HomeMy WebLinkAbout120996REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996
7:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-088 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-3-5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY
CODE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL ON FINAL PLATS WITH UNDEVELOPED OUTLOTS.
B. CASE #96-120 CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42
FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF PRIOR LAKE .(904 EL.)
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) OF 872 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN THE
MAXIMUM SIZE OF 832 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE Rol DISTRICT AND THE SD
DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. CASE #96-123 JOHN CRAIG APPEAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
B. CASE #96-122 ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
C. CASE #96-102 FAIRVIEW CLINIC CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
8.
Adjournment:
16200 L~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota zJgBr'/2-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 1996
1. Call to Order:
The December 9, 1996, Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Criego at 7:02 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Criego, Kuykendall, Stamson,
Vonhof and Wuellner, Director of Planning Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier,
Planner Jenni Tovar and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Vonhof Absent
Wuellner Absent
Stamson Present
Kuykendall Present
Criego Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECONDED BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE
NOVEMBER 25, 1996, MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Criego and Stamson. MINUTES APPROVED.
Commissioners Wuellner and Vonhof arrived at 7:03 p.m.
4. Public Hearings:
A. CASE #96-088 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6-3-5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE
CITY CODE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE EFFECT OF SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL ON FINAL PLATS WITH UNDEVELOPED OUTLOTS.
The public hearing was open and a sign-up sheet circulated to the public.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the staff report.
The proposed amendment to Section 6-3-5 of the Prior Lake City Code and Subdivision
Ordinance will affect final plats with undeveloped outlots approved more than two years
prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance.
The proposed amendment is the result of a discrepancy between the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance and past practices regarding the timing of the approval of final
plats. In the past, a subdivider was allowed to phase the development by submitting a
final plat with outlots on the undeveloped portion. There was rarely any other staging
plan submitted with these developments. This practice worked well if the entire
MN 120996.DOC PAGE I
development was completed within two years after the first final plat. However, if the
development was not completed within that time, it was subject to any changes made in
the ordinance.
This provision was not applied uniformly. Therefore, there are several plats with
undeveloped outlots. In some instances, the development of these plats, based on the
original preliminary plat, is not consistent with the current standards, especially in terms
of lot size and lot width. The amendment would eliminate any confusion about the time
frame which may have been caused by past practices. This amendment allows the
developers of the existing plat one year to file a final plat or to request approval of a
staging plan. After a year, the property may be developed using the current standards.
Comments from the public:
Jim Stanton, 2973 Fox Hollow, owner of The Wilds, felt time frames can cause a
problem. He is not in disagreement with the goals of the City. The problem with putting
plats into place is the City's process. The developer has a 60 day time limit in which to
record the final plat. He has to post a bond and make improvements as a condition of
getting the final plat. Large projects are estimated guesses. Interest rates and people
buying homes are out of developers' control. Mr. Stanton questioned if there would there
be a way to address a PUD as long as there was a contract so both parties knew what to
expect. People could follow the contract and have assurances they could proceed. Mr.
Stanton has done many PUD's and would rely on staff and get a staging program set up.
Mr. Stanton feels one could have a contractual basis under a PUD.
Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development Inc., representing the Knob Hill development
explained their plat process and phase. He understands the objective of the City.
Developers do not want to be tied into an iron-clad time frame. Interest rates change and
developments can slow down which can cause a variety of problems. Utilities and road
extensions also effect development. Mr. Graser encouraged the Commissioners to
automatically renew the phasing when the developer shows improvements to the frame
work every year. He questioned whether the frame work is agreed upon or negotiated,
and whether it can be changed or will it become an iron-clad agreement as part of the
development contract or an agreement between staff and the developer.
Dave Brown, 1227 Pioneer Lane, Shakopee, representing the North Shore project said
they were in favor of the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Outlot A of North Shore
Oaks Fifth was approved several years ago. Since that time, adoption of Amendment 6-
3-5 of the City Ordinance put a sunset on plat approvals and nothing was done to obtain
final plat approval on Outlot A of North Shore Oaks within the allotted time. However
he feels the plat is still active based on State Statute and the proposed ordinance is
consistent with the Statute. Also he feels there have been improvements over the years to
the property in the way of grading, survey, topography mapping and engineering. Mr.
Brown pointed out the Fifth Addition is the last phase of the over all project.
MN 120996.DOC PAGE 2
Eugene Simpkins, North Shore Oaks, stated they started the development in the 70's and
developed 12 lots at a time. North Shore Oaks have neighboring 65' lots and their 100' x
150' lots have been cut down after sewer and water were put in. It is hard to sell bigger
lots for bigger houses with 65' lots nearby. He feels they cannot sell the lots fast enough
to come out financially okay. However, he is supportive of the ordinance.
The hearing was closed at 7:29 p.m.
Kansier addressed some of the comments including:
· The provision regarding the two year period after the final plat is currently in the
ordinance. For instance, under the provision Knob Hill would have until May of
1997. It would give them an additional year, not just to file a final plat but also a
staging plan for City Council approval.
· Staging Plans would address two things, order of development (what portion would
go first) and the timing. Timing is a guess. The Council would approve the staging
plan and would have the authority to make changes.
· PUD's are different from the standard subdivision plat in how they are approved and
the purpose behind them. An example is The Wilds.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Vonhof:
· What form would staging take place? Kansier said it would be done at the
preliminary plat stage or final plat showing a general time line.
· Specifically the staging for the Wilds would be a concern. Council can give them an
extension.
· Impact on how people file their plats? Kansier explained the two year staging is
already in the ordinance. Staging should be addressed in the preliminary plat.
· Support the amendment as stated. It does provide the ability for dealing with the
existing developments as well as future developments.
Criego recapped the amendment as attempting to help a developer. Rye stated this is a
provision for future developers.
Kuykendall:
· Conceptually supported the amendment.
· Amendment came about from Eugene Simpkins' request for North Shore Oaks final
plat. Originally City Council rejected the request then reconsidered and asked staffto
review the ordinance.
· Standard practice from other communities? Rye responded other cities have the
statutory language and address the issues; through Developer's Agreements, or
simply approving resolutions and extensions.
· It is designed to help developers to be competitive.
· Supportive.
MN 120996.DOC PAGEI
Any down side to community with this proposal? Rye said a possible downside
would be if a preliminary plat was approved at a reduced standard. The plats before
the Commissioners are not in this case.
Stamson:
· This ordinance applies to the 11 existing plats. Rye said it addresses a staging plan
for future developers as well.
· Supports amendment.
Wuellner:
· Supportive.
It is a housekeeping measure to eliminate issues that fall through the
cracks.
· Likes staging plans. It means the City will work with the developer. It is a negotiated
document and adequately addresses the problems.
· It is consistent with State Statutes.
Criego:
· Agrees with Wuellner.
· Questioned if there was an actual phasing taking place within a two year period would
it automatically extend the time period?
· Rye said this was the purpose of the clarification.
· Concern is to state what the phases are.
· It may take several years to finish a project.
Open Discussion:
Kuykendall: There should be a need for an automatic renewal.
Criego: This helps the developer, it is not designed to hurt them.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED OF CITY CODE 6-3-5.
Discussion: The goal is sound. Staging is reasonable. Also includes PUD.
Vote taken signified by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson. MOTION
CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-120 VAUGHN AND HENRETTE LEMKE REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCES: A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 42 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH
WATER LEVEL OF PRIOR LAKE (904 EL.) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET; A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) OF 872 SQUARE
FEET RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 832 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED; FOR THE
MNI20996.DOC PAGE4
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-I DISTRICT
AND THE SD DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14472 SHADY BEACH TRAIL.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. The Planning Department received a
variance application from Vaughn and Henriette Lemke, proposing to construct a
detached garage on their property located at 14472 Shady Beach Trail, on Prior Lake.
The proposed garage has a 42 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of 904
instead of the required 75 feet. The applicants are requesting a setback of 42 feet instead
of the required setback of 75 feet. Based on the survey submitted by the applicant, the
size of the garage is 872 square feet, which is greater than the maximum size permitted of
832 square feet. A variance of 40 square feet in area is being requested.
Regarding the setback variance, the staff concluded the size, physical characteristics, and
existing structure of the lot are hardships outside applicants' control. The legal
alternatives for the location of the proposed garage are restrictive of the applicants
proposal. However, the variance can be reduced if the proposed garage is moved north,
as to be setback 25 feet from the front property line, rather than the proposed 26.14 foot
setback.
Staff felt the variance to maximum allowable area of 40 square feet, to permit an
accessory structure of 872 square feet does not meet the criteria of hardship and should
be denied.
Comments from the public:
Vaughn Lemke, 14472 Shady Beach Trail, referenced the 10 foot setback, explaining a
line of trees extending down the lot line. They would like to keep the garage away from
the lot line and not destroy the trees. Applicants have two cars, a boat, jet skis, a waller
and snowmobile and do not feel it unreasonable to store them in a garage. The garage
would be less than 832 sq. feet. Mr. Lemke explained the original building plan and
future additions to the home which will include a variance.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Disagreed with staffs recommendation the hardship criteria was met.
If you use f_he 5' side yard setback a 3 car garage could be constructed. Take out the
trees and the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
· The hardship criteria has not been met. It is a design consideration by the owners.
· By using the 50' setback averaging applicants can get a good size garage in.
· Plenty of legal alternatives to fit a garage in.
· Do not go beyond the ordinance on size.
MIq ! 20996. DOC PAGE 5
Wuellner:
· Applicant can come up with a reasonable size garage but standing between the lake
and the garage is the house.
· Appreciates applicant wants to stay away from the property line as well as saving the
trees.
· Given those two factors he does not object to what staff recommended.
· Would like to see 25' street setback.
· No hardship on 832' size garage.
Vonhof:
· Agreed with Wuellner's comments.
· Due to the shape of the building envelope and location of the house and existing
neighborhood, a lake variance is acceptable.
· No hardship criteria to justify the square footage on the garage.
Kuykendall:
· Reservation with the property planning process. It is reverse order of planning. Start
with the house and add on.
· Applicant can not add on to the house unless a variance is granted. There should be a
footprint for the house.
· Tovar said applicant's 1995 application shows future plans. There has never been a
garage on the property. Applicant's present need is for a garage.
· Support staff's recommendation. Concern applicant has an understanding how the
plans are going to come together over time.
· No problem determining a reasonable hardship for the garage.
· This is not in the best interest of either party. (The City and applicant.)
Wuellner:
· Concern for this plan is making the applicant promise to live at this location for a
long time to follow through with this plan. If he is transferred it is forcing the new
owners to build on to the house according to applicant's plan. It doesn't make sense.
The City cannot force the future as to how someone is going to add on to the house.
Stamson:
· In regards to the 50' setback, is not just aesthetics from the lake, they are also dealing
with mn off and impervious surface issues. Pushing the garage forward is loading
the lakeside with impervious surface. Water running off the garage roof has less time
to soak into the ground before it hits the lake. It is better to get the garage back
toward the street.
· Against the 42' setback.
Criego:
· Applicant is taking the asphalt out giving them 20% impervious surface.
· It might be better to keep the garage closer to the road which will reduce the square
footage and increase the distance between the house and the garage. When and if
MN 120996.DOC PAGE 6
there is a future addition, it could cause an impervious surface problem. Suggested
keeping the garage closer to the house rather than moving it toward the street for
future developments.
Agreed the hardship was not met regarding the additional garage size.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-
38PC.
Discussion: Motion was to move the garage one foot closer to the street making the
distance 43 feet and not approve the 872 sq. foot garage, based on lack of a hardship.
Concerned the applicant is aware of the future addition problems. Mr. Lernke said he
was aware of the situation but felt the garage is the present need. He is aware if the
garage was attached it would not be an issue but this is the only way he can work it out.
Vote signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, Criego and Kuykendall. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
A. CASE #96-123 JOHN CRAIG APPEAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
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. In
September of 1995, the Planning Commission denied applicant's request for a variance
based on the lack of demonstrable hardship. In August of 1985, Mr. Craig applied for a
variance to permit a 1500 sq. ft. detached accessory structure (garage). The ordinance in
place at the time allowed for a detached accessory structure to be up to 800 sq. ft. in area.
Even though the Planning Commission denied Mr. Craig's variance, Mr. Craig submitted
a building permit application for the detached garage of 1500 sq. feet. The building
permit was issued on November 7, 1985 and a 1500 sq. foot detached garage was
constructed. It is the staff's understanding the building permit was issued based on the
premise the new garage (1500 sq. feet) would be attached to the principal structure.
Therefore, maximum area would not be an issue unless it exceeded the 30% impervious
surface standard. Upon review of the permit application, it appears a "covered walkway"
was accepted as means of "structurally" connecting the proposed garage with the existing
house.
The definition of structure has not changed since the original adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance in 1983.
Mlq 120996.DOC PAGE7
Mr. Craig applied for a building permit for various additions to his residence and garages,
one of which is a 12' x 25' addition to the 1500 sq. foot garage.
A site inspection revealed part of the "covered walkway" had been detached from the
principal structure. Furthermore, the covered walkway is not actually covered. It is a
trellis type fencing covering the walkway, but still open to the sky. The applicant claims
to have removed deteriorating parts of the walkway in preparation of the construction
activity.
Regardless of the removal of the "covered walkway", staff's interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance is the 1500 sq. foot garage must be structurally attached to the principal
structure (existing house) by habitable space in order to be considered an "attached
garage", and thus allowed to be expanded. A "covered walkway" open to the sky does
not warrant the 1500 sq. foot garage to be considered structurally attached. An
acceptable attachment would be in the means of habitable space.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Jim Bates, represented Mr. and Mrs. Craig in the matter. He felt if the structure
was conforming when the building permit was issued it could be expanded without a
variance and is permissible to make this expansion. The staff looked back at a permit
issued in 1985 and disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance. Craig's variance
was denied. Mr. Craig later discussed the plans with the Planner and applied for a
building permit. The permit was signed off and Mr. Craig built his garage. Mr. Bates
went on to explain Mr. Craig removed part of the walkway in anticipation of building the
addition. Furthermore, he did not find any mention in the ordinance requiring the
attachment to be inhabitable. In the spring of this year, Mr. Craig submitted preliminary
plans to staff. Bates handed out pictures of the property and a copy of a letter from
former planner Michael Leek dated May 1, 1996. Craigs worked out their problems and
assumed their plan was acceptable. He feels staff is disagreeing with a mistake made in
1985. The building permit was properly granted in 1985, the situation nor the ordinance
has not changed. It is a conforming structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson pointed out the building permit issued in 1985, is clearly marked "detached
garage". Mr. Bates feels it was a mistake presumably by the building official.
Kuykendall:
Horst Graser, Island View Circle, said the issue in 1985 was controversial. The
variance request went before the Planning Commission and was denied. Mr. Craig
revised his plans with a covered walkway attached to the house. He recalls the issue
was subject to a number of meetings between staff and the City's attorney. If it was
constructed as revised it would meet city standards. This was the subject of
Mlq 120906DOC PAGE $
considerable discussion by staff. It was a mistake on the building permit stating it a
"detached garage".
· Rye explained staff read the ordinance different than they did 10 years ago. Further,
the attachment is not there.
· Supports applicant because the attachment was taken down. The intent was there.
· It does not meet design standards of today.
· This is not a model - at the time, it was the intent.
Criego:
· Tovar explained the definition of "structure". Staff does not have a definition of
"detached" in our ordinance. Rye said definition of "detached" is common
knowledge.
Vonhof:
· Difficult looking back at what happened. After listening to testimony and reading the
report, a permit would not have been issued if not for the intent.
· This would not fly today under our definitions. At the time it was acceptable.
· City records have not been complete in the past and have caused a lot of problems.
There was very minimum documentation.
· Favor the applicant based on the testimony.
Stamson:
· Rye clarified staff's interpretation.
· This is a detached garage. A walkway is not an attachment. The trellis is a covering
of the walkway and does not constitute as an attachment. It was a mistake as given. It
should never have been issued and by adding on would perpetuate a mistake.
· Regardless of what everybody remembers, someone on staff documented the garage
as "detached". What is written, is binding.
· Staff did consider it a detached garage in 1985 and should not be added on to.
MN 120~6.DOC PAGE 9
Wuellner:
Agreed with Stamson. At one point in time, by virtue of creative negotiation this was
considered to be an attached garage by someone's standards. There is a legal building
permit stating it is detached.
· Both parties admit there were mistakes.
The mistake allowed Mr. Craig to enjoy a 1500 sq. foot garage for 11 years. If we
allow this mistake to continue we are setting a precedent. A walkway is not an
attachment, nor does the City want it to be. It has to be inhabitable space. The
ordinance will have to be amended so this will not happen again.
· The Commission does not have to allow him to add on because someone made a
mistake 11 years ago.
Criego:
· Agrees with Wuellner and Stamson. The interpretation 11 years ago was not correct.
· We are not asking applicant to remove the garage, just stating he cannot add to it.
· Agreed with staff.
· The City Attorney told staff they could force the applicant to take down the garage.
Kuykendall:
· Needs Building Code definition of"detached" and "attached".
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE RULING OF THE CITY ZONING OFFICER IN
REGARDS TO THE APPEAL OF JOHN CRAIG.
Vote taken signified Criego, Wuellner and Stamson, nays Kuykendall and Vonhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
This appeal will go to City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-122 ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. An application was submitted by St. Paul's
Lutheran Church and School, requesting a sign permit in order to locate an illuminated
sign within the R-1 District. The proposal is to construct a 12' x 8' monument sign
which has external lighting. In the spring of 1996, a storm destroyed an illuminated sign
located on the top of the hill facing T.H. 13. The proposed sign is a replacement sign on
the hill facing T.H. 13.
Comments from the public:
Tom Trishe, 4950 Credit River Road, representing the Church, stated they wanted to
meet city code and propose to use the existing lights from the previous sign.
MN 120996.DOC PAGEI0
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· The hill above the sign goes up approximately 35 feet above the sign.
of the light goes away from the neighboring home.
· Agreed but questioned the wattage of lights.
The direction
Vonhof:
· Only concern is for any negative impact on Highway 13, reflection or distraction
beyond what exists now.
· Trishe explained the sign is brick and wood which will not reflect glare.
Kuykendall:
· Same lights are being used.
· No reflective problems.
Stamson:
· Tovar said the city does not have any inspection and lighting standards.
· It is an attractive sign.
Wuellner:
· Agrees - well placed.
MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY WUELLNER, TO APPROVE RES. 9.6-37PC
TO ALLOW AN ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGN IN THE RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5634 LUTHER ROAD,
FOR ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL.
Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Wuellner, Criego, Kuykendall and Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. CASE #96-102 FAIRVIEW CLINIC CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
Fairview Clinic submitted a letter requesting the Commissioners table the request to the
January 13, 1997 meeting.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO
THE JANUARY 13, 1997 MEETING.
Vote taken signified ayes by Criego, Stamson, Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall.
MOTION CARRIED.
MN 120996.DOC PAGEI I
Announcements and Correspondence:
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - Don Rye
Criego suggested outlining the definitions and putting it in context. He would like an
outline or "family tree".
Rye explained some of the problems in the ordinance dealing with land uses. The
ordinance is 25 years old and the City is trying to clean up some land uses in the
districts. Create more generic land uses.
Commissioners suggested staff writing new ordinance and then pointing out why staff
feel the changes are necessary.
General theory of practice of zoning.
Change special meeting from January 21, to January 28, 1997.
Kuykendall will not be attending January ! 3, 1997 meeting.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting adjourned at 9:33 P.M.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
MI~I20996.DOC PAGEI2