Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092396REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order: 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: 4. Public Hearings: 5. Old Business: A. CASE 96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS VARIANCE (CONTINUED) 6. New Business: A. CASE 96-086 JULIE AND PAUL YTTRENESS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COLLECTOR STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET; A VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF 31.6% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED; A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 19.68 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 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 2818 CENTER STREET. B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-33PC CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1 AND 2. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discussion on Planning Issues 8. Adjournment: 16200 ~n!~L~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota"3~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 1. Call to Order: The September 23, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 7:02 p.m. Those presgnt were Commissioners Kuykendall, Wuellner, Stamson, Vonhof and Criego, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Wuellner Present Kuykendall Present Stamson Present Vonhof Present Criego Present 3. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECONDED BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1996, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Old Business: A. CASE 96-081 RICHARD AND SHERRY CROSS VARIANCE (CONTINUED) The Planning Department considered this variance request on September 9, 1996. At that meeting, the applicant testified there is an existing 12' by 24' deck along the back of the house, even though it is not shown on the survey. The proposed addition would extend 4 feet beyond this deck. The Planning Commission continued this item to September 23, 1996, to allow the staff to investigate whether a permit had been issued for the deck. The house on this site was built in 1982. The site plan included with the permit application does not show a deck. There are no other permits on file for this site, except for a residing permit issued in 1995. There was also testimony about the setbacks on the adjacent properties, so the staff also researched the permits issued for the adjacent lots. A variance and a building permit were issued for the construction of an addition to the house to the west of this property (3809 Island View Circle, or Lot 5) in 1995. This addition is located 56' from the OHW, which is consistent with the location of the MN09~196.DOC PAGE I existing deck on that house. In 1989, a permit to allow the construction of an addition to the house to the east (3845 Island View Circle, or Lot 4) was issued. The addition is located 76' from the OHW; however, the survey shows a deck located about 70' from the OHW. Section 9.3 (D, 2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City to average the setbacks of the structures on the adjacent lots. !_n this case, the average setback is 63 feet. Since the proposed addition on this lot has a setback of 56', a variance is still required. Staff recommended denial based on the lack of demonstrated hardship. Comments from the public: Sherry Cross, 3827 Island View Circle, submitted three letters of support of the variance from her neighbors. Comments from Commissioners: Vonhof: · Agrees with staff. The variance hardship standards are not met. Specifically with the options available with the property utilizing the setback averaging, it gives applicant a greater building envelop for an addition than they have right now. · Suggest to go with setback averaging. Kuykendall: · Applicant stated she bought the home in 1986. The deck was on when appiicants bought the home. · Averaging would move it to 56 feet. There are other building alternatives. · Hardship standards are not met but would be in favor of setback averaging based on the fact the two neighboring properties had recent variances. Wuellner: · Applicant said the existing deck is 12 feet in width and approximately 24 feet in length. · The house has been here since 1982 and the deck was there before applicant bought the house. Applicants should not be held accountable for a deck they did not build. · Supports an addition in reflection of the existing structure. There are no other alternatives to} add on to their home. · The neighbors have similar variances. Stamson: · The proposed addition is four feet further than the deck. · Agree to grant a variance up to the existing deck. · Kansier explained applicant can replace the deck but not another structure. · The hardship criteria has not been met. MN092396.DOC PAGE2 Criego: · Applicant said the home is 1448 sq. feet plus two-thirds of the lower level. There is no room to add on toward the front of the home. · It is not a substandard lot. · Agrees with staff. There is not a hardship. Open Discussion: Setback averaging of 63 feet at the closest point. Applicants could have a room 8 feet at the shortest point times the length of the home. There are altematives to accomplish applicant's objectives. The averaging does not require a variance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FACT THERE WERE NO HARDSHIP STANDARDS. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Vonhof, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: CASE 96-086 JULIE AND PAUL YTTRENESS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A COLLECTOR STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 85 FEET; A VARIANCE TO PERMIT IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE OF 31.6% RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM 30% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED; 'A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 19.68 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 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 2818 CENTER STREET. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 23, 1996. Julie and Paul Yttreness are proposing to construct a 67 by 23 foot dwelling with a 21 by 12 foot deck on the vacant lot located at 2818 Center Road. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the impervious surface of the lot, with the proposed dwelling and driveway, is 31.6 percent, which is greater than the maximum impervious surface of 30 percent allowed (Section 9.3 B of the Zoning Ordinance) in the Shoreland District. A variance of 1.6 percent of impervious surface is being requested. The staff has concluded the size and the physical characteristics of the lot are a hardship outside of the applicants' control. In addition, there are no legal alternatives for the location of the proposed dwelling. However, the variance to setback from the centerline of Northwood Road can be minimized by placing the house 9.23 feet towards the northeast comer of the lot, making the side yard setback along the deck 10 feet. Also, the variance to impervious surface can be eliminated if reductions to the driveway are made. MN092396.DOC PAGE3 Comments from the public: Ken Williamson, 23476 France Circle, Lakeville, represented the applicants. The driveway is very short (24.67 feet) and 16 feet in width and is tough to take 25% out. The best impervious surface reduction with 12 feet and 45 feet is 30.8 % with a driveway reduction. Stamson: · Concurs overall with staff. The variance is necessary. Wuellner: Mr. Williamson stated the home will be a split entry home. Could eliminate some variances by reducing the size of the home and redesign the home. · There are other alternatives. Vonhof: · Unique 6,000 foot property with front on two streets. · The impervious surface coming in at 31.6% is less significant than on a 15,000 square foot lot. 1.6% impervious surface. · Applicants trying to utilize the property the best way they can. · There should be at least two parking spaces off street. · Previously platted under Spring Lake Township. · Qualifies under the hardships. Kuykendall: · The deck is elevated which is a trade off from a patio with more impervious surface. · Rye asked if the entry was at grade. Mr. Williamson said it was. · Support staff recommendation. · Supports the impervious surface variance as well to have a reasonable size driveway. Criego: · Mr. Williamson does not see moving the house 9 feet to the northeast would be a problem. It is difficult to stay within the impervious coverage because of the driveway. He stated they have done many revisions to meet the percentage. The house is 1053 sq. feet. · Agrees with Kuykendall and staff recommendation. Open Discussion: Applicant can not move the driveway. Northwood Road is a collector street. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO APPROVE VARIANCES DESCRIBED BY STAFF IN ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE OF 31.6% REQUESTED BY APPLICANT. MN092396.DOC PAGE4 Discussion: The driveway is so close to the intersection it is important to have a full driveway. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Kuykendall and Vonhof, nays by Wuellner and Stamson. MOTION CARRIED. B. CONSIDER APPROVAL'OF RESOLUTION 96-33PC CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1 AND 2. Director of Planning Don Rye presented the information from the Planning Report dated September 23, 1996. The City Economic Development Authority has set a public hearing for October 7, 1996 to consider modifications of Development Districts 1 and 2. Minnesota Statutes requires the Planning Commission make a finding the proposed expansion is in conformance with the "general plan" of the City. The general plan for these purposes is the Comprehensive Plan 2010. The issue is whether the proposed modifications of the two development districts is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Both areas are commercial and industrial in nature and are designated for such use on the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, staff believes the modifications are consistent with the following policies: · Encourage a mixture and diversity of industrial and commercial land uses that will remain relatively stable under changing economic conditions. · Establish and maintain an economic development and redevelopment program through support of the Economic development Authority and its goals. · Encourage and provide for the revitalization of the City through the development or redevelopment of existing and new commercial and industrial facilities. · Increase employment opportunities. · Strengthen the City tax base. · Support broad-scale community development activities using available and appropriate financing to fund the public redevelopment cost. Comments from Commissioners: Kuykendalh · Supports, however, objects thinking beyond piece meal planning. There is. an absence of the visual connection between the two commerical districts. · Rye explained both areas are included in the development district. This is expanding the development district which includes down town. · City needs a economic redevelopment plan besides the Comprehensive Plan. · Is the City involved with the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) for getting funds? Rye said it is hard to qualify for. · The City should go a step further in the resolution dealing with the City's EDA. MN092396.DOC PAGE 5 Wuellner: · Supports Stamson: · Supports. Vonhofi Has the School District commented on this issue7 Rye said the City Manager has talked to them and generally the City has not heard any discontent from the District. The City has been very conservative in using tax increment financing. Supports and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Criego: Total approval of the Resolution. This was the intention all along. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96-33PC FINDING THE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 2 CONFORMS TO CITY PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCALITY AS A WHOLE. Discussion: The City should capitalize on this vehicle. Approve everything and add "whereas as further development to down town". Bring visual closure to thc rest of the community. Rye suggested staff to do research for specific requirements for redevelopment and bring back a resolution. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Discussion on Planning Issues - State Highway 13, Proposed Long Term Access and Development Plan. · Modifications were based on comments from the public heating. · Task Force recommendation for full motion four way intersections for Franklin Trail at Highway 13 and Franklin Trail and Anna Trail. · A pedestrian trail along Highway 13. MN092396.DOC PAGE6 Pat Lynch from the DNR would like to come out and speak October 14, mound 6:00 p.m. Vonhof explained designing roads for or against traffic. Traffic should be encouraged off 13. Highway 13 is critical to Prior Lake. · Noise control is going to be_the new concern for the country. Design will have to be considered. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting adjoined at 8:15 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN092~96.~ PAGE 7