Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102896REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. A. Call Meeting to Order: Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Public Hearings: CASE #96-098 KELVIN RETTERATH IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 18.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16520 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. CASE #96-I01 HOLIDAY STATION STORE REQUESTING MULTIPLE SIGN VARIANCES FOR THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 16800 DULUTH AVENUE. CASE #96-089 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 (ZONING REGULATIONS) AND TO THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 REVISING THE DEFINITION AND THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS Old Business: New Business: Appeal of Hillcrest Homes, Inc., for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback averaging. Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback averaging. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: 16200 LZ~f~t~Cek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota ~o~372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1996 1. Call to Order: The October 28, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Criego at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Kuykendall, Stamson, Vonhof, Wuellner and Cfiego, Director 6f Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Stamson Present Kuykendall Present Vonhof Present Wuellner Present Criego Present 3. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECONDED BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 14, 1996, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED. Commissioners Kuykendall and Vonhof abstained from voting. 4. Public Hearings: A. CASE #96-098 KELVIN RETTERATH IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 18.00 FEET RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELAND OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 16520 INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a variance application from Dave Yearling and Karlynn Benson, who are proposing to construct a 22 by 48 foot residential addition. The ground level of the proposed addition will be a garage and the upper level will be living space consisting of a bedroom and bathroom. The lot width makes it a substandard lot under the current Zoning Ordinance, however all other setbacks are being maintained. The total impervious surface with the proposed addition is 16 percent. Staff concluded the size and physical characteristics of the lot are a hardship outside the applicant's control and recommend approval of the request. MN102896. DOC PAGE I Comments from the public: Kelvin Retterath, 2618 Grove Lane, Mound, represented the applicants and explained the building proposal. Comments from Commissioners: Stamson: · Considering the age of the house and the fact it is a substandard lot, the current owners have no control over the design of the house or shape of the lot, the variance is acceptable. The setback falls into the character of the neighborhood. Hardship criteria met. Supportive. Wuellner: · Setback averaging. · Large substandard lot - meets hardship standards. · Good design · Supports staff. Vonhof: · Agrees with staff, the 4 hardship criteria have been met. · Supports. Kuykendall: · Supports · If there would have been a curve (in the road) it would have been designed differently. Criego: · Tovar explained accessory structure size. · Agrees with staff. · Good design. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 96- 35PC GRANTING THE 7' FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM INGUADONA BEACH CIRCLE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET. RATIONALE BEING THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Stamson, Criego, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. B. CASE #96-101 HOLIDAY STATION STORE REQUESTING MULTIPLE SIGN VARIANCES FOR THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 16800 DULUTH AVENUE. Mlq102896. DOC PAGE 2 Planner Jenni Tovar distributed a letter from the applicant application. requesting to withdraw the C. CASE #96-089 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 (ZONING REGULATIONS) AND TO THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 REVISING THE DEFINITION AND THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. Commissioner Criego read the Opening Statement for public hearings. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report. The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is to revise the definition of Impervious Surface. The second part of the amendment is to allow an increase in the amount of impervious surface on a lot of record with the use of special techniques. At a recent meeting, the Planning Commissioners discussed whether or not this definition included gravel driveways. While gravel driveways will become impacted and effectively impervious with frequent use, the definition includes only paved driveways. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would include gravel driveways as impervious surface. The proposed amendment revises the definition of impervious surface to include "all driveways and parking areas, whether paved or not". This language recognizes gravel driveways become impacted with frequent use and are effectively impervious..It also takes into consideration the fact there are no permits required for paving a gravel driveway, so a change in the driveway surface does not change the amount of impervious surface on a lot. The second part of the amendment changes the amount of allowable impervious surface on existing lots of record to forty percent (40%) with the use of specific storm water management practices. These practices include the use of grass filter strips, dividing impervious surface into smaller areas, and grading and construction techniques which will encourage rapid infiltration of runoff. The staff is proposing this change as a response to many of the variance requests over the last two years. A survey of variance requests to the impervious surface in 1995 and 1996 showed nearly all of the properties were substandard lots. The proposed language is consistent with those variances, and sets specific standards for reducing the impact of the increased coverage. This amendment will also help to counter the effect of including gravel driveways in the definition of impervious surface on the smaller existing lots. Staff recommended approval of the amendments. MN102896.DOC PAGE3 Comments from the public: Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, does not feel it is fair to set a certain percentage on impervious surface. Jim Albers, 14992 Storms Circle, questioned the storm water management. Kansier and Rye explained the procedures and techniques. Commissioner Criego closed the public hearing. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: · Rye spoke on sand packing as impervious surface. · It would be helpful and useful for someone to come up with designs or examples to help or show how these treatments work for the public. · Supportive. Vonhof: · This is the most significant change the Commissioners have looked at with the most far reaching implications. Our city sits on top of a watershed and a large lake. This will impact almost every lot. It is a significant change to go from 30% to 40% impervious surface. · Has not seen any correlation between the figures or impact with the runoff.' No supporting data in the reports. · What is the standard going to be? Are they going to have to use these practices? · Kansier explained the procedures. Anything after 30%, up to 40% must fall within the storm water management requirements. · Rye said there is a wealth of information on storm water management and how to deal with problems. · Examine ordinances. Concerned with the impact of changing to 40%. Wuellner: · Is it possible with the best possible management practices to control runoff to any great extent on a lot having a very significant slope to it? · Many lake lots are long and narrow with steep grades. Can the property owner control the runoff as the City intends it to be? · Should this 40% apply to only substandard lots? What is the real intent? · Should this apply to just shoreland lots? · There are a lot of unanswered questions. · Not comfortable making a significant change to the status quo because of those concems. MN 102896.DOC PAGE4 Stamson: · Same concerns as other commissioners. · The best management practices were not clear. · Concern for 40% on larger lots. · More open to applying to substandard lots. Be more specific. Criego: · The original question was gravel roads and definition of impervious surface. · Should not change the ordinance because of substandard lots. · How does this apply to new lots? Kansier explained the new lots will be larger, wider and easier to fit by design on the lots. This is aimed at the shoreland substandard lots. · Prefer to continue the process as in the past. · Criteria is too open in the ordinance. There has to be a lot more thought and discussion. Rye suggested to look at the purpose of what impervious surface coverage regulation really is. The staff view is, if someone can accommodate the situation in the ordinance address through the rule rather than try to address it as an exception through the variance process. Preferably address it through the rule. The DNR reviewed it and said from their point of view it was fine. It accomplished what they were trying to accomplish in setting the maximum impervious surface coverage for properties located in the shoreland district. It was not done to get rid of a couple of variances a year. The intent was to have the ordinance address the situation rather than have people come in and go through proceedings. Open Discussion and Comments: Wuellner: The concept is reasonable use of property. That is the problem the City is facing as well as setbacks and design standards. Concern for thermal pollution. Vonhof'. Talk about result and runoff problems. Engineers will be able to give you runoff rates. What is the quality of our ground water? What will the impact be in 10 years? What if we have a terrible lake? There needs to be additional protections within the shoreland district that do not apply to other districts. Concern is anything above 30%. Wuellner: Could go along at a higher impervious surface for a flatter property as opposed to a steep slope property. The main concern for Prior Lake is the water quality. MN 102896.DOC PAGE 5 Criego: This will be hard to implement. Agrees with Wuellner in taking too big of a step too quickly. The initial intent was to decide if a gravel road was impervious. Not ready to increase to 40%. The issue is runoff. Why 40%? Not enough study done to act. Kuykendail: The performance criteria are important. Engineering design may be required. It may cost, but it will control and manage. Give people the alternative to design. There should be practical ways to show the public. Stamson: The benefit would be to get the practices up front. In the future the Commissioners will be approving variances for hardships and not get the performance criteria. The ordinance is a pro-active way to get it up front. Rye felt the performance approach is a combination of specifying what you are trying to achieve and tell how to achieve it. The DNR applied shoreland rules for the entire State. They established the 25% impervious standards to make sure it covered all the bases. The DNR is concerned for water quality. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 96-XXX CHANGING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS. TABLE THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 40% FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, RECOMMENDING STAFF TO COME BACK AT A REASONABLE TIME WITH A DEFINITION FOR PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. The Commissioners decided to delay "D" of the public hearings to the end of the meeting. 6. New Business: A. Case #96-106 - Appeal of Hillcrest Homes, Inc., for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback averaging. Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. On October 11, 1996 the Building Department received an application for a building permit from Hillcrest Homes for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located at 5600 Fairlawn Shores Trail. The proposed structure has a setback from the Ordinary High Water Level MNIO2896. DOC PAGE6 (OHW) of 60 feet. The applicants used setback averaging to determine the lakeshore setback. Upon review by Planning Department, it became apparent the adjacent lot to the east was vacant. A structure on the westerly adjacent lot is setback approximately 54 feet from the Ordinany-High-Water. Staff is of the opinion setback averaging cannot be used because at the time of application for a building permit, there was no structure on the lot adjacent to the east to use in calculating a setback average. Their recommendation to City Council is to uphold staff's interpretation of the ordinance. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic of Hillcrest Homes, recapped meetings with the planning department and discussed their proposals to avoid variances. Hillcrest was unaware of setback averaging. They are trying to comply with the rest of the neighborhood and would like to average with the former house on the lot (Lot 25) and the house on Lot 23 or the existing house on Lot 26. The two lots are in separate ownership. Criego: · The demolition permits are run through the building department. · Rye said when staff looked at it initially, basically there were three structures with setbacks of approximately 50 feet. The possibility one of the houses would suddenly disappear in the middle of this and affect the setback averaging provision did not occur to staff. · Honest oversight on everyone's part. Should not punish the developer. · Go ahead and recommend to City Council to accept the development. · Ordinance states they are buildable lots. Vonhof: · Agrees. Kuykendalh · Concurs with what was said but has reservations. · Increased the impervious surface because of a loop hole. · The size of the adjacent lots are unknown. · We need to reassess anytime someone takes down a structure and changes the impervious surface. Rye spoke of the ordinance provision addressing this issue which was removed by City Council. The Commissioners have to deal with the issue in front of them. Jim Albers felt if the lots were combined the impervious surface and setbacks would be the same. Wuellner: Questioned dimensions on home. MN 102896. DOC PAGE 7 Stamson: Hillcrest owned both lots at the time of the demolition. Albers explained the demolition permit and then the building permit process. · Tovar spoke on the ownership and lot split before the demolition. Regrettable it happened but the ordinance is specific. This is variance criteria. · It is our obligation to enforce the ordinance as written. There was a short discussion on the interpretation of the ordinance. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL FINDING SETBACK AVERAGING WITH PREVIOUS EXISTING STRUCTURES IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE PROVISIONS. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Kuykendall, Stamson and Criego. MOTION PASSED. B. Case #96-105 - Appeal of Dave Smith for a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to setback averaging. Jenni Tovar presented the staff report stating the following: On June 10, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Dave Smith regarding the front yard setback from the centerline of a county road at 2590 Spring Lake Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved an 18 foot variance to permit a setback of 67 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road for the proposed garage addition (34 feet from the property line). On September 9, 1996 the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Tina and Chad Pavek regarding a front yard setback of a proposed house from the centerline of Spring Lake Road located on a vacant lot at 2610 Spring Lake Road (adjacent to Dave Smith's property). The Planning Commission unanimously approved a 12 foot variance to permit a setback of 63 feet from the centerline of Spring Lake Road (31 feet from property line). Dave Smith noticed Pavek's house being constructed 4 feet closer to the road than his proposed garage addition. He approached the Planning Department requesting permission to move his garage addition closer to the street. The Planning Departmer~t has affirmed setback averaging cannot be done if one or both of the adjacent parcels are vacant at the time of application for a building permit. In this case, when Dave Smith received a building permit the lot to the east was vacant. When a permit is issued the ordinances and conditions in effect at the time of reviewing the permit are considered. Furthermore, the variance granted to Dave Smith by the Planning Commission determined exactly what the from yard setback would be. The Planning Department cannot authorize any setbacks to be different from those in the City Code, MNIO2896.DOC PAGE 8 unless a variance is granted. Recommendation to the City Council was to uphold staff's interpretation of the ordinance. Comments from the public: Dave Smith, 2590 Spring Lake Road, distributed a survey showing his proposed change. Mr. Smith would like to have his garage line up with Pavek's house. Jim Weninger, 2591 Spring Lake Road, has been working with Mr. Smith on his construction and improvements. He attended all the related hearings. Mr. Weninger feels Commissioners stated the setbacks should be consistent with Smith's house at the Pavek hearing. Tovar explained Mr. Smith's variance request. Vonhof: · Cannot use future considerations. the time. · Support staff. Commissioners made a decision with the criteria at Kuykendall: · Technically and legally staff recommendation is appropriate. · Understands where applicant is coming from. Can come back and apply for a variance. Wueliner: · Questioned Pavek's variances. · Agrees with Vonhof and supports staff. Stamson: · Concurs with City Staff. Criego: · Agrees with the rest of Commissioners. · Cannot accept appeal at the time the variance was granted none of this information was known. Jim Weninger felt it was appropriate Commissioners review the Pavek variance. His impression was the Pavek variance was consistent with Dave Smith's setback. Jane Kansier addressed Mr. Weninger's concern stating the setbacks were consistent with the neighborhood. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE. Mlq102896. D0C PAGE9 Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Kuykendall, Stamson, Wuellner and Criego. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:48 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Public Hearing Continued. D. CASE #96-099 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5-4-1 (C) OF THE CITY CODE AND TO SECTION 4.1 (C) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE R-I AND R-2 DISTRICTS Criego read the Opening Statement for public hearing. There was no attendance by the public. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report. The amendment is to the Zoning Ordinance revising the required side yard setback for an addition to an existing dwelling. On October 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a variance request for a reduced side yard setback. The variance involved an addition to an existing dwelling. The Council approved this variance on the basis it was consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow one side yard setback of 5' on substandard lots. The Council then directed staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance which would allow a similar setback for additions to existing dwellings. Rye commented on the City Council's feelings that an amendment be brought forward which would be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staff approach was to allow one 5' setback to an existing structure. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: · The original ordinance was written for substandard lots and tries to make an exception for them. It seems backwards to give people with larger lots the same 5 feet side yard setback. If the City wants it uniform it should have been left at 10 feet. Wuellner: · This recommendation came up before the Commissioners by a previous staff. It did not pass at that time. Commissioners felt in time, it would become the norm. · Crowding along the lakefront is getting worse. This will exacerbate the problem. · Keep as is. Not in favor. MN 102896DOC PAGEIO Vonhof: Staff was requested by City Council to do this. · Does not agree with it. It will not solve the problem. · There are still going to be large lots coming in asking for variances for other setbacks which could be denied and end up in from of the Council. Kuykendall: · Why do we have setbacks? Light, air, fire, do not want a wall effect. Safety issues. · Not unreasonable to have Council come back with request. There is no fixed rationale on 10 feet. Come up with a reasonable concept. What if you used a percent? · Rye addressed possible problems using a percentage. He also pointed out easements along the lot lines. Criego: · Why is a side yard variance more important than from and back setbacks or impervious surface? · This is just going to reduce standards. There is no logic. In a substandard lot variances should be given. Side yard made sense. · Just because a person wants to take care of a second family, the City should not have to change the ordinance to accommodate two families. · You don't stop at existing residemial dwellings. If the City is going to implemem this, do it across the board. · Does not like this and is not in favor of supporting. Vonhof: · The toughest variances the Commissioners had, are the large lots not making the hardship criteria. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Open Discussion: A wall effect on the lake is not wanted. Nothing wrong with 10' standard as it exists. People will take advantage of the setback. A neighbor can use an other's property to satisfy his addition leaving no alternative for his neighbor's potemial use. Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Wuellner and Stamson, nays by Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Old Business: None MNI02896.DOC PAGE11 7. Announcements and Correspondence: Kuykendall requested staff to revisit the issue involved splitting lots under common ownership in the shoreland district. 8. Adjournment: MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CPdEGO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN 102896.DOC PAGEI 2