Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111395REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1995 7:00 p.m. Call Meeting to Order/Roll Call: Approval of Minutes: Consent Agenda: · Adopt Resolutions to deny Wild Oaks project. New Business including Public Hearings: 3. A - VA95-37: TIMOTHY BECKER - VARIANCE REQUEST - The applicant proposes the construction of a cabin on the Lot 19, "Twin Isles", Scott County, MN. The applicant's plans propose a lot area of 3,499 sq. Ft. Instead of the required 1 acre; a lakeshore setback of 22' instead of the required 100'; a front yard setback of 14.5' instead of the required 25 feet; a side yard setback on the East of 5.3' Instead of the required 10'; and a side yard setback on the West of 6' instead of the required 10'. Thus, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 40,061 sq. Ft. Lot area variance; a 78' lakeshore variance; a 10.5' front yard setback variance; a 4.7' side yard setback variance on the East, and a 4' side yard setback variance on the West. 3. B - VA95-38: CHRISTOPHER PEARSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT 4, AND PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 5, CANDY COVE PARK, SCOTT COl_FiXITY, MN - The applicant proposes the construction of a single family house with attached 3-car garage on the subject site. The applicant's plans propose a side yard setback to the southwest comer of the house of 7.38 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 2.62 foot side yard setback variance on the southwest. 3. C - VA95-31: ELMER CLARKE, 16280 PARK AVENUE - VARIANCE REQUEST- The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a single family house which was damaged by fire earlier this year. The applicant's plans propose a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the required 75 feet, and a side yard setback on the 16200 L:~l~9~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota ~3~372-1714 / Ph. (612)447-4230 / Fax (612)447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER South of 2.1 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 28' lakeshore variance and a 7.9 foot side yard setback variance. 3. D - HO95-07: DOUGLAS AND PAMELA COLBY, 5293 BROOKS CIR., HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST - The applicant proposes to operate a Business involving the storage in 1 room of the existing house of small vending machines to be placed in other locations. Deliveries of these machines would occur a few times per year. 3. E - PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 83-06, ESTABLISHING A TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. Other Business: · Elect Planning Commission Chair Comprehensive Plan discussion Second PC meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 26, 1995 Announcements and Correspondence: Adjournment: AGI 11395.DOC PAGE2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1995 The November 13, 1995, Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Planning Chair Dick Kuykendall at 7:01 p.m. Present were Commissioners Criego, Loftus, Vonhof and Kuykendall, Planning Director Don Rye, Associate Planner Michael Leek and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. ROLL CALL: Criego Present Loftus Present Vonhof Present Kuykendall Present Wuellner Absent 1. REVIEW OF THE OCTOBER 23, 1995 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 1995 MINUTES. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego, Vonhof and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Wild Oaks Resolutions: 95-21PC, 95-22PC and 95-23PC. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-21PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-22PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-23PC. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 3. NEW BUSINESS INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. A - VA95-37: TIMOTHY BECKER - VARIANCE REQUEST - The applicant proposes the construction of a cabin on the Lot 19, "Twin Isles", Scott County, MN. The applicant's plans propose a lot area of 3,499 sq. Ft. Instead of the required 1 acre; a lakeshore setback of 22' instead of the required 100'; a front yard setback of 14.5' instead MI 11395,DOC PAGE 1 of the required 25 feet; a side yard setback on the East of 5.3' Instead of the required 10'; and a side yard setback on the West of 6' instead of the required 10'. Thus, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 40,061 sq. Ft. Lot area variance; a 78' lakeshore variance; a 10.5' front yard setback variance; a 4.7' side yard setback variance on the East, and a 4' side yard setback variance on the West. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Staff Report dated November 13, 1995. Staff concluded the hardship criteria has not been met and recommends denial of the requested variances. Mr. Becker was not present at the hearing. Dave Olson stated he and his wife own a cabin on lots 22, 23 and 34. Mr. Olson feels the issues were discussed at the last meeting but still feels the variances requested are out of line. His other concerns were the distance from the high-water mark and the drain field. Comments from Commissioners: Vonhofi · Agrees with staff, the hardship criteria has not been met. · The Twin Island Development Guide &ailed in 1978 states the City's intent for development - variances were not looked upon favorably. Loftus: · Leek explained the lot size requirements and nonsewered acre. Criego: · Agrees with Commissioners and staff's recommendation. Kuykendall: · Leek explained the Twin Island Development Guide and reasonable use of the land. · Supports staff's recommendation. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRIEGO TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF LACK OF HARDSHIP UNDER THE FOUR ZONING CRITERIA. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 3. B - VA95-38: CHRISTOPHER PEARSON - VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT 4, AND PART OF THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 5, CANDY COVE PARK, SCOTT COUNTY, MN - The applicant proposes the construction of a single family house with attached 3- car garage on the subject site. The applicant's plans propose a side yard setback to the southwest comer of the house of 7.38 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the M111395DOC PAGE 2 ! applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve a 2.62 foot side yard setback variance on the southwest. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated November 13, 1995. Staff recommends denial of the request based on their findings of a lack of demonstrated hardship under the Zoning Code criteria. Applicant Christopher Pearson purchased the property in June of 1994. Mr. Pearson said he discussed issues with the former Planning Director and explained the difficult grading. He has worked with an architect and a surveyor to match elevations to the adjacent lots and structures. The existing structure was removed last week. Comments from the Commissioners: Lofius: · Applicant gave a lot of consideration to the plans. · (Pearson: by changing his plans he would be limited to the function of the house and is aesthetically less pleasing to the neighbors.) · Leek explained the process of being consistent with the Ordinances. · Applicant has a sizable lot (15,295 sq. feet) and a generous building envelope. · Does not see hardship - financial hardship is not a factor. · DNR comment on deck for further adjustment. Criego: · The three car garage is going into the shoreline area. · (Mr. Pearson: felt he was following the City's Ordinances at the time.) · Leek explained DNR's remarks on the setbacks. Vonhofi · Traditionally the Planning Commission has granted up to a 5 yard variance in the shoreland district. · The difficulty is the 15,000 sq. feet and substantial building envelope. · Hard to make an argument for hardship. · Concern for erosion control and impact of having a house on the lot. · (Pearson: slopes will become less and will move the level of the structure and neighbor's existing grade.) · Some thought has gone into the plan but it does come down to the 2 1/2 foot variance. · There are other possibilities with the house. Kuykendall: · Even though them were discussions with former planner a plan has not come forward until now. · The hardship criteria is State Law and the Planning Commission has to follow. · Agrees with staff the hardship criteria has not been met. MI 11395.DOC PAGE 3 ,-- · Has reservations for the desire for the next buyer to restrain from having a deck. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY VONHOF TO ACT ON RESOLUTION 95- 38PC AND DENY REQUEST. RATIONALE: Lack of demonstrated hardship and applicant does have a reasonable use of the property within conformance of the ordinance. Discussion: Hardship has not been met. Applicant's comments were well taken. Sometimes it becomes a presumption all variances are going to go. This case is different and there are other alternatives. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 3. C - VA95-31: ELMER CLARKE, 16280 PARK AVENUE - VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a single family house which was damaged by fire earlier this year. The applicant's plans propose a lakeshore setback of 47 feet instead of the required 75 feet, and a side yard setback on the South of 2.1 feet instead of the required 10 feet. Thus, the applicant requests the Planning Commission approve a 28' lakeshore variance and a 7.9 foot side yard setback variance. Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated November 13, 1995. Staff recommends approval of the variances based on the findings the hardship criteria has been met. Duane Clarke, Elmer's son, 14819 Idaho Avenue, and Elmer Clarke, 16280 Park Avenue, explained the proposed plans and the changes made to meet City requirements. Elmer explained his neighbor could not be here tonight but testified at the last meeting he was in favor of the structure. Lorraine Lillyblad, felt it was not fair she had to spread their lots for two houses and feels Clarkes' should do the same. Concern for fire. Mrs. Lillyblad said maybe she could bum the house down and get what she wants. Comments by Commissioners: Criego: · The house design is good for one lot, the problem is the applicant owns the adjoining lot and Ordinance B. 1E states the homes has to cross both lots. · This is not a hardship. · (Duane explained adjoining lots do not meet building requirements and have to be combined. Elmer would have to subdivide to get a 5 foot variance.) MI 11395.DOC PAGE 4 · (Elmer stated he has lived there for 50 years and just wants to replace his home on the existing foundation.) Vonhof: · Size of other two lots - narrow. · Agrees with comments made. If dealing with one lot them would be no problem. Leek explained the combination of the three lots would be roughly 20,000 sq. feet and not all areas are buildable. He did not have a survey of the adjoining lots, but he has seen the property. The three lots slope to the north and then to the west with a substantial drop between the existing foundation and the third lot. That lot might also be in the flood plain. Duane Clarke said there would be a flood plain problem and the adjoining lots are not buildable. Elmer Clarke expressed he just wants a place to sleep. Criego: · Mr. Clarke's intention is to combine the two remaining lots and build one structure. · The maximum Clarke will get out of the three lots is two houses. · Will approve parcel. Planning Director Don Rye stated if that was the case, variances would only have to go on this lot instead of both. Loftus: · Other developmental options available - subdividing is an option. · Variances requested are substantial. · Financial criteria is not the driving force for variances. · Applicant can stay within the code if he wants to build. Kuykendall: · The three properties are owned by the same individual therefor there is not a hardship. · Drawn between staff and Commissioner Loftus' position. Discussion: Planning Commission's job is to look at the situation at hand, and if there are other options the variances should not be granted. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO DENY REQUESTED VARIANCES. Open Discussion: Consistency with variances and there are other building options. Mixed emotions - there are only going to be two houses at the most. Cannot put restrictions on MI 11395.DOC PAGE 5 additional property through this variance. On the merits of common sense, he is simply rebuilding on an existing foundation. If the 3 lots are combined and split they would still become substandard lots and require variances. There should also be future reference to these lots. We cannot compare lots designed in 1920 to lots in 1995. If the Planning Commission has the opportunity to correct bad practices in the past it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to correct and make it better. Duane Clarke: His father is trying to use the existing foundation and build the same size house as before. Vote taken to deny the variance requested: Ayes by Kuykendall and Loftus, Nays by Vonhof and Criego. MOTION DID NOT PASS. Open Discussion: The motion is not denied because it was never granted; Suggestion to table until there are five Commissioners to break the tie; Discussions on hardship criteria met vs. hardship not met; The entire impervious surface coverage is 12%; The request is in line with the Ordinance; Discussion on a new structure vs. rebuilding on the existing foundation; Suggest to combine three lots and subdivide into two. Elmer Clarke: Seven years ago he received a permit from the City to raise his house to put in a basement and the City had no problem with him doing so. The lake level has gone up considerably and that is the hardship. Clarke has lived on that site for 50 years until the house burned down and just wants to rebuild and have a place to live. Open Discussion: Planning Commission is putting more into what has been presented. There are options and should take another vote on the motion. MOTION BY LOFTUS, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO DENY REQUESTED VARIANCES BECAUSE THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET. Vote taken signified ayes by Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. Nays by Vonhof. MOTION DENIED. 3. D - HO95-07: DOUGLAS AND PAMELA COLBY, 5293 BROOKS CIR., HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST. Applicants contacted Michael Leek and withdrew their application until after they move to their residence and reapply. A recess was called at 9:52 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:03 p.m. 3. E - PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND THE ZON1NG ORDINANCE, 83-06, ESTABLISHING A TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. The public hearing was called to order and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public. MI 11395.DOC PAGE 6 Michael Leek presented the proposed draft Ordinance. Comments From the Audience: Jean Baudhuin, 5671 Woodside Road, thinks it is a great Ordinance. She would like the Ordinance to read so anyone can understand the language. Some of the language is broad and needs to be defined. Mrs. Baudhuin also had concerns with the issues of dead and disease trees, tree replacement; the phrase "sole discretion of the City", enforcement and cost. Horst Graser, representing Gold Nugget Development, 8857 Zealand Avenue N., Brooklyn Park, feels the tree preservation in general is good for the community. There are some applications that do not fit i.e. Allowable Tree Removal - site grading; utility installation language; cost for surveys and tree replacement; deciding practical hardships; developer should be able to replace trees on his own development rather than fund the City's Capital Improvement Plan for park purposes to build trails; Suggest considering a replacement program whereas you work with developer - as lots develop - replace trees. Other concerns are responsibility for tree upkeep if not on development, need for $500 lot fee - a nursery will guarantee trees for one year. Why does the developer have to guarantee another year? Mr. Graser talked to several companies who survey trees. The survey alone is extremely high as well as $7 to $10 to survey one tree. The cost of a survey, tree survey and $500 deposit would cost $1,000 for one lot. Good design and grading will preserve trees but in some cases it is not possible. Mr. Graser encourages the Commissioners to consider his comments. Karen Christofferson, of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities, commented on consideration for grading requirements in other City Ordinances. She questioned "sole discretion" language. They felt the 125% Letter of Credit for replacement was high. Other Ordinances that she is aware of are usually 100%. Consider a "tree bank" which gives the City an option - it may be on the site not all the replacement works for that site. You may end up with more trees than is practical. Suggests the City works with developer. Bill Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, said he has lived in Prior Lake less than two years and was present to represent the trees. He would like to see the bar (standards) set high. Some developments up to a mile away from the lake can have an affect on the lake we do not realize until after the damage is done, the trees are down and the erosion is going on. Mr. Townsend disagrees with the developer that the dollars of profit should be the standard by which the Planning Commission makes action on this Ordinance. He feels the Ordinance needs more teeth to protect the trees he is representing i.e., smaller trees need to be protected, clarifying definitions, tree replacement formula (should be higher), location, and the cost should be higher. Mr. Townsend does not want to see the developer buy his way out of replacement. Mr. Townsend was confused with the word "mensuration". MI 11395.DOC PAGE 7 Scott Roth, 6394 Conroy Street, was concerned with the Wild Oaks project falling into this Ordinance. A construction area definition should be included in the permit process. He also wanted clarification on the 25% tree removal definition. John Allen, 17220 Panama Avenue, came as a concerned citizen and is the forester for the City of Savage. Mr. Allen gave background on Savage's Tree Preservation drafting procedures. 25% removal was typical for a development site and not out of line. Savage has 5 new developments with the Tree Preservation in place and is working well. The City should encourage developers to come in with a concept plan and discuss site and the contours and realign roads if necessary before the preliminary plan review. Commended the City on the proposal. Calina Townsend, 6300 Conroy Street, commended the staff and Commission for putting this Ordinance in place. Mrs. Townsend felt it was incredibly important to work quickly. There are a lot of residents who are concerned and supportive of the City's efforts to save the trees. Her main concern is enforcement and is opposed to self-enforcement. She feels it will not work, by the time mistakes are found the trees will be gone. Mary Ann Frees, 6346 Conroy Street, is delighted to be pro-acting with the City. She loves her trees and Prior Lake and the wonderful people she met. Jean Boudhuin, 5671 Woodside Road, said we should video tape the land to show what trees we have. The definition section should be reworded and defined in the Ordinance. She also suggested two sections in the Ordinance, one for the developers for large sections of land and the other for single lots. John Allen, 17720 Panama Avenue, wanted to suggest looking at security as part of the performance bond submitted by developers. It is easier for the developer from an economic standpoint. Hold the Certificate of Occupancy until everything is in place. Horst Graser, commented when the City legislates this Ordinance remember his (developers) property rights. He is a large land owner. "Our trees" are my trees. He wants the City to protect his property rights and not take value from his land. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: · This is one of the more interesting subjects and his conclusion is further study. · The input is good. The developer side is not to legislate, or create an ordinance that is so hindering, so restrictive that it infringes upon his property rights. · Advocates for the trees to come up with an ordinance with appropriate "teeth". · Neighboring cities has staff for enforcement which Prior Lake does not. · A tree board is a good idea. · Agrees there should be a macro and micro tier in the Ordinance. M111395.DOC PAGE 8 Criego: · Good input. · Planning Commission and City Council should ultimately make the variance decisions instead of the Planning Director. · 4" vs. 6" requirement. Happy with 6" and 12' requirement. · Oppose any security deposit other than the performance bond. Performance bond is a good idea. · Likes the replacement plan. · Don Rye explained the dead or diseased tree City Code provision. Vonhof: · Good input for developers, citizens and forester. · Question on penalties - Rye explained it is in the Zoning Ordinance. · removal is workable. · Reword paragraph (F) regarding "sole judgment of the Planning Director". · Agrees with Commissioner Criego regarding the appeal process before the Planning Commission. · Enforcement issue. · Language in 3. B has to be clarified. · Replacement value on trees - prorate? Garross explained City Council can include in the fee schedule. · Performance bond is the way to go. · Likes the option of not issuing a Certificate of Occupancy on the residential lot. · Community does not have the resources to pay a forester - maybe City should look into one. · A tree board is not a bad idea. Kuykendall: · Thanks to staff for a good start, · Leek stated previous staff surveyed 8 communities and his experience from other cities. · Do not put in definitions if they are not going to be used. · Keep clean and as simple as possible. · Split into two parts - developer vs. individual home owner. · The community has to set the standards an put their money where their mouth is. Should not impose all the expense on the developer. If City does, the developer will not develop the land and the City will be in a constant circle. There has to be a balance. · Enforcement · Performance bond is reasonable. · Concern for site survey cost. · This is a major step forward. Not in a position to act on tonight on what the City has in front of them. Should continue. MI 11395.DOC PAGE 9 Loftus: · Good suggestion to mandate alternate replacement site - a tree for a tree. Leek: It is conceivable on site replacement is not feasible or desirable or we as the City may not be in the position of knowing specifically at the time a particular subdivision proposal comes up where we want to see trees replanted. By taking cash in those circumstances, the City does get something to put into nursery tree stock for eventually becoming a tree replacement plan for the City. It is an alternative if the first two plans doe not work. · Agrees with rationale but it models after the Park Dedication which he feels has been abused a time or two. · Garross: explained the City makes the determination not the developer. · John Allen: stated the portion value of replacing three trees of equal to the size of what has been taken out. Savage designed a little flexibility into it because they found there were smaller trees that adopted to some soils much quicker than the larger ones. Criego: · Comment on public projects as far as indicating the developer could be a public project also. The City should be liable just like anyone else. · Leek commented it was defined in the Ordinance. Will make it more explicit. John Allen suggested including a separate section in the Ordinance which addresses diseased trees. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 11, 1995. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus, Criego and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: · Election of Vice Chair: MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ELECT COMMISSIONER BILL CRIEGO AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Vote taken signified ayes by Vonhof, Loftus and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. · Comprehensive Plan: Rye updated Commissioners on the upcoming public hearing subjects. MI 11395.DOC PAGE 10 · Reminder of December 26, meeting (if necessary). MOTION BY LOFTUS SECOND BY VONHOF TO ADJOURN. Votes taken signified ayes by Loftus, Vonhof, Criego and Kuykendall. CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. MOTION Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MI 11395.DOC PAGE 11