HomeMy WebLinkAbout0527032.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
Ao
Bo
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Consent Agenda:
Public Hearings:
Case #03-40 Michael and Debra MeGahey are requesting variances fi.om the
zoning ordinance for the construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on
property located at 14948 Pixie Point Circle SE.
Case #03-46 John and Arlene Kalton are appealing the Zoning Administrator's
decision to not permit a dog kennel land use in an R-1 District.
Old Business:
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:',~3 Files~3 Pl~ing C~nm~)3 pe.~AG052703.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ill i i
PUBLIC HEARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission selcomes your comments rn tiffs matter. In fairness to ali who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairification or
new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further tesi/mony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City. Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT
NAME
ADDRESS
PFi2..IST.DOC
PAGE
PLANNING cOMMIsSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2003
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Stamson called the May 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning
Coordinator Jane Kansier, Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman,
Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Absent
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Ringstad Present
Stamson Present
Commissioner Atwood arrived at 6:31 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 12, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented.
4. Consent: None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Case 003-40 Michael and Debra McGahey are requesting variances from the zoning
ordinance for the construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on property located at
14948 Pixie Point Circle SE.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated May 27, 2003 on file in the office
of the City Planning Department.
Michael and Debra McGahey are requesting variances from the zoning ordinance for the
construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on property located at 14948 Pixie Point Circle
SE. In order to construct the detached garage the following variances are required:
1. A 17.5 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot average front yard setback.
2. A 6 foot variance from the required 11 foot side yard separation setback.
3. A 6.8 percent variance from the maximum 31.5 percent impervious surface standard for
shoreland lots.
The property currently does not have a garage. Topography and a sanitary sewer easement
encumbers the site and creates an undue hardship, consequently staff supports the setback
variances because a reasonable use is not present on the property. However, the proposed
impervious surface coverage variance could be reduced to the existing level of 31.5 percent by
the removal of some of the existing sidewalk pavers or reducing their width to be less than the 3
feet exempted under the ordinance.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Corcan\03peMinutes~N052703.doe 1
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Staff recommended approval of a 17.5 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback and a 6
foot variance from the 11 foot side yard separation setback for the construction of a detached
garage, subject to the following conditions:
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state agency
regulations.
3. The driveway shall be a maximum of 24 feet in width at the property line and meet the
minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
4. The driveway shall be surfaced with bituminous or concrete.
5. The garage shall be compatible in design and materials with the principal structure.
6. Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 31.5 percent.
7. The accessory structure shall not encroach into the 20 foot sanitary sewer easement.
8. A soils report shall be submitted with the building permit application.
Staffrecommended denial of the 6.8 percent variance from the maximum 31.5 percent
impervious surface coverage standard.
The DNR commented by e-mail they would recommend removal of the impervious surface
coverage were not in support of any increase.
A letter from their neighbor, Ed Feiker opposes the requested variances.
Questions by Commissioners:
Criego questioned the side yard setback of 15 feet between structures on substandard lots.
Kirchoffresponded there would be 18 feet between the structures on one side. The neighbor's
detached garage is 4 feet from the property line causing the variance request.
Comments by the Public:
Applicant Mike McGahey gave a brief history of the lot from 1957 when it was Eagle Creek
Township. The constraint on the lot was a sewer line through the property. After talking to staff,
the McGaheys decided to go ahead with plans to construct a garage. All the runoff issues have
been addressed. The excessive impervious surface is due mostly to pavers on the patio and
sidewalk. Mike felt the pavers are effective and will continue to use pavers for the driveway.
McGaheys agreed with staff's recommendation.
Lemke asked McGahey if staff thought the garage door should be facing the street. McGahey
said they considered it, but his 22 foot pickup does not fit. Valley Engineering also agreed that
the side loading would not work on this property.
Ed Feiker, 14946 Pixie Point Circle, stated he is against the east 5 foot variance. The McGaheys
are good neighbors but he was not aware of the proposed garage. He felt they should have a
garage but not a large 24 by 24 foot garage. Feiker was concerned the value of his property would
decrease with their garage that close to the property line. The garage will also block his view of
the sun and street.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Corcan\03pcMinutes~lb1052703.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Debby McGahey, explained part of the difficulty is working around theunusual sewer line. They
are very restricted with the location of the garage and are trying to stay within the ordinances.
Mr. Feiker's garage is 4 feet from the property line, It is a hardship not to have a garage and
storage area.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
· Agreed with staff's report, there are hardships with the sewer line going through the
property.
· Agreed with staff's recommendation not to increase the impervious surface.
· It is necessary to have a garage. A 24x24 foot garage is not unusual. Its too bad the
neighbor's garage is 4 feet away.
· Fine with the request as long as it remains 5 feet away from the property line.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Criego. There is a hardship.
· Staff is correct in stating a 24x24 foot garage is a standard 2-car garage in Minnesota.
· Support staff's recommendation.
· Agree the impervious surface should not be increased.
Ringstad:
· Agreed with Commissioners. The Commissioners have consistently stated that 2~:ar
garages are a reasonable use and lack of a garage is a hardship. Properties that do not
currently have a 2-car garage, if at all possible, should. It is a hardship with an easement
through the property line.
· Agreed with not going beyond the existing 31.5 percent impervious surface. The
Commissioners have also showed consistency in not increasing the impervious surface on
riparian lots.
Atwood:
· Agreed - Given the constraint of the sewer easement this is a hardship.
· Asked for clarification on a former issue with pavers. Kansier stated staff has not
accepted pavers as impervious. The issue with pavers was with a Planned Unit
Development. The Commissioners allowed a modification to the maximum impervious
surface. It was felt at that point, it was a larger development and staff had control over
the design and location of the pavers. The homeowner's association document will lay
out the maintenance of the pavers. It was something the City would try. Pavers have not
been allowed as pervious surface on other single family lots. The DNR and City staff are
not convinced of the effectiveness.
· Stamson stated the development the Commissioners looked at was a very complicated
installation procedure. More than what you would see in a driveway.
· Criego said the applicant could put in pavers but it would be considered pervious.
· Is this property considered a bluff. Kirchoff said there is a topography change on the
bluff but not more than 30 percent. It is not a bluff.
· A garage should not be denied given the constraints.
· Would be willing to extend the impervious surface percentage.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3pcMinutes~MNO52703.doc 3
iii I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Stamson: · Concurred with Staff and Commissioners.
· The sewer line on this property is unique and creates a set of hardships in placement of
the garage. That warrants the first two variances from setbacks.
· The second variance to allow clearance between the structures- noting the neighbor's
garage is a detached garage 4 feet away.
· The placement of the easement is not a hardship for impervious surface.
· This is not an unusually small lot. Even if lack ora garage is a hardship the impervious
surface should remain as is.
Open Discussion:
Lemke:
· Assuming the sidewalks are included in the impervious surface calculations.
· Noting condition number 4 in the staff report indicates the driveway should be surfaced
with bituminous or concrete. Could that be changed to allow pavers? Kansier and
Kirchoff said they could.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-03PC
APPROVING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT SIDE YARD
SEPARATION SETBACK INCLUDING THE 8 CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-04PC
DENYING A 6.8 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE 31.5 PERCENT MAXIMUM
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
GARAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Criego, Lemke and Stamson. Nay by Atwood. MOTION
CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
B. Case #03-46 John and Arlene Kalton are appealing the Zoning Administrator's
decision to not permit a dog kennel land use in an R-1 District.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 27, 2003, on file
in the office of the City Planning Deparmaent.
The Planning Department received an Appeal Notice from John & Arlene Kalton regarding
staff's decision to not allow a dog kennel land use. Staff received complaints regarding the
number of dogs on the subject property.
The appellant submitted documentation on 14 dogs they stated to have retrieved from the
American kennel Club records. The appellants stated they currently have 8 dogs. Staffreviewed
the submitted documentation and determined the request did not meet the requirement for a legal
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteskMN052703.doe 4
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
nonconforming land use under Zoning Ordinance Section 1107.2305. Staff determined the use to
be illegal and responded with a decision to deny the request for a legal non-conforming land use.
In addition, the City does not have a record of any dogs being licensed at the subject property
prior to November 13, 2002, when the owners visited City Hall to acquire dog licenses after
notification of the violation.
This appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator is site specific to the subject property,
and does not affect the way in which the ordinance is applied in all situations. The request for a
legal non-conforming land use does not meet the ordinance requirement as spelled out in the
report. Staff therefore recommended the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning
Administrator.
Questions from Commissioners:
Lemke:
Questioned the appeal provisions requested in the applicant's letter. Horsman explained
the nonconforming use. Kansier said the issue is the applicant is appealing the City's
decision to the Commissioners. It will not necessarily go to the Council, but staffwould
review the ordinance to be sure.
Ringstad:
· If the applicants would have applied for a kennel license back in 1999 what would be the
City's response? Kansier said the 1983 ordinance required a conditional use permit for
kennels in the residential districts. Kaltons had no conditional use permit. The difference
would be if they had licensed their dogs on a regular basis and could show over the years
they had maintained this number of animals, the staff would have looked at it differently
as a nonconforming use. Staff was able to go back into the records for five years
verifying they did not obtain licenses. That is why it was an illegal use versus a
nonconforming use.
Stamson:
· What is the limit of dogs one is required to keep in anR1 district? Staff responded three.
Comments from the Public:
John Kalton, 15594 Hill Circle, represented his wife, Arlene Kalton as the ownerofthe dogs. He
gave a history of the lot to indicate grandfathering the use in. His property was originally in
Eagle Creek Township. At that time, the township official explained many items including
animals would be grandfathered into City.
The Kaltons were first aware of the problem in October of 2002 when staff sent a letter of a
violation. Kaltons replied that when Eagle Creek Township was annexed into the city limits there
were no pet restrictions and requested noncompliance of Section 802.66 or Section 1102.44 R1
District. All of their dogs are vaccinated and confined to their property by a 3 foot chain-linked
fence. Kalton stated miniature dachshmds are small, the size of rabbits.
In October of 2002, the Kaltons went to City Hall to license the dogs. At that time they were only
allowed to have 3 licenses and assumed they were given a grandfather use. Later in November,
staff informed them they had to establish proof of the number of dogs previous to a 1979
ordinance. Kaltons submitted proof from the American Kennel Club indicating they had 12 dogs
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Coram\03pcMinutes~VlN052703.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
in 1979. He was not aware of the 1983 ordinance. On March 4, 2003, they were told by staff
they had not met requirements for a legal nonconforming land use. This was the first time they
were aware of this ordinance or a one year window of compliance.
On March 4, 2003, the Kaltons were told they would have to dispose of their dogs by April 4,
2003; no mention was made of the grandfather request. Kalton said he was under the impression
that living at their residence since 1966 they would be grandfathered in. They would like to
continue to raise dachshunds as a hobby for the estate lifetime of owner, Arlene Kalton. They do
not view this as a kennel business and are requesting noncompliance for 8 of their dogs. Kalton
pointed out Meda Kop's farm animals are in the City of Prior Lake. He also stated they are
willing to pay license fees.
Kalton said they have had 16 different neighbors in 4 different properties. To their knowledge
one complaint has been filed. No citations were given to them by police. Kalton felt a dog was
allowed a certain number of minutes barking. It varies from City to City, usually 5 to 10 minutes.
He could not find that requirement in the Prior Lake City Ordinance.
Stamson:
· Questioned Kalton if he was breeding and selling dogs or raising and showing them.
Kalton said they are raising dogs for show. As the dogs become older they are neutered,
spade and then sold. They have two litters a year. They now have 8 dogs. In October
they had 12 dogs. As the dogs become ill they are euthanatized. When they become older
they are given up for adoption. They keep the show dogs. Kalton said they will keep
their number of dogs at 8. The size of the dogs are 8 to 10 pounds.
Criego:
· Asked Kalton the size of the lot.
Kalton said it is one-third of an acre. The dogs are
confined to the back of the house.
Was Kalton aware of the need for dog license? He responded he was aware but felt he
was grandfathered from licensing.
Questioned Kalton if he ever went to the City to ask to have a license for the dogs.
Kalton said not until they were given the notice.
Atwood:
· Read part of the applicant's letter and asked Kalton if he will ever keep more than 8 dogs.
He responded they will not go above 8 dogs. They reduced their number of 12 dogs to 8.
They may keep less.
JeffArrigoni, 5201 Candy Cove Trail, back yard neighbor to Kaltons and have lived at their
residence for 10 years. Arrigoni asked the Commissioners to picture their back yards with a
fence 30 feet from the back door - 8 to 10 dogs constantly barking for the last 10 years. One of
the problems is that over time dogs get use to the neighbors and they won't bark. As Kalton said,
they have new dogs every 6 months and the dogs are not familiar with the neighbors and continue
to bark. Kaltons do not want 8 to 10 dogs barking all day in their house so they let them outside.
Arrigoni said they have had enough. He never complained or called the police onKaltons dogs.
Arrigoni said he was not going to come tonight until he received a complaint on the fence he was
building to keep the dogs out. Arrigoni explained his wife's harassment from Mr. Kalton. There
has been a history of harassing behavior by John Kalton and the police have been involved.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Cormn\03pcMinutes~N052703.do¢~ 6
ll; I
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
Kalton calling the City to complain about his fence to keep Kalton's dogs from barking was the
last straw. The dogs have barked for 10 years and he is tired of it.
Arlene Kalton said the dogs do not bark all the time, they "woof, woof'. Kalton stated the
accusations are ridiculous. They have had 16 different neighbors and only one has been a
problem. The neighbor has indicated they have a concern with Kalton's water running into their
property. They have spent thousands of dollars in landscape so their runoff does not mn into the
neighbor's yard.
Stamson explained the issue is the dog kennels. Arlene Kalton said the illusion ismade that they
are selling dogs and making a lot of money. This is an expensive hobby. They have been active
members and Board of Directors of the Minnesota Dachshunds Club for over 30 years. She has
champion dogs. They are not the only neighbors withbarking dogs. What are they going to do?
They lived in Prior Lake 37 years and assumed they were grandfathered in. Kalton stated her
dogs are smart and knows who likes them. They do not mn back and forth barking all the time.
Stamson asked what the top number of dogs they have owned. Kalton said 13, the least is 8 or 9
dogs that are housed in the basement. They do not tolerate barking any more than anyone else.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
Agreed with staff's assessment. Mr. Kalton noted his dogs are very small. If the
Commission gets into the idea that 5 small dogs equal 3 mid-size dogs, it is the wrong
approach to take.
Deny the application.
Atwood: · Was out to the property and there were 2 black labs barking in their circle.
· This is a tough situation. No pearls of wisdom. Would like to see a win-win situation
and see some kind of discussion for this.
· The longevity of their hobby and the grandfathering in can lead to frustration.
· Appreciate the neighbors putting in a fence.
Lemke:
· Agreed with Atwood. Assumed this 1999 ordinance was published in the paper. Kansier
said it was.
· Questioned if there are any records on the annexation in 1966. Did someone retain this
information?
· Kansier explained grandfathering and nonconforming use are thc same words. A
nonconforming use is a legally established use that is no longer permitted under thc
ordinance but can continue to operate. In this particular case, if the Kaltons had regularly
licensed the dogs, the staff would have looked at it as a legally nonconforming use. The
fact they had not licensed any dogs for at least 5 years prior to 2002 is what staff based
their decision on.
· The applicants felt that the grandfathering they thought they had would include licensing.
I assume they (the City) didn't license dogs in 1966. Kansier said she did not know,
however the licensing has been in effect for many years, and it is not a grandfathering
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~IN052703.do¢ 7
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
issue. Every dog needs to be licensed. Every time you get a new dog it should be
licensed.
Assume that officers and members of the AKC should know that information.
Agree with Commissioner Ringstad, 3 is 3. The ordinance does not stoop to the size of
the dog.
Criego:
· Empathy for the dog owners and the neighbors.
· Making assumptions of the law is the worst thing anyone can do. The laws have been
around for a long time.
· If the dogs would have been licensed in the last 5 to 10 years it could have possibly been
grandfathered in. Most people know they need to have the dogs licensed.
· The applicant assumed they were grandfathered in without checking it out. That is the
problem.
· The ordinance states 3 dogs. Agree with staff's recommendation.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Criego, staffis looking at a definition of what a nonconforming use and
what qualifies. Staff is correct.
· It needs to be a legal use beforehand. There are a number of things that have to go with
that like licensing the dogs. It has not been done. The applicant's perspective that it was
a legal use before and therefore isn't qualified to be a legal nonconforming land use is the
correct interpretation. The applicants did not comply.
· Read and thought about this a lot and concur with staff's recommendation and
interpretation.
Open Discussion:
Atwood:
· Agreed staff's interpretation is accurate, not meaning to imply it isn't. But given there has
been confusion and some of the Kaltons' questions were not addressed.
Stamson: · It would be great to find a win-win situation, but some point before it got this far a
negotiated settlement would have been much better.
· What we are looking at is the written ordinance and have to uphold staff's decision.
There is no avenue open. It is in writing.
· Feel for the applicant's position but they put themselves there.
· Staff interpreted the ordinance correctly.
Lemke:
· What is the time frame for the applicants to come into compliance if the Commissioners
agree? Horsman felt a year is too long, 30 days is too short. It is staff's decision to
discuss.
· Kansier said the staff usually starts with 30 days but if progress is being made, staff
would negotiate time frames as long as staff felt there was an attempt to comply.
· The compliance period should not begin until the appeal period has expired. Kansier said
it was not unreasonable.
Stamson:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~iN052703~doc 8
Planning Commission Meeting
May 27, 2003
The ordinance does not allow kennels in the RI District. Kansier said by definition
anything more than 3 dogs is a kennel. It's the number.
It is not a commercial kennel.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 03-005PC
DENYING AN APPEAL OF TI-IE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO NOT
PERMIT A DOG KENNEL AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE IN THE R1 DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained it has not been determined if this issue can be appealed and any interested
party should contact Staff. Kansier stated if anyone wanted to appeal they would have to appeal
in writing by Monday (June 2, 2003).
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Kansier explained trying to get a joint workshop with the Planning Commission, City Council
and the DNR together sometime in July.
On June 30, 2003, staffwill be doing a surf and turf tour.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\O3peMinutesWIN052703;doc 9