'. Kuykendali: · Mr. Cross said it would be a full improvement and the addition would be 4'. No impervious surface issue. · Sensitive to setback from the lake. · No major problem with the request. There is a cement slab under the deck. · There is reasonable cause for approval. Criego: · Applicant feels he might have 2,200 sq. foot living space. · Not objecting to stay with the same deck space. Stay within the shell of what applicant has now. Open Discussion and Comments: Vonhof: Setback averaging - Suggest applicant have surveyor indicate neighbors setbacks. Criego: Neighbors built within the existing shell. Kuykendall: The setback average is pretty reasonable. The encroachment is only 4', The actual square footing is the same. Criteria are met. Act in favor. Would like to see applicant work something out. MN090996.DOC PAGE · Mr. Cross said his neighbors' setbacks are 56' and approximately 70'. He will remove a deck at the other end of the home as well. Criego: Stay within the 12' extension from the house. · Rye: Survey did not indicate any existing decks. · Kuykendall: Check and see if a building permit was issued for the deck. No legal argument to go any further to lake. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, TO SEE IF A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE EXISTING DECK AND CONCRETE SLAB. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendail, Vonhof and Criego, MOTION CARRIED. C. Case #96-082 CHAD AND TINA PAVEK, REQUEST A 22 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 63 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE A COUNTY ROAD INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 2610 SPRING LAKE ROAD. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 9, 1996. The applicants are proposing to construct a 28' by 65' dwelling on the vacant lot located at 2610 Spring Lake Road. The proposed dwelling has a 63' setback from the centerline of County Road 12 (Spring Lake Road) instead of the required 85'. The applic.ants are requesting a variance of 22' to the required setback. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the impervious surface of the lot, with the proposed dwelling and driveway, is 28%, which is less than the maximum impervious surface of 30% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Lot 29, Butternut Beach was originally platted in 1926, prior to annexation to the City of Prior Lake. This lot is approximately 83' deep by 100' wide, for a total area of 8,357 square feet. The property is located within the R-1 (Suburban Residential) and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) district. The area and frontage of this lot make it a substandard lot under the current Zoning Ordinance. This lot is also considered a comer lot since there is a platted road on the eastern boundary of the lot. A physical feature of this lot includes a wetland and a creek bed across the northeastern comer of the property. Section 4.1 K of the Zoning Ordinance states the minimum setback requirement for county roads is measured from the centerline of the existing traveled roadway. This section requires a minimum setback of 85' from the centerline of County Road 12. Since the proposed structure does not meet this setback, a variance is required. There are also several engineering concerns relative to any construction on this lot. Staff concluded the size and physical characteristics of the lot are a hardship outside of applicant's control. There are no legal alternatives for the location of the proposed ~090~96,DOC PAGE4 dwelling. Recommendation is to approve the requested variances finding the four various hardships have been met. John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer, said he has asked for more information from the applicant but feels the outlet for the 20 acre pond goes through the vacant lot and drains into a culvert which would be the front yard area. Applicant needs to provide more information showing the edge of the wetland and how the drainage will work. The storm sewer would have to be extended along the side ofth~ home to provide an outlet for the pond. The City will work with applicant but the normal policy is to pay for storm sewer facilities. Comments from the public: Don Pavek, with College City Homes, represented the applicants. Mr. Pavek said there are a lot of contingencies with buying this lot, the first being approved variances. The delineator verified it was a wetland however, he felt them is a possibility an exception could be done if applicant worked with the Engineering Department. Applicants would like to get through the setback stage. Mr. Pavek explained why the home was placed on the lot as proposed. The wetland prohibits from building north. Jim Winegar, 2591 Spring Lake Road, said he lives adjacent to this property and has lived on Spring Lake for 50 years. He is concerned the culvert issue is properly addressed. The culvert drains not only the marsh land but the marsh land is a receptor for 200 to 300 acres of drainage land in the area. Another issue is on the high water line. The property is a foot or foot and half above the high water line for the marsh land. The ordinance requires the footings cannot be put below the high water mark. He also feels there is a safety issue, hammerhead driveways are necessary for property along Spring Lake Road. Knykendall: · Wetlands are creating part of the hardship and the physical size of the property. · The applicants are willing to work with the engineering department. · Supports staff recommendation. Vonhof.- · Cannot build any other way. · No objections. · Hardship criteria have been met. Criego: · Issues in the engineering report have to be met. · Agrees with Resolution 96-32PC as stated. · Hardships met. Open discussion and comments: Kuykendall: The driveway issue could be included in the conditions. Recommend City Engineer look at the traffic safety issue. Wingard: The 1994 traffic volume on Spring Lake Road is measured at 1350 trips per day. This is marginal. Some of the houses on Spring Lake Road do have turn arounds. This area MN090996.DOC PAGE5 where the house is proposed is located on a fairly straight section of road with very good visibility. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE RES. 96-32PC, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 63 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 12 INSTEAD OF TIIE REQUIRED g5 FEET TO ALLOW TI-IE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ALL THE INCLUDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS.~- Commissioner Kuykendall recommended the City Engineer to revisit site. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. D. Case #96-083 DONALD KEMPER REQUESTS A 3.23 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 15097 MANITOU ROAD. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 9, 1996. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4' by 20' deck addition to the north side of the existing dwelling located at 15097 Manitou Road. The proposed addition has a side yard setback of 6.77' at its closest point to the north lot line. This lot is 105' wide by 322' deep. The existing dwelling, built in 1963, is located on the east end of the lot, and is closer to the north lot line than to the south line. The applicant is in the process of building an addition to the east side of the house, which meets all applicable setbacks. The purpose of the deck addition is to provide an outside access directly to this portion of the house. Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all structures have a 10' side yard setback. Since the proposed deck does not meet this standard, a variance is required. Staff concluded there is no undue or unnecessary hardship and therefore the Ordinance criteria had not been met. Recommendation was for denial of the requested variance. Comments from the public: Tom Lubansky, 14915 Timberglade Circl~e, submitted a list of neighboring properties stating no objection to the variance. John Osness, friend and builder for the applicant, said the proposed deck is for an entrance to the upper level. The applicants are making an upper living space for the parents with the lower level for their daughter and family. This is the entrance for the parents. MN090996.DOC PAGE6 Comments from the Commissioners: Vonhof: · The closest point to the side yard is 6.7 feet. We have granted a $' side yard variance in the past. It does not encroach on the lake. · The problem is the size of the large lot. There is not a big encroachment on neighboring property. Kuykendall: · Mr. Osness explained the ground clearance as the shallow area being 4' and the slope is 6 to 6.5 feet. · The elevation of the land is not reasonable use. · Multiple family dwelling opens up possible problems. · Rye indicated the special exception portion of the ordinance states "In R1 districts renting out of an accessory residential unit is considered a permitted accessory use." That allows for a "mother-in-law apartment". · Osness said this is a privacy issue. There is access through the home. · Added safety benefit with another exit. · Approve variance. Criego: · Mr. Osness explained the sharp drop on the property to the home. A sidewalk occupies the current space. · The commission in the past has issued side yard variances on substandard lots. This is almost three-fourths of an acre. It is possible to enter the addition through the ho~ne. · Agrees with staff there are other alternatives. Kuykendall: · As an alternative, build a retaining wall and have a concrete walkway. A way to work within the system is to build another wall. Reasonable and less expensive and add grade structure. It is practical, the structure needs an entrance. · Mr. Osness explained the problems of going through the home. Criego: · 'The 4 hardship criteria have not been met. If the floor plan was changed it could be done. There may be a hardship with the interior design or a second family coming into the home. But there are logical alternatives if the floor plan was changed to accommodate. Rye said the definition of hardship is denial of the reasonable use of the property. There is a single family house there today, it is legal and that constitutes reasonable use of the property. The circumstance is giving rise to the need of variance is due to the desire of the property owner. It is not a condition that has existed for years and years. One of the criteria for approving a variance is whether it arises from circumstances which are not the actions of the property owner. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE VARIANCE BASED ON THE REASONABLE, PRACTICAL RATIONALE FOR ONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VERSUS THE OTHER RESULTING IN THE SAME IMPACT. NO SECOND. MN090996DOC PAGE 7 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.77 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING. DUE TO THE FACT IT DOES NOT MEET THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA. THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof and Criego. Nay by Kuykendall. MOTION PASSED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Commissioner Kuykendall will not be present for the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. The City has hired a new planner, Jennifer Tovar. Rye said his proposal for the zoning ordinance is to run concepts through the Planning Commission and present them to City Council. Staff will work out a meeting schedule. The Commission would like to receive variance notices before receiving their packets. As a body, the Commissioners would like to discuss policy and long range planning for 20 to 30 minutes at every meeting. Any items submitted by applicants are the property and permanent record of the City. If applicants walk into meeting and present different items than originally submitted to staff, the applicants should re-submit an application. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhof and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary Mlq0909O6.DOC PAGEg