Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071095REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995 7:00 p.m. 5. HEARINGS Call Meeting to Order a) Review Minutes of Previous meeting. Consent Items: a) Resolution - Approve Resolution 9517PC, Denying Brockhouse Request for a variance. Case #VA95-12 - McKnight & Associates - variance request for 46xx Lords Street. The property is owned by Fred Manior. Applicants are agents for the purpose of marketing the property, and are seeking a front yard setback of 20 feet, side yard setback of 5 feet and a lakeshore setback of 20 feet. 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. A71095.DOC PAGE I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 1995 The July 10, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Arnold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Lofius and Vonhof, Intern Commissioners Creigo and Wuellner, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek, Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Arnold present Kuykendall present Vonhof present Loftus present Roseth present REVIEW MINUTES OF THE JUNE 26. 1995 MEETING: MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 1995 MINUTES. Commissioners Roseth and Loftus were absent from the June 26, meeting and abstained from voting. Votes taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA: a) Resolution to deny Tim and Janet Brockhouse request for variance. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 9517PC. Votes taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. 5. a. MCKNIGHT & ASSOCIATES VARIANCE REQUEST: The present request was initially reviewed by the Commission on June 12, 1995. Based on the discussion at the meeting, the item was tabled. The applicants have come forward with additional information for the Commission's consideration. Associate Planner Michael Leek reviewed information from the previous meeting and presented a building envelope exhibit from the applicant. The applicants also provided a MN71095.DOC PAGE I floor plan. Based on the information from applicant, Staff's recommendation has not changed. Also, Staff was unaware of any specific party looking at this property at this time. Bud Waund of Edina Realty, representing the owner, Fred Manior and McKnight & Associates, reviewed the neighboring setbacks. Mr. Waund stated a building permit for the rambler (as presented by Leek) would be applied for as soon as the variances were granted. This home is low profile and will fit in the neighborhood. The foundation at the garage line will actually touch the 5 foot line and also two points on the side yard would come within 5 feet not including the eaves or gutters. The house will be in the same site line with the neighboring homes. The applicant is asking for a 15% impervious surface variance over the 30% ordinance requirement; 55 foot lake variance; 5 foot street variance and 5 foot side yard variance. Walter Jobst, 15110 Martinson Island Road, asked for information on the lake elevation and foundation. (Commissioner Vonhof explained the elevations and foundation.) Mr. Jobst's concerns are the front and side yard variances are too close although the most important issue is the lake side variance. He feels we are becoming urbanized. Homes on the lake are being built higher and higher and have become wall to wall. With the proposed 20 foot setback there is not enough room for trees to soften the line. Mr. Jobst said he understands the ordinances and the hardship criteria and there is room for exceptions but you can't bend all of the rules in all places. Then we do not need ordinances. The City Staff was very strong on the setbacks he asked for with the additions he made a couple of years ago. He made the changes and it is fine. Knowing other people make changes - that is fair. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS: Arnold: The view of the roof is not the same as the foundation line; (Mr. Waund explained the roof was used in calculating the impervious surface.) It is a lot of record but feels this is too much house for the lot; realizes it is lakeshore property with a certain value and variances have to be given, at this point feels it is somewhat excessive; has concern with the 15% impervious surface on a building so close to the lake, it will have an immediate runoff; reserve to come back. Roseth: Basically concurs with Commissioner Arnold; does not have a problem with the lakeshore or front variances - concern with side yard and impervious surface coverage; feels they are trying to put a lot of house on a small lot; lot of record; this lot is unusual as it is sideways opposed to the long narrow lots on the lake; if the house was moved to the east it would decrease the impervious surface; the DNR usually (in written form) do not agree with lots this close to the lake with such a high impervious surface; nice house design; not a problem height as much as over all size. Loftus: Agrees with Commissioners; would like to see comments from DNR; unique circumstance where you have a proposed plan to be incorporated and if variances were MN71095.DOC PAGE 2 given then the plan would be executed. Whatever way we would come out on the variances we would have to make that a contingency to identify these plans specifically. This would give us assurance this plan would be executed and not just the envelope established and then this plan put on the shelf. It appears that the request for variances are being driven by economic forces in a very desirable neighborhood; the hardship criteria have not been met. This is the same for lakeshore as opposed to regular lots. It should be fair across the board. Would like to reserve the right to come back. Kuykendall: Concern for side yard setback - why not move the building envelope 5 feet to the east? (Waund - would have to ask for greater variance to the lake or the cul-de- sac.) cul-de-sac is not as offensive as side yard; side yard is visually too close with the other side being a wide open area; could redesign the cul-de-sac and/or the street; try to compromise; should go back and build in a smaller envelope by making it a two story house; vacate the street, the owner has to be able to develop the property; DNR should respond; through good landscaping and engineering alternatives can be made; (Leek explained a smaller scale will help with the variances - the Staff report had no argument with lakeside or front yard setbacks.) point is to compromise for example: 2 car garage vs. 3 car garage; two story house; change the room size; main concern is impervious surface; would like to reserve opinion. Commissioner Vonhof requested the new Commissioners to comment: Wuellner: stated you don't want to live 5 feet from your neighbor; he lives on the lake and doesn't know anyone who would want to live 20 feet from the lake - its too noisy; sensitive to side yard setback; roof line is too close - 2 1/2 feet of overhang is not desirable; reduce size of building envelope and move to the east; redesign the driveway to reduce impervious surface; there is room to redesign and look over. Comment from Planning Director Don Rye is that everyone had come to the conclusion that some kind of variance is necessary for the lot to be buildable. As a commission they should keep in mind in considering this to think what the minimum amount of variance you can grant to arrive at a reasonable use of the property. Criego: Comments and thoughts are the same as the other Commissioners. Vonhof: the Notice did not include impervious surface coverage; lot is 16,000 square feet with a net area of 10,000 feet; (6,000 feet are in the road right-of-way). (Rye commented on an impervious surface variance a few months ago. He reviewed the last 6 or 7 years of what had been done with impervious surface issues and found the largest one he could find was 43%. Many were mid-thirties.); unique property along the lake; agree with the point brought up but this is the second time we met on this issue; after hearing comments from neighbors and Mr. Waund, the applicant has made some effort to comply with comments; almost every house on the street has a variance; the lot on the other side of the point is almost identical to this lot and has a ramble-style home that runs the length of the lot. MN71095.DOC PAGE 3 Open Discussion by Commissioners: Cannot comment on impervious surface issue if not published and neighbors notified; consensus the street and lakeside variances are not an issue; the concern is the side yard variance and impervious surface coverage; impervious surface is too high; before we accept such a number other options should be explored and redesign; possible shifting building to the east; driveway width can be changed; landscaping design will help; (Mr. Waund said he could not get the impervious surface down to 30% or 35%; he could reduce the overhang; deck is small already); suggestion to reissue Notice, redesign and down size request; Commissioners can act on variances in Notice but not the impervious surface; Staffs position is to help applicant; (Rye stated in terms of trying to redesign the plans tonight, he is not going to do it, his staff is not going to do it, none of us are surveyors, wc do not have a level of information to design. Their implication is that staff is going to package the material in a form that it becomes acceptable of approval. Staff's function is to review thc material, determine in our view whether the criteria for granting variances are met or not and make a recommendation to you. As the deliberative body it is thc Commission's function to review that material, the testimony and other pertinent information and make the determination as to whether or not the criteria are met. If not, you are obligated under law to deny thc variance.); suggestion to bring it back and have specific written comments from the DNR; Brent Johnson, 15560 Lakeview Circle, stated he was a life long resident and there have been a lot of changes. The point he is trying to get at is what do they (McKnight & Associates) need to have to come back before the Commission. As a tax payer he is totally appalled that the cover is such an issue and the two times the Notice was sent out, nobody caught the impervious surface. What is going to be acceptable? They do not want to leave tonight and guess what it should be. Everyone is trying to give and take. The owner is paying $2,400 in taxes on an empty lot. They are trying to work with the neighbors, the City and Commissioners. Open Discussion by Commissioners: Kuykendall: can only speak for himself but make it equivalent to a 2 car garage, eliminate the deck and come up with some other way of treating the driveway; consensus with Commissioners is the lake frontage is acceptable but the 5 foot side yard is not acceptable, the front yard has to bear a little bit and are not comfortable with the impervious surface coverage; change to a 6 inch roof line; (Waund implied the City delayed the process and they have run out of time) NOTE: Mr. Waund requested a continuance of the first meeting because he was going to be out of town. The applicant made the impervious surface application out. It did not contain any dimensions of driveway; suggest to work out details and come back. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE MEETING ON JULY 24, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. MN71095.DOC PAGE 4 Discussion: There is not enough information to go on. Direction to Staff- address the issues with applicant. Rye stated the Staff will do whatever they need to do to make sure applicants know what they have to do. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:33 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:44 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Blair Tremere update on the Comprehensive Plan: Consultant Blair Tremere explained the updated Comprehensive Plan will be the basis for the Zoning, Subdivision and all other City Ordinances. Mr. Tremere handed out transportation information which dove tails with the City Council's Vision Statement and the Strategic Plan. This attempts to deal with the MUSA and the area that is still rural. He also brief the Commissioners on topics such as: annexation, home occupations and intergovernmental relations (i.e. schools, the Dakota Community and other cities). Recommendation to City Council by Kuykendall, second by Arnold to research the implementation of the internet. Discussion: share ideas with other cities; need more information from others to research for the Comprehensive Plan. Vote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Arnold, Roseth, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH TO ADJOURN MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Roseth, Kuykendall, Arnold and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN71095 DOC PAGE 5