Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0612957:00 p.m. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 12,1995 Call Meeting to Order a) Review Minutes of Previous Meeting 7:00 p.m. 1. 7:10 p.m. 2. 7:30 p.m. 3. 7:50 p.m. 4. 8:10 p.m. 5. 8:30 p.m. 6. Damell Home Occupation Request McKnight Variance Request Gengler Variance Request Cooper Variance Request Maxwell Variance Request Brockhouse Variance Request OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Capital Improvement Update - John Wingard, Asst. City Engineer. 2. Commissioner input for annual report. 3. Consider By-law amendments concerning Commissioner membership. 4. Update on Comprehensive Plan. AG61295.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 1995 The June 12, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:01 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Loftus, Roseth, Kuykendal and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Secretary Connie Carlson. REVIEW MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1995 MEETING: Correction on page 2 - delete "purchase the" in the last sentence at the end of the page. Correction on page 7 - last complete paragraph - comments from Loftus, last line, change "bet" to "get". MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH TO APPROVE AMENDED MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus and Vonhof. Commissioner Kuykendall abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM 1. EILEEN DARNELL HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department has received an application for Home Occupation Permit from Eileen Darnell of 5290 Shore Trail NE. The applicant requests approval to operate a business involving the creation of gift baskets which would then be delivered to customers. The applicant would be the sole employee of the business. The applicant does not propose any on-premises sales. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 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. 4. No employees beyond the one (1) applicant/operator. 5. The home occupation permit may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. 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. 7. The Home Occupation may be reviewed annually by the City. MN61295.DOC PAGE I Applicant Eileen Damell, 5290 Shore Trail NE, explained she was a stay-at-home mom and would like to start a home business for extra money. There would be no customers coming to the house. She would make all deliveries and baskets would be sold through home parties and craft shows. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from Commissioners: ARNOLD: reword item #3 and follow conditions; ROSETH: concur with Commissioner Arnold, conditions are met with approval; LOFTUS: agrees with controls; KUYKENDALL: concern for parking; VONHOF: all criteria have been met and supports item #3; Change language in item #3 to "No retailing of products on the premises." MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-12. Rationale: adopt conditions. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Roseth, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 2. MCKNIGHT & ASSOCIATES VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 46XX LORDS STREET. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from McKnight and Associates for 46XX Lords Street NE. The property owner is Fred W. Mainor. The applicants are agents for purpose of marketing the subject property, and are seeking a front yard setback of 20 rather than 25 feet, side yard setback of 5 rather than 10 feet, and a lakeshore setback of 20 feet rather than 75 feet. The subject property is a lot of record. It was a part of the Eagle Creek consolidation which took place in 1973. The property has a gross area above the 904 elevation of 16,007 square feet. Right of way for Lord's Street occupies 5,867 square feet. The applicants are seeking to establish a building envelope within which a house could be placed by a builder or purchaser of the lot. Staff believes that the front and lakeshore yard variances requested are reasonable based on the circumstances of the lot, and the analysis above. Staff does not believe that the request for 5 foot side yard setback variance meets the criteria, and thus would recommend denial of that request. Bud Waund of Edina Realty spoke on behalf of McKnight & Associates representing the owner, Fred Mainor. Mr. Waund distributed informational booklets on the property and presented his report. MN61295.DOC PAGE 2 Bill Packer, 4633 Lords Street, speaking on behalf of his parents, John Packer, 4653 Lords Street, stated his parents bought the property in 1962 and felt the lot in question probably had an additional 20 feet on the water side. Mr. Packer said the intent in 1960 was for this property to be a buildable lot. He also felt the first home presented by McKnight would be the only home to have aesthetic value in the neighborhood but still feels this is an unbuildable lot. Walter Jobst, 15110 Martinson Island Road, stated his concern was being ripsawed into the lake. He feels there is a dishonesty with the ordinance being 75 feet and (the Planning Commission) would be willing to take two-thirds away from that. Mr. Jobst feels there are two responsibilities, one to the neighbors and to the people using the lake to keep the sight line from being a "Wall Street". Kay Greden, 4646 Lords Street, lives directly next door to the property. Her main concern was the excessive variances being requested on the land. She feels it is an environmental concern by building a house so close to the lake. Mrs. Greden expressed the clarification of Mr. Waund stating they had a three car garage which in fact they have a two car garage. Mr. Waund said a two car garage would be a detriment to the sale of the home. In addition, if this variance was granted they would have a home five feet away from their fence which would make their home and property less desirable. Mrs. Greden would like to see a home which was most suitable to the property and neighborhood. Not seeing a floor plan is a detriment. Roughly 12 to 14 neighborhood residents contacted her to show support. Associate Planner Michael Leek explained the application did not request a surface coverage variance therefore an analysis of it is not in the report. Commissioner Vonhof advised if it was not published, the Planning Commission cannot act on the issue tonight. Comments from Commissioners: ROSETH: The Planning Commission has not been in the habit of granting variances for building envelopes; the owner has been paying taxes; would be nice if the builder would construct a one story house; trying to over build; does not object to approving a building envelope but objects to going with a side yard variance simply because they do not know the intent to what is to go there; how do we know impervious surface until you have house plans; we do not know if the house with patios is included in the building envelop; LOFTUS: impervious surface request should be part of the application; issue of building envelop vs. actual plans; agrees with Mr. Jobst with a 50% variance; try to adhere to the rules; KUYKENDALL: property owner has the right to sell; the issue is, you can't do that within the building envelop with setbacks; should have plans presented; we are not here to design plans; part of the error is the poor development of the land; feels the property should be developed but is reluctant without plans; concern for side yard setback; front and lake setbacks okay; agree to look at more options; suggest to table or continue; ARNOLD: agrees with Commissioner's comments; lot of record but needs a footprint; would like to see impervious surface; suggest to table or continue; VONHOF: familiar with area from lake and street side; understands neighbors' concern; neighboring homes are very close to the lake; uncomfortable MN61295.DOC PAGE granting variances without footprints; neighbors brought up good points with design; limited to what Planning Commission can do at this time. General Discussion of Commissioners: there was a similar situation but applicant had a plan A and B; others had specific plans; and applicant should come back with impervious surface request; also submit a complete house plan. Mr. Waund commented the discussions were very helpful and apologized for not including the impervious surface. He then requested to table the matter. Commissioner Roseth stated to be aware of the 46 foot side yard with the curve in the cul-de-sac. Applicant should check with Staff to see if there would be a problem. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH TO TABLE THE MATTER. Votes signified ayes by Loftus, Roseth, Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:24 p.m. 3. DAVID AND SHIRLEY GENGLER VARIANCE REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from David and Shirley Gengler for 5432 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 6, Fairlawn Shores, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow impervious surface coverage of 35% instead of the Ordinance maximum coverage of 30%. The property currently has 33% impervious surface coverage. The subject property was platted as a part of Fairlawn Shores in 1923. This area was incorporated into the City of Prior Lake as a part of the Eagle Creek consolidation which took place in 1973. The lot is narrow at 50 feet in width, and substandard in area at 6,500 square feet. The lot is developed with an existing house and attached 2-car garage which were constructed in 1978. There is a covered walkway along the southwest side of the house and decks on the first and lower levels of the house. In the past, the applicants have covered the first floor deck with a canvas roof. They now wish to construct a permanent roof which increases the impervious surface coverage. The Staff recommends granting the variance because the Ordinance criteria have been met. Specifically the narrowness and substandard area of the lot, which was platted under another jurisdiction, prevent reasonable use of the lot. Applicant Shirley Gengler stated they would like to replace the canvas roof and making it permanent which will improve the roof and deck. MN61295.DOC PAGE 4 There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: LOFTUS: no questions; KUYKENDALL: no further questions; ARNOLD: upper deck is going to become the roof for the lower deck (which it is now) only replacing; ROSETH: no problem as long as the proposed structure does not exceed the existing structure; VONHOF: improvement to the property and supportive. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 14PC. No discussion. Votes taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 4. H.R. COOPER VARIANCE REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Hew R. Cooper for 14897 Manitou Road NE. The subject property is legally described as Lot 11, Kopps Bay 2nd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant proposes to construct a garage addition measuring 12 feet by 24 feet on the North side of the existing garage, thus converting it from a 2 car to a 3 car garage. The specific variance requested is an 8 foot variance from the front yard setback. This would result in a front yard setback of 17 feet instead of the required 25 feet. The subject property was platted in 1960 as a part of Kopp's Bay 2nd Addition. At the time it was a part of Eagle Creek Township. This area became a part of the City of Prior Lake with the 1973 consolidation. The lot is about 27,600 square feet in area with 100 feet of frontage on Manitou Road. The Staff recommends approval of the variance because the hardship criteria have been met. The Applicant, Hew Cooper, agreed with the Planning Report. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: KUYKENDALL: no questions; ARNOLD: no visual impact; safety; neighboring driveways; site line; ROSETH: no problems; agree with site lines; LOFTUS and VONHOF: no problems. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9513PC. No discussion. MN61295.DOC PAGE 5 Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5, DOUGLAS MAXWELL VARIANCE REQUEST: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department has received a variance application from Douglas Maxwell for 3710 Pershing St. SW. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 39, Inguadona Beach, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant is seeking a 6.5 foot side yard, 10 foot rear yard setback variance, and impervious surface coverage of 50%. The subject property was platted as a part of Inguadona Beach in 1924. This area was incorporated into the City of Prior Lake from Spring Lake Township in 1973. The lot is narrow at 50 feet in width, and substandard in area at 5,000 square feet. The lot is developed with an existing house which is 583 square feet in area and was constructed in 1940. The proposed addition on the first level would add a dining room, bedroom, garage and workshop area, as well as expand the living area. Two bedrooms and a bath would be added on the upper level. Staff's principal concern with the subject request is the amount of impervious surface coverage that would result. Staff calculations indicate about 49-50% coverage. A couple of ways of reducing coverage have been briefly discussed with the applicant. First would be to reconfigure the driveway so that it would extend from the building line on the West rather than extending closer to the property line. Second would be to eliminate the indicated dining area. Together these changes would reduce the proposed coverage to about 45%. Removing the dining area would also eliminate the need for a side yard variance. The Staff recommends approving the variance as requested with modifications on the impervious surface coverage not to exceed 45%. Applicant Doug Maxwell stated he did not have any problem limiting the impervious surface coverage. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: ARNOLD: continuation of existing foundation; agrees the excessive impervious surface be limited; ROSETH: agrees as long as it does not exceed the existing variance; Note: east side yard variance; change impervious surface as recommended by Staff; LOFTUS: adjust building envelop and remove variance; KUYKENDALL: clarification of driveway; VONHOF: supports Staff Report. MN61295.DOC PAGE 6 MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE A 15 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND GRANT UP TO A 45% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. DENY THE REQUEST FOR A 6.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. Rationale: The 4 variance hardship criteria have been met. Request Staff to draft a resolution reflecting the action. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 6. TIM AND JANET BROCKHOUSE VARIANCE REQUEST: This matter was tabled by the Planning Commission at the May 8, 1995 meeting to give the applicants an opportunity to explore alternative plans. Associate Planner Michael Leek reviewed the May 8, 1995 Planning Report. Applicant Tim Brockhouse distributed pictures of the property to the Commissioners. Mr. Brockhouse's main concern was saving mature trees on his property. He also contacted Maverick Construction who looked over the property and advised the Brockhouses' on the construction and landscaping. Mr. Brockhouse feels his original proposal and saving the trees is the best alternative. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioner: ROSETH; the feeling from the May 8, meeting left room for improvement; we try to preserve trees as much as possible but sometimes the trees have to go for the sake of logic; you can replant the tree; the hardship criteria has not been met; deny; LOFTUS: the tuck-trader garage was affordable at the time when home was constructed; logical upgrade to improve; grading will enhance the home and neighborhood; KUYKENDALL: there are other opportunities with certain consequences; has a large piece of property; cannot justify with all the land available; recommends denial of request; ARNOLD: putting a garage in this particular location is really changing the configuration of the neighborhood; will have a greater visual impact on neighborhood; hates to see trees cut down but is not a legitimate reason for granting a variance; VONHOF: argument could be made that the hardship could be met because of the topography and location of the property; unique circumstances to the configuration of the lot; lot is pie shaped which points out to the driveway; could make a case for hardship; agrees with Commissioner Arnold on visual impact. General discussion of Commissioners: look at the value of the home - remove tree and place the garage to the right, the only thing you will loose is a tree; replant the tree; will increase the windshield appeal of the house. MN61295.DOC PAGE 7 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Discussion: VONHOF; feels the hardship criteria have been met by the topography of the lot and the existing house is set; ARNOLD: the topography of the neighbor's house is the same; VONHOF: re-landscaping and changing the elevation of the property will impact the neighbor's property; KUYKENDALL: there were no other detailed plans brought before the Commissioners, no topography, no elevations; we do not have to design the garage; n6thing has been brought forward as a reasonable option; ROSETH: make reasonable justification; it does not meet hardship criteria. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold and Kuykendall. Nays by Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED TO DENY THE VARIANCES 3 to 2. A recess was taken at 9:28 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Capital Improvement Update: John Wingard, Assistant City Engineer Mr. Wingard presented the Capital Improvement Plan and projects. The City used a five year fiscal planning tool to maintain and where appropriate, expand the public infra structure which included streets, sewers, water mains, maintenance building, storm sewers and ponds. The Commissioners discussed improvements and maintenance on the various projects and updating the CAP to reflect future projects and funding. It was also discussed on tying the CAP in with the Comprehensive Plan. Plan on what we need and try to find the funds versus what money is available. 2. Commissioner input for annual report: The Commissioners discussed compiling information from the joint meeting with City Council for the annual report. No additional information given at tonight's meeting. 3. Consider By-li~w amendments concerning Commissioner membership: The By-law amendment language was discussed by Commissioners. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED BY-LAW LANGUAGE. (see attached). Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MN61295.DOC PAGE 8 4, Update on Comprehensive Plan: City Planner Don Rye will set up a schedule with Consultant Blair Tremere. There will probably be 6 to 8 meetings, will try for the second and fourth Thursday of each month. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND t~Y KUYKENDALL TO CLOSE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Kuykendall, Arnold, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Donald R. Rye Connie Carlson Director of Planning Recording Secretary MN61295.DOC PAGE 9