Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050895REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 8, 1995 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 2. 7:20 p.m. 3. 8:00 p.m.- 4. 8:30 p.m. 8:30 p.m. 5. 8:50 p.m. 6. 9:10 p.m. 7. Call meeting to order. a) Review minutes of previous meeting. Consent items: a) Resolution for John Mahoney b) Resolution for James McCarty Kirsten Gerhardt - Home Occupation Permit Tim and Janet Brockhouse - Variance The Preserve at The Wilds Preliminary Plat and Variance Kim and Ann Kraus - Variance Bruce Von Drashek - Variance Priordale Mall Investors - Conditional Sign Permit All times stated on the Planning Commission Agenda, with the exception of Public Hearings, are approximate and may start a few minutes earlier or later than the scheduled time. AG5895 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 1 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1995 The May 8, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Vonhof at 7:01 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Secretary Connie Carlson. Assistant Planner Deb Garross arrived at 9:00 p.m. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: Correction to Minutes: Delete motion to close public hearing from Item II - PUD Amendment for The Wilds/item was not a public hearing. Change the word "move" to "remove" on the second line of Item I - Variance Request for James McCarty. Change the word "care" to "acre" in the Motion for #5 of the Wilds PUD Amendment. Change the word "hospitality" to "for a hotel" in #6 and #7 Motion. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT ITEMS: a) b) Resolution for John Mahoney Variance Resolution for James McCarty Variance Vote taken to approve Consent Items a and b. Ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. KIRSTEN GERHARDT - HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT: Applicant, Kirsten Gerhardt was not in attendance and the matter was tabled. GENERAL DISCUSSION: Notices sent to public state "Public Hearing" should be changed to "Open to the Public". Also a discussion on preparing Resolutions at the time of the hearing; timely manner and unnecessary delays for applicant. Planning Director Don Rye indicated Motions are not recordable and the City is obligated by State Statute to record the action of the Planning Commission in approving or denying the variance and the form we use is the Resolution. Recommendation by Commissioner Kuykendall for Staff to investigate a process to expedite the recording without unnecessary delay. Also a request for corresponding Resolution numbers with case numbers on the front page for quick reference. Kirsten Gerhardt arrived at 7:20 p.m. and the Home Occupation request continued. MN5895 I Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated May 8, 1995. The Planning Department has received an application for Home Occupation Permit from Kirsten Gerhardt of 15531 Skyline Avenue NW. The applicant requests approval to operate a one-station dog grooming salon in a 140 square foot room in her home. The applicant proposes to operate the salon Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. The subject property is in an area of the City developed with single-family homes. The property itself is flat, and is 11,520 square feet in area. The house has an attached, 2-car garage, and a paved parking area which would reasonably accommodate up to 3 vehicles. The basic premise of the City's home occupation regulations is that operations can be permitted which would not disrupt the surrounding neighborhood. The Ordinance at Section 6.8 provides 6 criteria by which requests for home occupation permits should be evaluated. These criteria have been met. Staff recommendation is to approve the home occupation permit for a dog grooming salon at 15531 Skyline Drive NW as submitted or with the following conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 1. No off-site parking. On-site parking for a maximum of two (2) customer vehicles must be provided. 2. No exterior signs identifying the business, its products, or services. 3. No retailing of products which are not produced on the premises, or which are unrelated to the business of the dog grooming salon. 4. No employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator. 5. No more than one (1) station be provided in the salon. 6. The hours of operation be limited to; Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 7. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 8. The Home Occupation permit is subject to all applicable ordinance and legal requirements. Violation of any ordinance or legal requirements shall be deemed grounds for immediate revocation of the Home Occupation Permit. 9. The Home Occupation is subject to annual review by the City. Kirsten Gerhardt stated she agreed with the Staff Report. Ms. Gerhardt also stated the dogs would be in kennels within the residence and would not be outside. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners: Arnold: Conditions set by Staff are adequate. Supports request/Roseth: Reminder to #9 of conditions -annual review subject by complaints by neighbors/Loftus: grooming smallei dogs; condition #3 should be deleted regarding selling products/Kuykendall: annual review of home occupations is a control option; nearest neighbor is 10 feet away from area of grooming/Vonhof: subject to annual review if violations. OPEN DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS: business tax or fees; and ability to come back to review and renew if there have been complaints. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A DOG GROOMING SALON AT 15531 SKYLINE DRIVE MN5895 2 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 NW AS SUBMITTED WITH THE NINE CONDITIONS SUBMITTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Discussion: Section 6.8 provides the six criteria (A through F) and they are met. Item 3 be amended to no retail sales of products. If applicant would like to expand at a later date she can amend the conditions. Be aware of disturbance of barking dogs to neighbors. CONDITION: Item #3 - No sale of retail products. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Loftus, Kuykendall, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR TIM AND JANET BROCKHOUSE: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Staff Report dated May 8, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Tim and Janet Brockhouse for 16069 Cambridge Circle SE. The subject property is legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Prior Acres 2nd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, and is also known as 16069 Cambridge Circle SE. The applicants propose to convert an existing one stall, tuck under garage to living space, and to construct a 20' x 22' attached garage in front of the existing garage. The specific variance requested is a to permit a side yard setback of 6 feet instead of the required 10 feet, and a front yard setback of 21 feet instead of the required 25 feet. The subject property was platted as a part of Prior Acres 2nd Addition in 1964. It is a roughly "pie-shaped" lot which and measures 30 feet wide at the rear and about 110 feet wide at the street. The garage and driveway are located to the East. The lot slopes up quickly from the driveway, levels out and then rises again to a mound. The existing house was constructed in 1969. The existing side yard setback from the easterly property line to the front comer of the house is 12.3 feet. The distance from the side lot line to the front comer of the proposed garage is 6 feet; the distance to the rear comer of the proposed garage would be 8.5 feet. The applicants have explored the possibility of locating a garage to the East of the center of the house, but feel it would be cost-prohibitive. Staff recommends denying the application because the ordinance hardship criteria are not met under the zoning code. Specifically, an alternate location exists for the proposed garage addition which would meet both the required side yard and front yard setbacks. Staff understands the applicant's rationale for the proposed location (i.e., it is much less costly), but does not believe that is sufficient basis for approval where alternatives which comply are available. Tim Brockhouse, 16069 Cambridge Circle, stated his concern for constructing the garage with a steep hill. The existing garage is level with the street. Constructing the garage on the other side of the residence would mean the removal of mature trees. The gas meter is also on the east side of the house. The applicant feels it would be more costly to construct the garage MN5895 3 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 other than proposed. When applicant bought the home he understood the fence line to be the property line which it is not. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: Roseth: agrees with staff's recommendation the criteria is not met; not in favor of granting the variances requested and suggested tabling the matter until applicant can redesign the structure/Loftus: Brockhouse's front door is in front of the proposed garage, applicant needs the standard 20' garage; might have to go with a single stall with a different type of roof/Kuykendall: Option to change structure/Arnold: conditions of hardship have not been met; realizes removal of trees and cost, potential options available; suggested to applicant to table and try to come up with an alternative; does not support request/Vonhof: elevation differences; other alternatives; suggested to table the request and work with Staff for alternative. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Arnold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR "THE PRESERVE AT THE WILDS": The public hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet circulated. Recommendation by staff to continue the public hearing to May 22, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. Materials submitted by applicant to staff were incomplete. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 22, 1995 AT 7:30 P.M. No discussion. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:24 p.m. DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planning Director Don Rye received a preliminary draft and will review. The earliest presentation would be the May 22 meeting. Rye will check with the consultant on availability of a workshop on an upcoming Thursday night. Final work products are due the end of June. MN5895 4 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 The Planning Commission agendas will be published in the Prior Lake American. An agenda will also be posted on the Chamber doors. CONSIDER VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KIM AND ANN KRAUS: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Kim and Ann Kraus of 3709 Pershing Street. The subject property is legally described as Lot 46, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, and is also known as 3709 Pershing Street. The applicants propose to construct an addition to the existing house measuring 40 feet x 28 feet, and to expand the driveway area. A garage would be located in the lower level of the addition, and would be accessed via the driveway area. The specific variances requested are as follows; 1. To permit a 2 foot setback for the driveway rather than the required 5 feet, 2. To permit a 9 foot side yard setback for the addition, rather than the required 10 feet, and 3. To permit lot coverage of 32% rather than the maximum permitted of 30%. The subject property was platted as a part of Inguadona Beach in 1924, before the current zoning requirements were put in place. The lot is narrow, being 50 feet wide at the street, and has an area of 10,035 square feet. The property is in the R1 zoning district, and is also within the SD-Shoreland District. The survey submitted with the application indicates a driveway width at the street line of about 30 feet. Section 6.5-D of the Ordinance permits a maximum width of 24 feet. The applicant has not specifically requested a variance from this section of the Ordinance, and staff would recommend the driveway be limited to 24 feet in width. This would still permit the parking of 2 vehicles abreast. It would also reduce the proposed lot coverage from 35% to about 33.5%. Coincidentally, this could be done in such fashion that the 5 foot driveway setback would be met on the front of the property. In addition, staff has suggested to the applicant, and would suggest to the Commission that the proposed addition could easily be reduced in size or relocated by 1 foot in order to comply with the 1 O-foot side yard setback requirement. Staff recommends denying the application because the lack of demonstrated hardship criteria are not met. Specifically, an alternate location exists for the proposed addition that would meet the required side yard setback. In addition, the driveway could be reconfigured to minimize the coverage variance. Applicant Kim Kraus and his wife, Ann have lived in the existing house for 8 1/2 years. Mr. Kraus worked with the architect for Keyland Homes where he is employed. The existing house sits crooked on the lot and Mr. Kraus feels this proposal is the best possible solution. There were no comments from the audience. MN5895 5 Planning Minnutes5/8/95 Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: substandard lot and there are unique circumstances with the property; complimented applicant on trying to alleviate variances within the severe building envelope; feels it meets some of the fbur hardship criteria/Kuykendall: rationale for driveway setback; would like to see a floor plan; try to compact and stay away from variances/Arnold: all hardship criteria have not been met; cannot support the variance; other designs available; does not see any problem with driveway setback/Roseth: has never seen a request for a driveway variance; substandard lot; logical to have driveway at its present location; larger width of the driveway at street/Vonhof: variance criteria; substandard lot; not having a garage in Minnesota is a hardship; garage cannot be put in front of the house; applicant has made an effort to comply; private neighborhood and road; some support/Kuykendall: narrowing driveway - eliminates one variance; neighboring lot is not developed; commends applicant for going to an architect/Loftus: supportive of ordinance and supportive of granting variance to driveway. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO PERMIT A 2 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY; TO PERMIT A 9 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE ADDITION, RATHER THAN THE 10 FOOT REQUIRED; AND TO PERMIT A LOT COVERAGE OF 32% RATHER THAN THE ORDINANCE 30%. Rationale: The lot is substandard and there appears to be no negative impact from surrounding properties. Neighboring lots are of the same size. Discussion: Arnold/the four conditions of hardship must be met and does not feel all four conditions have been met; may not agree with the ordinance but must abide by it/Vonhof: two different variances; one for driveway and one for structure/Loftus: the hardship is not having a garage; no negative input from neighbors/Arnold: it is the applicant's decision not to extend the structure to the back of the property/Vonhof: this is a lot of record and there should be some kind of buildable envelop on it/Roseth: point of information is that the house is angled on the property thereby reducing the southerly portion closer to the property line which really what the variance is for. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. Nay by Arnold. MOTION CARRIED 4-1. CONDITIONS: 1. THE DRIVEWAY BE NARROWED TO NO MORE THAN 24 FEET, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED AT THE STREET LINE; AND 2. REMOVE SHED. CONSIDER VARIANCE FOR BRUCE VON DRASHEK: MN5895 6 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Bruce Von Drashek for 14144 Orchard Circle. The subject property is legally described as Part of Gov't. Lot 1 in Section 30, Township 115, Scott County, Minnesota, and is also known as 14144 Orchard Circle. The applicant proposes a 14' x 16' deck addition on the lakeside of the property. The specific variance requested is a 6' variance from the 75' lakeshore setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW). The subject property lies at the end of Orchard Circle. The house was constructed in 1990. The property slopes sharply from the house to the OHW (i.e., from 920 to 904 in about 70 feet). ; The house does not currently have a deck.. The OHW bends back toward the front of the property on each side, limiting the size of a deck that would meet the setback requirements. Bruce Von Drashek, 14144 Orchard Circle, explained the proposed width of the deck would be 16 feet total - not 18 feet. Mr. Von Drashek presented a diagram to the Planning Commission. The home was built on the property with the intention it was the best location without removing mature trees. He feels other variances for decks have been granted and it would be more costly to change proposal. Mr. Von Drashek feels there is a hardship. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: the hardship criteria have not been met; there are other ways to provide square footage; applicant should talk to an architect for other designs; opposes request/Arnold: agrees with Commissioner Kuykendall; does not support/Roseth: agrees with Commissioners/Loftus: suggest to table matter/Vonhof: other options. Commissioner Vonhof explained to Mr. Von Drashek the option of tabling the matter. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO DENY THE REQUEST DUE TO THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA NOT BEING MET. Discussion: Kuykendall: We have not been shown there is undue hardship on the property. There are other options. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Arnold, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT FOR PRIORDALE MALL INVESTORS LTD: MN5895 7 Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 Assistant Planner Deb Garross presented the information in the May 8, 1995 Planning Report. The Planning Department received an application for conditional use sign permit from Priordale Mall Investors Limited Partnership. The specific application is to erect an "electronic message sign" on the freestanding sign currently existing at Priordale Mall. The application is being processed according to the conditional sign permit procedure outlined in Sign Ordinance 94-6, Section 5-7-13. The conditional sign permit allows the Planning Commission to review certain, specified types of signs, and place conditions upon permit approval to insure that the proposed display will be compatible with the existing and/or proposed land uses in the underlying zoning district. The existing freestanding sign at Priordale Mall consists of a 32 sq. ft. readerboard and 38 sq. ft. nameplate sign to identify the Priordale Mall. The total freestanding sign area approximates 70 sq. ft. The freestanding sign is approximately 17 ft. tall. Priordale Mall is a shopping center and as such, is permitted to have 1 freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area and 30' in height. The applicant is requesting to remove the 32 square foot readerboard sign and replace it with a 21 sq. ft. electronic message sign. The total proposed freestanding sign area is approximately 60 sq. ft. with a height of 17 ft. The proposed sign area is consistent with the provisions of Sign Ordinance 94-6. The site is located within a B-3, General Business Zoning District that is fully developed along STH 13. Prior Lake State Bank, located north of the subject site was granted a conditional use permit in 1983 to permit a similar, electronic message sign as requested by the applicant. The grant of the conditional use permit for the 21 sq. ft. electronic message sign would be compatible with the existing development within the B-3 zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the sign permit as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign posts and structure be painted a compatible color as the electronic message sign exterior. 2. Removal of the existing 32 sq. ft. readerboard sign. Marlin Peterson of A.P.O. Enterprises, Inc. was available for questions. Comments from the audience: Lyle Durr, speaking as President of the Priordale Mall Business Owners Association explained all businesses in the Mall would be able to advertise their businesses and products on the sign. Two to three businesses would be able to use the sign at the same time. It would also allow the promotion of civic activities. Comments from Commissioners: MN5895 8 1 ] Planning Minnutes 5/8/95 Arnold: the sign would be more attractive than the present one; it follows the ordinances and restrictions; it is a good addition; supportive/Roseth: one line of continuous messages; supportive/Loftus: no additional comments/Kuykendall: improvement; keep messages short; supportive/Vonhof: enhance and improve; supportive. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT AS REQUESTED. WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The sign posts and structure be painted a compatible color as the electronic message sign exterior. 2. Removal of the existing 32 sq. ft. readerboard sign. No discussion. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Arnold, Rosth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO CLOSE MEETING. Votes taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Arnold, Roseth, Loflus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was closed at 9:59 p.m. Donald R. Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN5895 9 | ~