Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0626952. 3. 4. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 26,1995 7:00 P.M. Roll Call Call Meeting to Order Review Minutes of June 12, 1995 Meeting Consent Agenda: a. Approve Resolution 95 PC, Denying Brockhouse Request for Variance. Hearings ao bo Case No. VA95-21 - Request of Craig Anderson for a variance from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a house having a side yard setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet, for property located in the R1 Zoning District at 16267 Northwood Road. Case No. VA95-23 - Request of Independent School District (ISD) 719 for a variance from Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct an accessory building for storage of lawn maintenance equipmem and vehicles, which building would have setback, instead of the required feet. Case No. VA95-22 - Request of Steven J. Burdick - 16561 Spring Ave. SW. Impervious surface coverage variance to allow construction of a 260 square foot roof to cover a deck and create a 3-season porch. 6. Old Business: Discuss goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Adjournment AG62695.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 26, 1995 The June 26, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Arnold Present Kuykendall Present Vonhof Present Loftus Not Present Roseth Not Present REVIEW MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12, 1995 MEETING: Correction: Page 2 - Under comments, last line, refer to "Item #3" to read "Item #3. No retailing of products on the premises." MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO APPROVE THE JUNE 12, 1995 MINUTES AS AMENDED. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5a. CASE NO. VA95-21 VARIANCE REQUEST OF CRAIG ANDERSON: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated June 12, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Craig Anderson for the property at 16267 Northwood Road. The property is legally described as Lot 71, Townsite of Northwood, Scott County, Minnesota. The applicant proposes to construct a new house. The specific variance requested is a 5 feet side yard setback variance on the North to permit a side yard setback of 5 feet instead of the required 10 feet. The subject property is part of Northwood, which was platted in 1911. This area was incorporated into the City in September of 1975. The lot is about 15,550 square feet in area with 50 feet of frontage on Northwood Road. While the lot is relatively large, it is very narrow. The house proposed for the site is narrow at 35 feet. The plans indicate a 3-bedroom, 3- bathroom house. The variance is requested on the garage side of the structure, as opposed to the entrance side of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the requested 5 foot variance to allow a side yard setback of 5 feet on the North instead of the required 10 feet because the ordinance requirements have been met. MN62695.DOC PAGE 1 Applicant Craig Anderson, 3371 Balsam Street, stated the reason they were asking for the variance is because the lot is narrow at 50 feet. Dan Carlson, owns the property south of Mr. Anderson, said he was generally opposed to the variance because he has seen what it has done to existing property around the lake and the decrease in general value. Building on substandard lots is a concern. Mr. Carlson feels the lot is large enough to set the structure further back without requiring the variances. Craig Anderson explained the slope of the lot is not shown on the drawing. There is a 22' drop from the driveway level to the lower level. Pushing the house down would make for a long driveway and cause drainage problems. Water and sewer hookups would be complicated. Sandy Caflisch, 16245 Northwood, said her concern is that she lives on a 50' lot and a few years ago she read in the newspaper there would be no more 50' lots sold on the lake. She felt, along with their neighbors, they would have more property. Now there will be four 50' lots in a row. Mrs. Caflisch does not think it is right and if the 5' variance is granted she does not want to be looking out her window into her neighbor's house. Neale Caflisch, 16245 Northwood Rd, stated he is the proud owner ora 50' lot and has nothing against developing the lots but having four in a row is not aesthetically pleasing. His lot is identical to the Andersons and agrees the lot slopes considerably but the Caflischs have compensated by landscaping. His home sits back approximately 50' from the proposed home and is built into the hill and feels there are no problems. Therefore, Mr. Caflisch is against the 5' setback. Bruce Erickson, 16313 Northwood, lives one property south of the Andersons. He explained how he applied for a 5' variance several years ago and was denied. It cost him a considerable sum to makeup the difference and build over the hillside. Mr. Erickson requested if the variance is granted to the Andersons he will be applying for a variance in the future and hopes (the Commissioners) will be consistent in granting him a 5' variance. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS: Arnold: property is a lot of record and is buildable; 5' variance is consistent with past practices; based on the information he can support the variance but the neighbors have brought up a good point; meets the conditions of hardship and is eligible for a variance; Kuykendall: guidelines for hardship are established by the State which is what the Commissioners follow; good points brought up by neighbors; basically trying to get the maximum value out of property; supports variance given the common practice in the past but understands the sensitivity of the neighbors; If Mr. Erickson would come back and request a variance under the same circumstances he would support it; hard to believe it would be a decrease in value; if anyone values the property that great then they should buy the property; if you want view property you have to buy the right of the view; someone is paying taxes on MN62695.DOC PAGE 2 that property and has the right to sell and develop. Vonhof: explained the four hardship criteria set by the State; criteria have been met; it is important to hear information by the neighbors; he is familiar with the neighborhood and his concern is the size of the lot (15,000 sq. ft.) is normally looking at impervious surface and other variances; In this situation with the slope the proposal is the only buildable envelope; the City has acquired in its annexation many plotted lots from other jurisdictions. DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONERS: the issue is the structure would need the same side yard setback no matter where it is located on the narrow lot; length of lot is not the issue; the structure could be one, two or three levels; a long narrow house could be a detriment to the neighborhood; not appealing for resale; (Craig Anderson explained he tried to make the home appealing to the neighborhood and not detract from the value of the neighbor's homes. He does not feel he is trying to squeese a massive house on the property. Mr. Anderson said if they moved the house closer to the lake it would block the neighbor's view.) Five properties on Northwood Road have received side yard variances since 1985; comments from neighbors are important but Commissioners are bound by State guidelines; improvement to the neighborhood; will support. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9515PC GRANTING A NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET. Discussion: meets hardship criteria. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5b, CASE #VA95-23 VARIANCE REQUEST OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #719: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated June 26, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from ISD #719. The applicant proposes to construct a storage facility. The specific variance requested is a 25 foot front yard setback variance from Candy Cove Trail to permit a setback of 25 feet instead of the required 50 feet. ISD #719 proposes to construct a storage facility/garage on that portion of their property which fronts on C.R. 44, Candy Cove Trail and Westwood Drive. The site is large at about 31,628 square feet in area. The site has 127 feet of frontage on C.R. 44, 241 feet of frontage on Candy Cove Trail, and 139 feet of frontage on Westwood Drive. The property is located in the C-1 Conservation District which requires a 50' front yard variance. The City Council has recently directed staff to review property located in the C-1 zoning district to determine if those areas should be rezoned to some other zoning district. That review could ultimately result in some areas such as this being rezoned, which would, in turn, affect the setback requirements. MN62695.DOC PAGE 3 The City has suggested to the School District that its storage requirements could be met by a sharing of the proposed Public Works maintenance facility. Thus far, the School District has not expressed interest in this idea. Staff recommends denial of this variance because the hardship criteria have not been met. Scott McQueen of Wold Architects was present on behalf of the School District. There were no comments from the audience. COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSIONERS: Kuykendalh there is a buildable envelope; (there was a short discussion between Leek and McQueen on the setbacks and right-of-way on Candy Cove Trail); McQueen can redesign and meet the setbacks and there would be no need for variances; Staff recommended to the District of combining storage with the City maintenance facility. The District should have responded. Why should we build two maintenance buildings when one could do it and would save taxpayers money. We have a communication void between the City and the School District and somebody needs to get together and work together. Arnold: Concurs with Commissioner Kuykendall regarding the District not responding; no need for impervious surface variance; the point is the response from the District is necessary; the School architect can work something out with the new understanding of what the setbacks are; suggests tabling; Vonhof.' should have better coordination between the units of government and will save money in the long run; recommendation to table. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST. DISCUSSION: would like to get a response from the School District as to why they did not react to the recommendation; also knowledge something else can be designed within the building envelope; misunderstanding as to what the actual requirements were; important to get out to the public that the issue was raised and nothing was resolved; it will cost the taxpayers a lot of money because of poor communication; and it is unnecessary. Vote taken signified ayes by Amold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5 c. CASE NO. VA95-22 VARIANCE REQUEST OF STEVEN BURDICK: Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the Planning Report dated June 26, 1995. The Planning Department received a variance application from Steven and Susan Burdick. The applicant proposes to enclose a 10' x 24' deck in order to create a 3-season porch. The specific variance requested is a 5% increase in impervious surface coverage from the present 35% to 40% instead of the Ordinance maximum of 30% in the Shoreland District. MN62695DOC PAGE 4 The subject property is 50.09 feet wide and 100 feet deep, and contains 5,026 square feet. The subject property is in Green Heights First Addition. This subdivision was platted in Spring Lake Township in 1957 and was annexed into the City in 1973. Outlot 1 surrounds the property on the North and the East. It contains a wetland over which the City has a drainage and utility easement. The applicants were granted variances to allow construction of the deck in 1994. Staff recommended approval of the requested variances to allow impervious surface coverage of 40% instead of the maximum permitted 30% because the ordinance hardship criteria have been met. Applicant Steven Burdick, 16561 Spring Avenue commented that the majority of the deck will be a screened-in porch primarily because of the mosquitoes in the nearby wetland. There were no comments by the audience. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: Arnold: no problem with proposal as it is presented; will make deck more desirable; there should be no more requests for patio or future deckage; Kuykendall: feels the request is reasonable but has a concern of the impact on the shoreline area; what is the negative environmental impact - percentage wise? need to be educated by an engineer of the impact; Vonhof: his information from Watershed regarding the impact of impervious surface is the amount of time it would take for a one inch rainfall to go through the watershed used to be two weeks and now it is 48 hours. What happens specifically with the run off of a plowed field is probably more; (Don Rye responded the DNR regulates shoreline impervious surface.) no problems with the variance; hardship criteria has been met. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 9516PC. There was no discussion. Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Vonhof requested a presentation from Staff or the DNR on impervious surface for the Commissioners. There was also a short discussion on the watershed; it was also felt they should look into City-wide regulations which should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan; livability should be ways to control the landscape without impacting the neighbors and the City; look at architectural landscaping or engineering options. (Don Rye explained the DNR is looking at other issues besides runoff into the lake. The goal of the Shoreland rules is to minimize to the greatest degree possible any kind of urban impacts on water bodies, which includes visual impacts. Along with runoff issues they have restrictions on tree cutting, the impervious surface coverage and the amount of vegetation destruction on the property.) The Commissioners also discussed lake variances and some of the issues. MN62695.DOC PAGE 5 A recess was called at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:22 p.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS: Consultant Blair Tremere updated the Commissioners on the goals and discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. OPEN DISCUSSION: Sources of the document came from the existing Plan, Staff, the Mission and Vision statements from the City Council, the Planning Commission and universal language; changing social systems - many Prior Lake people are working at home; the affect of sewer and water needs; Commissioners are pleased with the report; suggestion to add "f' to the index as a short overall explanation in "layman's" language; annexations to the City and the affects; recreational opportunities; land preserves; Mr. Tremere will redraft the policy and return to the Planning Commission. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Votes taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN62695.DOC PAGE 6