Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081495REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 1995 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order a) Review Minutes of Previous meeting. HEARINGS: o Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Add Necessary Building as a Permitted Use in the B-P, Business Park Zone. Case VA95-24 Robert and Shirley Thielen Variance Request. South 23 foot front yard variance; North 4 foot front yard variance; South and North 50 foot lakeshore variance. Case VA95-25 Ron and Kim Anderson Variance Request. Request a lot area of 6,516 square feet; 5 foot front yard variance; 31 foot lakeshore setback variance; 5 foot side yard variance; 42% impervious surface coverage. OTHER BUSINESS: a) Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Discussion 495. OC PAGE 1 1620~a~¥~ Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1995 The August 14, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Vonhof at 7:03 p.m. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof, Intern Commissioners Criego and Wuellner, Planning Director Don Rye, Assistant Planner Deb Garross, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Arnold Present Kuykendall Present Loftus Present Roseth Present Vonhof Present REVIEW MINUTES OF THE JULY 24, 1995 MEETING: MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO APPROVE THE JULY 24, 1995 MINUTES. Votes taken signified ayes by Loftus, Roseth, Arnold, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 TO PERMIT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE B-P. BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT. A sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. Assistant Planner Deb Garross presented the information in the Planning Report dated August 14, 1995. There were no comments from the audience. Comments from the Commissioners: Arnold: has no problem or finds anything negative with the accessory building; the language is redundant in 5a of proposed Ordinance 95-14. (Garross stated Staff can restructure the language.) Roseth: concern for any kind of building structure requirement i.e. slab shack; (Garross explained there are additional requirements such as complying with the building code and architectural controls specifying the types of materials permitted. Applications are MNS1495.DOC PAGE I reviewed according to all appropriate sections of the City and building codes that are applicable. This is one subsection of the entire Business Office Park; accessory buildings would be built with materials similar to the principal building; landscaping and irrigation that go along with it is expensive. The City's application is fortunate to have a large wooded area on the southern portion of the site.). Loftus: questioned the 15% total area of principal structure on 5b. of the proposed ordinance; (Garross explained provision was consistent with the limit of open storage in a Business Office Park. Planning Director Don Rye had addressed the issue at the CUP meeting noting it is not common that accessory structures are located in office parks, however this Business Office Park is different because of 1) the combination of uses permitted.); 2) the accessory building is intended to house sand and salt; proposed to be tucked in a wooded area. Kuykendall: questioned the relationship to what is require in other zones. (Garross explained that impervious surface applies, a coverage ratio of the amount of building to land which is different from impervious surface. In residential districts (specifically R-l) there is a limit of 832 square feet for an accessory building which is about the size of a 3 stall garage. Height limitations will be 35 feet.) clarify what is meant by from public view. Wuellner: questioned the intent of screening; concern with vandals and thefts; seems like an unnecessary expense for the business owner. (Garross explained there is nothing in the ordinance that allows for an accessory building. Also this is providing an additional option to a potential owner. In terms of the City's project it is not possible to construct the accessory building with the same materials because of the salt mixture inside. The whole idea is to provide more flexibility in the Ordinance instead of cutting it off.) bothered by unnecessary ordinances. Consultant Blair Tremere responded to the concerns of Commissioner Wuellner explaining they are not seeing part of the Ordinance where the City has set very high aesthetics standards for the Business Office Park. If the City does not have control over accessory buildings they will have all kinds of problems. Criego: No comment. Arnold: the proposed language change may take care of the problem; suggest language as follows "The accessory building shall be constructed with the same material as the principal structure. In the event an accessory building cannot be constructed with the same materials..." Criego: language seems fine the way it is. Vonhof.' Under #2, of H in the Design Standards in the Business Park District, addresses accessory structures, "if they are built subsequent to the original structure." MNS1495.DOC PAGE 2 May need sentence to require the similar structure material; in a previous discussion it was found to be common in Business Parks as opposed to Industrial Parks not to have accessory structures. (Mr. Tremere stated this is the point the Staff has made. The change has to be made in the Ordinance.) supports the changes to the Ordinance. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE 95-14 WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN 5a. WHICH SHALL READ "THE ACCESSORY BUILDING MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE SAME MATERIALS AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. IN THE EVENT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE SAME MATERIALS AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING SHALL BE TOTALLY SCREENED FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. THE SCREENING MUST MEET ALL APPLICABLE ZONING STANDARDS. Discussion: Make the standards the same - either have 100% mandate or accept the screen. Bring it up to the high architectural standards or if there is a lesser standard then have the alternate screening. Commissioner Loftus likes City language better. AMEND MOTION BY ARNOLD TO CHANGE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN 5a. OF ORDINANCE 95-14. Commissioner Vonhof would like to add a clause in the Design Standards in the Business Park District. Amend to include language (in the first Motion). Vote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM #2 CASE VA95-24 ROBERT AND SHIRLEY THIELEN VARIANCE REQUEST: The applicant is seeking the following variances located at 15609 Calmut Avenue: a front yard setback variance to allow a 21 foot setback on the North to construct a master bedroom addition, a front yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback on the South to construct the proposed garage, and a lakeshore variance to allow a lakeshore setback of 25 feet to construct the proposed master bedroom and porch additions. MNS1495.DOC PAGE 3 Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated August 14, 1995. Staff research finds the hardship criteria have been met and recommends the following: Approve the requested variance to allow 1) a 4 foot front yard setback variance to allow a 21 foot setback on the North to construct a master bedroom addition, 2) a 23 foot front yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback on the South to construct the proposed garage, and 3) a 50 foot lakeshore variance to allow a lakeshore setback of 25 feet to construct the proposed master bedroom and porch additions. If the variances are granted, Staff recommends the following terms or conditions: Bo The 3 easterly parcels be combined, evidence of that combination be provided to the City, and a covenant be placed on the resulting property preventing sale or transfer of the 2 20-foot strips. All this should be completed before issuance of a building permit. Removal of the portion of the existing driveway West of the proposed garage. A letter was read from Department of Natural Resources, Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch stating no objection as the "variance requests permit the new additions to encroach no further waterward than the existing deck." Joan Waund of Edina Realty stated she is representing the new owners of the property, Bob and Shirley Thielen. She also represented the present owners of the property, Steve and Kim Niosi for variances requested in 1988. The Niosi's purchased the adjoining properties north, south and the piece across Calmut Avenue last summer. The Thielens will be purchasing these parcels with the home. The title company has agreed to combine the parcels and get one PID. Mrs. Waund presented a brief overview of the proposed addition. Comments from the audience: Steve Niosi who lives at the residence said his original proposal was to come before the Planning Commission and ask for the same variances. His biggest concern was the steep driveway and for the safety of the new owners. The ramp to the lake would be taken out. Craig Hinz, 4313 Grainwood Circle, lives on the south edge of the property. His concern is a 10 foot easement into the driveway which covers a street drain down to the lake. He would like assurance if it ever had to be repaired (the City) would not have to dig up his property to access the utilities. Mr. Hinz said he only had 72 feet of lakeshore and did not want to lose any. He has no problem with the requested variances. MN81495.DOC PAGE 4 Associate Planner Michael Leek addressed Mr. Hinz' concern stating there would be adequate area to access the easement. Assistant Planner Deb Garross further explained the Engineering Department acquired the easement to maintain the facility they put in and the easement area should be wide enough to accommodate any digging. Mr. Leek indicated in his research the City never vacated the private platted driveway. Ms. Garross explained the torrens procedure for all property owners in North Grainwood. The City would not be involved with the exception of the old railroad right-of-way, which the City did acquire easements over. Comments from the Commissioners: Roseth: likes the concept; as long as you are not building anything bigger than the footprint; not going closer to the lake or street; the impervious surface is 30% verified by Staff based on acquiring the additional property. (Mr. Leek explained there were 7 different surveys when Mrs. Waund brought the application in. They used the most recent survey but it does not show the acquired property. The impervious surface works out to approximately 29%.) Loftus: No comments. Kuykendall: No concern with the proposed variances; questioned the easement not shown on the survey; (Ms. Garross stated the surveyors as not required to show the easements.) space between the curb to the driveway property line is approximately 22 feet to the garage. Arnold: Supportive as long as there are no further encroachments made; states the property has to be combined and then amended. (Mr. Leek stated it is one of the conditions before the issuance of the building permit.) Wuellner: no comments. Vonhof: believes the hardship criteria have been met; concurs will all the comments made. Roseth: Recommend A and B in the Resolution. MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-18 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITEMS A AND B IN THE PLANNING REPORT. Discussion: clarification of front yard variance. New owners, Robert and Shirley Thielen acknowledged they can never build on their parcel across the street. No accessory structure would be on the parcel. The Commission has never acted on parcels across the street as part of the impervious surface. It is a unique situation with the plats of MN81495.DOC PAGE 5 Grainwood, North Grainwood, a railroad right-of-way and another parcel across the street. It is a right-of-way not a plat of record. (Ms. Garross pointed out one of the recommendations was to have a covenant placed on the property which states the parcel across the street is not buildable.) Recommend in the Motion the word "covenant" be changed to "encumbrance" and to include the parcel across the street. The City should have a record when this process has been done. Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Amold, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:39 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:46 p.m. ITEM//3 - CASE VA95-25 RON AND KIM ANDERSON VARIANCE REOUEST: The applicants are seeking the following variances for the property located on Lot 17, Grainwood Park: 1. A variance from Section 9.3(B) of the Shoreland Ordinance to permit a lot area of 6,516 square feet instead of the 7,500 square foot minimum, 2. A 5 foot variance to permit a front yard setback on the East of 20 feet instead of the required 25 feet, 3. A 31 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 44 feet instead of the required 75 feet, 4. A 5 foot variance to permit a 5 foot side yard setback on the West instead of the required 10 feet, 5. A 12% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 42% rather than the 30% permitted under the Shoreland Ordinance. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated August 14, 1995. Staff recommended denial of the application because the first hardship criteria had not been met under the Zoning Code. The Staff also suggested a lesser impervious surface coverage. Mr. Leek read a letter from the Department of Natural Resources, Hydrologist, Pat Lynch, stating their objection to the variance which allows less than a minimum 50 foot setback from the ordinary-high-water level. He further recommended redesigning the proposed structure to meet the Zoning Code. Applicant, Kim Anderson, explained they had priced out a 1090 square foot house, price of the lot, average home prices, the cost would be two and one half to three times more per square foot for a home that size which would be a terrible financial hardship. She feels it would devalue the property and they would never be able to sell it. It could also affect the other lots this size around the lake. They feel what they are proposing is in the spirit of the neighborhood. Surrounding homes are similar and the Commissioners granted variances for them in the past. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson spoke to the neighbors and presented a petition in support of the variances. The Andersons bought the lot with the understanding from the Realtor it was a buildable lot. Mrs. Anderson said (Associate MN81495.DOC PAGE 6 Planner) Michael Leek's concern was the high impervious surface coverage of 42%. The Andersons are willing to work with the City and architect. Applicant, Ron Anderson, stated they have been a residents of Prior Lake for 15 years. He feels they could narrow down the driveway to help with impervious surface coverage. The petition from the neighbors was entered into the record. Mr. Anderson explained he and his neighbors have discussed how they proposed to build and what would be the best solution for everyone. Kim Niosi, is a neighbor and wanted to point out the lots were all unique as they are extremely narrow. She feels the Andersons are enhancing the neighborhood. John Casanova, 4295 Grainwood Circle, Lot 16 in Grainwood Park, explained how his home is 1 foot, 7 inches from the lot line and the garage shows a 3 foot, 2 inch distance and therefore feels variance is need. He is in support of the variances and stated he has taken care of the property Anderson's recently bought since 1986. Mr. Casanova hopes to rebuild some day and enhance the Grainwood area as well. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: Grainwood is one of the most difficult areas to upgrade and over the years there have been a number of substandard lots requesting variances; have to recognize limitations and make modifications; feels the staff report is overly conservative but the plan has to work with the ordinance; supportive to grant some variances; would like to see adjustment in down sizing the plan. Kuykendall: In principle, can support the need for variances; the neighborhood is unique; staff report is good; concern for impervious surface; there is an impact to the public with the runoff; redesign the plan for the property. Arnold: This is a buildable lot of record but because of the substandard size it does need variances; agrees with Commissioner Kuykendall and plan can be reworked; concern for impervious surface; there has to be some down sizing with the understanding of variances required. Roseth: Our function is not to redesign someone's house; grant as few variances as possible to make everything conform, so city-wide everyone has the same opportunity, nobody is getting any benefits or making it too hard on them. Sometimes it may seem we are trying to make it hard but we just want to make it uniform as possible; no problem with the side yard variance or rear yard (Grainwood Circle Drive); lakeside variance is very close; it use to be 18% to 20% impervious surface coverage; 42% impervious surface has to be down sized; would support other three requests. Criego: Agrees with Commissioners; no problem with front and side variances; problem with lakeside variance and impervious surface coverage is too large. MN81495,DOC PAGE 7 Wuellner: Agrees with Commissioners; there are other options; it is a lot easier to make decisions with you working with your neighbors; commend Andersons for trying to work this out; have to redesign home to fit the property. Vonhof: Concur with comments from the Commissioners; concem for impervious coverage in the Shoreland district; there are options - table the matter and republish and come back with another plan or act on it tonight and vote on the plan before the Commission. Kim Anderson asked if she could get some direction before coming before the Commission again. Steve Niosi, a neighbor, asked if it was possible to grant the variances the Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Vonhof explained the hardship criteria have not been met at this time to permit a variance. The Commissions cannot grant a variance that is more than has been published. It is not the Commissioners job to redesign the footprint. Planning Director Don Rye pointed out the Commissioners have granted a number of variances and the DNR has hinted they would be looking for a case they would be willing to challenge. There should be no surprise in the staff report showing there is a buildable envelope which meets all the setbacks of the zoning ordinance. The general concern from City Council on impervious surface in the shoreland district is that it is an adopted ordinance and has to be enforced as a policy of the City. General Discussion: Commissioners would like to invite someone from the DNR to one of our meetings and explain the impervious surface coverage of 30%; More work has to be done on the design of the home to fit the property; Grainwood is one of the unique areas; trying to develop community standards, specifically in the shoreland district. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO TABLE THE MATTER. No discussion. Vote signified ayes by Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA: Resolution 95-18PC - McKnight Variance MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95- 18PC. MN81495.DOC PAGE 8 Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Amold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Vonhof requested Staff to set up a meeting with Department of Natural Resources, Hydrologist, Pat Lynch to speak to the Planning Commission regarding the State's stand on impervious surface. The Commissioners would also like to meet the new Park Director, Paul Hokeness. Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan - Consultant Blair Tremere Mr. Tremere presented the revised document for discussion. He suggested focusing on the big concepts and will work the small items out. The Metro Council will also review the document. This Comprehensive Plan is retaining the policy of the City yet meeting new State laws. Commissioners discussed the following issues: agricultural preserves, comparison of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan and the new plan, a down town development district was contemplated; recreational businesses; industry in the south area of the City, planning with the Dakota Community, MUSA and land exchange; a lake zoning area; road access; lake access and development. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY ARNOLD, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AT THE DIRECTION OF STAFF. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Arnold, Kuykendall, Roseth and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY ROSETH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Vote taken signified ayes by Amold, Roseth, Kuykendall, Loftus and Vonhof. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Planning Director Donald Rye Recording Secretary Connie Carlson MN81495.DOC PAGE 9