Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10270316200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 2. 3. 4. 0 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 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 #03-121 Tom and Dina Van Pelt are requesting a 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck for the property at 14624 Oakland Beach Road SW. Case #03-114 Phillip Hines is requesting the following variances: A 6.4 foot variance from the required 20 foot average front yard setback and a .3 foot variance from the additional setback that is required when the building wall exceeds 50 feet for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW. Case #03-122 Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting the following variances: A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback and a 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a deck. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Private Use of Public Property Agreement to allow the deck to encroach into a 10 foot drainage and utility easement for the property at 2830 Fox Run. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: A. Continue Shoreland Discussions. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: L:',03 Fil~\03 Pinching Corem\03 pcAg~nda',AGlO2703.DOC wvm~.cit~ofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted _by the Planning Commission The Planning Commission welcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once you allow everyone to speak before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to new information. Please be aware this is the principal opportunity to provide input on this matter. Once the public hearing is closed, further testimony or comment will not be possible except under rare occasions. The City Council will not hear additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you. ATTENDANCE - PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS L:~DEPTWORK~BLANKFRM~PHSIGNUP.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2003 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the October 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, Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler and Recording Secretary Come Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Present Criego Present Lemke Present Ringstad Present Stamson Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: 5. Public Hearings: Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and Appeal Process before opening the meeting. A. Case #03-121 Tom and Dina Van Pelt are requesting a 12 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback for the construction of a deck for the property at 14624 Oakland Beach Road SW. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 27, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tom and Dina Van Pelt are requesting a Variance to construct a 12 foot by 24 foot deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue SE. In order to construct the deck addition the following Variance is required: 7t 12foot variance from the required 25foot rear yard setback required in the R-1 (Low Density ResidentiaO use district. (Section 1102.405 (3).) L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN102703.doc ill [ Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District). The property is a non-riparian lot because a platted "Reserve" area is located between the subject lot and the ordinary high water level of Prior Lake. Due to the type of lot and its location from the lake, the 75 foot shoreland setback and 25 foot rear yard setback both apply. There is considerable history on this property. In 2000, a building permit was issued to Eagle Creek Villas for the construction of the existing single family dwelling. Two decks were shown on the building permit plans, one on the upper level and one on the main level. Upon review, the building department staff crossed off the decks and noted "No Deck with this Permit," however, the patio doors shown on the plans were allowed to be installed on the main floor. The decks were not shown on the survey submitted with the building permit. This is the third time a Variance has been requested for this property in as many years. In 2001, when the same rear yard setback Variance was requested, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied the request because the deck was considered an "afterthought," and if a deck was originally intended the builder would have included it in the design. That applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, who upheld the Planning Commission's decision, finding that the setback Variance did not met the nine hardship criteria. Also of note, on August 18, 2003, the City Council denied an ordinance amendment that would permit a 10 foot rear yard setback on lots separated from the ordinary high water level with a platted reserve area. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the Findings in Resolution 03-012PC. Comments from the public: Applicant Tom Van Pelt, 14624 Oakland Beach Avenue, said he appreciates the Commission has faced this issue several times in the past and has been turned down. Van Pelt said he is actually present to plea to the common sense approach. He understands the City's ordinances and the fact staff do not feel he meets any of the 9 hardship criteria. Van Pelt explained his discussions with the builder when they purchased the property. The builder did not mention the fact the deck issue had been turned down twice by the Commission and City Council. He understands the 9 hardships are not met, but the house was built with the anticipation a deck would be added on. A neighbor, Mollie Borman sent an e-mail in support of the variance request. Van Pelt also said the deck has been scaled down to a 12 x 18 square feet. Atwood questioned Van Pelt on meeting with the builder. Van Pelt responded. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN102703.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 Criego questioned the use of the common property. Van Pelt responded it was Oakland Beach Association. The property to east is an unplatted piece of property that runs at an angle across and butts up to the common property. Criego also questioned what was north of the beach association. Van Pelt explained the timber wall, the common park area and boat slips are at the end of the beach. Kansier clarified everything north of the angled line is the association property. There were no other comments and the hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: · Has empathy for the applicant, but this was analyzed several years ago and still see no reason to change the conclusion of the matter. It was clearly documented that a deck was not to be added. The builder led the applicant astray, not the City. · If the Commission allows the applicant to do this, the common space is limited by the rest of the property owners. This issue came before the Commission a few months ago as an ordinance amendment to allow a reduced rear yard with a common space in the back yard. · If we allow you to have a reasonable use of the deck in asking for a variance it opens the doors for many others to do the same. · No reason to change. Stamson: · Agreed with Criego. Understands you were misled by the builder. · The home was built under the current ordinances and a decision was made by the builder to build at the setback line and forgo a deck. There were specific discussions at the time of the original variance request on this deck. The point was brought up with a deck and the builder said he was not going to put one on. · The second request for a deck was turned down as well. Generally, the Commission does not find the lack of a deck a hardship. There was a conscious decision not to have a deck. This does not meet the hardship criteria. · From a City standpoint, the Commissioners need to apply the hardship criteria across the board. · The issue is with the builder not the City. · Cannot support. Ringstad: · Agreed with the Commissioners. the builder. Has empathy to the applicant being mislead by L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 · There well is documented history on this property. · Support denial of the request. Atwood: · Agreed with the Commissioners. · Has anger with the builder - "buyer beware". We have had developers say things that are inaccurate. This builder was not forthright putting in patio doors. · The applicant has a case with the builder. · Cannot support the request. Lemke: · Would have some trouble finding hardship in this case. However, the City bears some degree of responsibility - they approved the building plans with the sliding glass doors. · Although the 25 foot setback is necessary to preserve the use of the common space, I am not convinced by that argument - if this was a side yard it would be 10 feet. · Believe the City Council addressed this issue. Maybe rather than change the ordinance all at once, this is a case that should be looked at individually. · Support the applicant. Open Discussion: Stamson noted at the original discussions the Commissioners pointed out to the builder a deck could not be added. Lemke: · The Van Pelts were not party with those discussions and have become a victim. · It is a modest setback variance. The intent of the ordinance is met in this particular case. · There is no hardship, but a practical difficulty. Stamson: · There was a conscious decision by the builder. The builder wanted to sell the property and let the buyers figure out a variance for something he couldn't get in. · I would be in a different place if this was built prior to the current ordinances. It's not the strict application of the ordinance that is denying it. It is the conscience placement of the builder that denies the deck. · That is the key to the hardship issue. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, APPROVING RESOLUTION 03- 012PC DENYING A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 Stamson explained the appeal process. B. Case #03-114 Phillip Hines is requesting the following variances: A 6.4 foot variance from the required 20 foot average front yard setback for the construction of a single family dwelling for the property at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW. Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 27, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Phillip Hines is requesting a Variance to construct a single family dwelling at 2719 Spring Lake Road SW. In order to construct the dwelling the following Variance is required: A 6.4foot Variance from the required 20footfrontyard setback required in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) use district. (Section 1102.405 (4).) The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District). The survey indicates the roadway surface is 56 feet from the property line. However, portions of CSAH 12 were not constructed in the dedicated right-of-way. CSAH 12 is scheduled for reconstruction in the upcoming years. Scott County is currently in the design phase of the project. On October 3, 2003, the City issued a demolition permit to remove the house from the property. On September 15, 2003, the applicant's contractor applied for a building permit to construct the same single family dwelling that is proposed with this request on the property. The proposed dwelling complies with all required setbacks, so the planning department approved the building permit application. The building permit will be issued prior to the Board of Adjustment taking action on the request. The strict application of required front yard setback does not preclude the property owner from enjoying a substantial property right. The applicant, via his contractor, has been issued a building permit to construct a dwelling on the property. Moreover, the property abuts CSAH 12, which is scheduled for reconstruction in 2006. Since the roadway has not been designed, right-of-way needs have yet to be determined, so it would not be wise to grant a front yard setback Variance for a dwelling that can be constructed within the required setbacks. There is absolutely no undue hardship if the property owner can build a single family dwelling that complies with all required setbacks. Based upon the findings set forth in this report, staff recommended denial. Stamson questioned the building permit versus needing the variance. Kirchoff explained the porch shown on the survey with the variance application was not included on the survey submitted with the building permit; however it does show a future deck. The house proposed on the survey can be accommodated on the lot without any variances. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN102703.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 The house is shifted back 6 feet to meet the 20 foot front hard setback so the furore deck is reduced to a 6 foot depth and does meet the required setback. It is just a 6 foot difference. Kansier explained the applicant can put in a platform deck. Commissioner Ringstad withdrew from commenting and voting because of a conflict of interest. Comments from the public: Applicant Phil Hines stated he applied for the variance the same time as the building permit. To expedite the process he took offthe deck so it would conform and get through that part of the process. He said he was present to avoid the problems like the previous variance request. Hines is looking for an additional 6 feet to put a deck on the lake side and still build the house as designed. He felt if a deck was not on the lake side it would diminish the value of the home. Hines presented a survey of a new home 5 lots away and noted their property line was closer to the road than his proposal. Regardless of what the County does to the road, the neighbors will always be closer to the road. The third side yard setback variance has been addressed. Atwood questioned vacating part of the right-of-way from the County. Hines said they did not give him an answer at this time until they finalized their plan. However, the County did say they would try to stay away from the homes as much as possible. They also indicated they could not discuss vacating part of the right-of-way at this time. Hines did not feel his neighbors were against his proposal. Criego ask Hines why he didn't create a smaller home. Hines said it is a fairly large home but it is common to build a 28 foot deep house with 12 foot deck and garage. The lot values are that a large home has to be built to keep the home value equal to the lot value. Criego said the garage could be built differently. Hines respectfully disagreed. Criego questioned the square footage of the home without the garage. Hines said the footprint is around 1,800 square feet. Randy Nelson, 2738 Spring Lake Road, said he lives across the street from the Hines and no other neighbor would be more impacted than he would and has no objection to the request. Mark Monnens, 4070 Eau Claire Circle, the home builder, said the neighbors are clearly closer to the property lines. Hines is asking for lesser setback than what the neighbors have combined. They would like to put a porch on now instead of waiting for Scott County. There is a lot of room on the property but has to be vacated by Scott County. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VlN102703.doc 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: Supported staff- saw the property and there is the feeling of a large space because of the road and right-of-way. The two neighbors will probably have new dwellings on the property at some time as well. · Cannot find a proven hardship. If the applicant goes back to the drawing board he could shave 6 feet off. · Support staff. Lemke: · The gentleman should be able to build a house given the space. However, cannot see a hardship or practical difficulty given the size. It is not an unreasonable size. · The road may not impact his lot. But this body is not going to be able to correct that. · Support staff. Criego: · Agreed, the lot is large enough to put a nice home on. The garage can be redesigned and still have a porch or deck. · No hardship. Stflmson: · This is another hardship created by the design. There is plenty of space on the building pad to put a house on. There is not a hardship. · The County Road being replaced where it is, is probably not going to happen. But that is not for the Commissioners to decide. · Not comfortable imposing on the County right-of-way. · If the applicant wants to use the right-of-way he should get a vacation from the County. · The homes next door are closer but were build quite a while ago and will be facing the same problems in the future. Maybe all the property owners should approach the County. · The variance is not appropriate. · Will not support. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03- 11PC DENYING A 6.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Atwood, Lemke and Stamson. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Ringstad abstained from the vote. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 Stamson explained the appeal process. C. Case #03-122 Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting the following variances: A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback and a 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a deck on property located at 2830 Fox Run. Planner Cynthia Kirchoffpresented the Planning Report dated October 27, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting Variances to construct a 14 foot by 20 foot deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 2830 Fox Run NW. In order to construct the deck addition the following Variances are required: 1. A 12.1foot variance from the required 15foot rear yard setback required in The Wilds PUD. 2. A 3.3foot variance from the required lO foot side yard setback required in The Wilds PUD. The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD (Shoreland Overlay District). The property directly abuts the fairway for the fiffit hole of The Wilds Golf Course. The Wilds was approved as a PUD, so a modification of the required rear yard setback was approved for those lots abutting the golf course in the form of a resolution. Instead of the 25 foot rear yard setback required in the R-1 use district, a 15 foot setback is permitted. In 1995, a building permit was issued for the construction of the existing single family dwelling. On the building permit it was noted by City staff that a deck would have "potential setback problems." It was also noted on the building permit that proposed impervious surface should be removed to comply with the maximum 30 percent coverage. The applicant is also proposing to encroach 7.1 feet into the 10 foot drainage and utility easement that extends the length of the rear property line. In conjunction with the variance application, the applicant is requesting to enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement with the City to allow for the encroachment into the easement. This agreement is an alternative to an easement vacation. The City Council reviews and takes action on such agreements. It is not included with this report. The strict application of required setbacks does not pose a practical difficulty on the development of the property because: The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the property. The existing single family dwelling complies with all required setbacks, but the impervious surface exceeds 30 pement of the lot area; and L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03peMinutes'uMN 102703.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 2. A balcony can be constructed that meets all required setbacks. The subject property has a substantially larger home than adjacent properties, and approving the requested setback Variances would provide an advantage to one individual property owner. Based upon the findings the staff recommended denial. Criego questioned if the impervious surface was done at the time of the original building. Kirchoffresponded the impervious surface was noted on the survey and the planning staffnoted it was in excess of the 30% requirement and asked that it be reduced. The staff did not see any inspection record in the building department file. Criego questioned when was the deck constructed. Kirchoff responded the applicant did not get a permit, therefore City has no information on the size. The pictures indicate it probably ran the entire length of the home. Lemke questioned if staff has any recommendations on how the impervious surface can be reduced. Kirchoffresponded part of the driveway could be removed as noted on the original building permit survey. Comments from the public: Jim Bates, an attorney representing the McCoys, submitted letters fi.om neighbors in support of the request. Bates also submitted a packet of information and photographs to the Commissioners and staff. Bates explained the McCoys purchased this home through a foreclosure and did not have an opportunity to speak with the builder. Bates reviewed the permit file and noted the impervious surface issue with the driveway was mentioned but the McCoys did not have that information. If the property had to go back to the 30% impervious surface essentially the McCoys would have to remove around 900 square feet of driveway and that is not reasonable. Bates said he was confused by staff's terminology "deck addition". The McCoys, permit or not, are replacing the deck at a smaller size. It is not an addition. The McCoys invested over $300,000 in the property. There was a lot of interior water damage and neglect. The setbacks were reduced for properties on the golf course. This is a large fairway and has a substantial open area. This relief was not individual to this house - the amendment to the PUD included all the half and third acre lots that abut the golf course. Bates went on to say the McCoys questioned Scott County on the house regulations, not Prior Lake. Bates stated this problem was created by a previous property owner and felt a balcony off the side of the house is an um'easonable restriction for a house with this character. They believe variances give City governments the opportunity relieve the strict application of the ordinances where they are going to deny a person reasonable use of the property. The applicant believes the deck is reasonable and consistent with the decks in the neighborhood. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutesXMN 102703.doc Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 Horace Allen, 2802 Fox Run, said he moved to The Wilds in 1997 when 80% of the homes were for sale. The McCoys came into the situation with a mn down home. They believed in the community and had the vision to invest in the property. Allen said he laughed when the McCoys told him there was an issue with the deck. It did not cross his mind that it would not get approved. He cannot see anyone living on the golf eom'se and not having a reasonable size deck. Starnson asked Allen if he lived next to the McCoys. Allen responded he lived across the street. Stamson asked Allen if the house was occupied when he moved in and did the deck exist at that time. Allen said it was. Allen said he thought the smaller deck was a joke that they ran out of money. Michael Bach, 2827 Fox Run, lives across the street from the McCoys, agreed with Mr. Allen. When he moved into The Wilds two years ago it was a touch and go situation. The previous deck was absolutely huge. What the McCoys have done to improve the property is great. The golf course attracts many golfers and should look the very best as it can. This is ludicrous; we pay a significant amount of taxes to live here. The deck is fine. Bob Facente, 2817 Fox Run, stated he moved into his home in September and is surprise with the improvements made by the McCoys. He saw the previous deck and can see why it needed improvement. The deck was hazardous. Facente supports the request. Applicant Tim McCoy felt they are not constructing a new deck, just replacing it. The boards were rotting. He did not understand he needed a permit from the City. He talked to the County who told him he could replace some boards and as long as he was keeping it the same size it was probably not be an issue. McCoy said they removed 8 tons of garbage from the home. There are no more FBI agents outside the home or prostitution coming from the house. Now children can play out side the house. They just want to have a reasonable size deck to enjoy. McCoy said he talked to the owners of the golf course who were happy the yard was being taking care of. He does not think a 14 foot deck as it was already there, should be reduced to a catwalk when he is paying taxes to enjoy the golf course. Criego asked if there was a door on the northeast comer of the family room. McCoy said there was. There is no way to put a door on the interior wall. They don't need a large deck and would like to see more of the yard. Stamson questioned why the applicant is not filling out the comer of the deck by the family room door. McCoy said they wouldn't have a view of the golf course fairway. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 Stamson pointed out the neighbor's house sits quite a way back. McCoy agreed but felt the deck would not block his view of the golf course. They can't change the house. He never dreamed he would have to come before a Commission to improve his property. No one would buy a home of that price with a small deck. Stamson pointed at the time it was built as a model it did not have a deck; it was not on the plan. The deck was built without a permit after the homeowner bought it. Atwood questioned what McCoy was going to do with the impervious surface issue. McCoy felt he had nothing to do with it. Someone had to give the "okay" and gave an occupancy permit. McCoy felt it was not fair if he had to tear up 900 feet of driveway on a million dollar house. He does not feel he should have to pay for something someone else did. Atwood questioned who the builder was? McCoy said it was Paramount Builders who are out of business. McCoy felt they put a lot of money into the house and just because someone in the neighborhood was unhappy with them, they tattled to the City. They bought what they thought was a good home. The hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: · Sounds like the McCoys have done a great deal for the home. · Is going to agree and disagree with staff's report. · With respect to the deck - looks like the previous owner chose to use what could have been future deck space with an enclosed residential living space and made the trade for all future property owners. · It was noted on the building permit application that a potential deck problem could exist if they wanted to go with that footprint, which they apparently did. · It was unfortunate the applicant went to the wrong government agency for answers. · Cannot support the deck as requested. · However, with respect with the impervious surface - does agree with the applicant. He was not part of that issue. It appears to be the concrete with the driveway. · A certificate of occupancy was granted with the driveway. Okay with leaving it as is. The homeowner bought the property in good faith. · The deck was not part of the permitted occupancy. Atwood: · The impervious surface is not an issue tonight. Kirchoff said that was included as a condition of approval. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 · If it was an issue; would agree to keep the impervious surface as is. · Well aware this property was not alone in granting the 15 foot setback. It is a PUD and all properties have the same setback. · Cannot support this variance request. Very sorry for what the applicant has improved. · It is an addition to the house that cannot be supported - it was at a 15 foot setback. Lemke: · Questioned the easement issue that still goes before the City Council. Kirchoff responded that if the variance would be granted the applicant would have to approach the City Council about the Private Use of Public Property Agreement. · Looking at The Wilds PUD, it looks like the half acre sites had 15 foot setbacks and the villa homes sites were reduced to 5 feet from the golf course. Assuming the golf course is in agreement with the deck as they are not here tonight to dispute it. · I would support a 12 foot deck that would be 5 feet from the golf course like the villa homes. · The applicant had a deck when he bought the house. Had the applicant just chosen to replace the deck boards, this is what we would have with no recourse to do anything about it. He's asking for a 14 x 20 foot deck. · There is a hardship and practical difficulty because there was a deck on the house when he bought it. Criego: · Difficult situation - the applicant has upgraded the neighborhood and is trying to do the fight things. Here we are talking about a variance for an illegal deck when he has reduced the size. · The original deck was illegal, did not have a permit and would not have been allowed if brought before the City. · The applicant does not conform. · Even if this passes tonight and it met the hardships, he would still have to go through an easement process. Basically, this would be a permanent structure on an easement with the support pillars for the deck. So that is even in question. · We have to follow the roles. It was an illegal deck. The hardships have not been met. · There may be alternatives on the northwest comer of the porch. · In good conscience cannot provide a variance on this request. · The issue on the 37% impervious surface was done at the time of the development of the home and not the owners fault. · Maybe a variance should be exercised tonight to allow the increased impervious surface. Stamson: L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~vlN102703.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 · Agreed with Criego. It is a difficult situation. The issue is not one of ordinance, it is one of design. · The person who designed the home did not leave space for a deck. The builder was certainly made aware of the setbacks at the permit process. · The variance hardships have simply not been met. · The impervious surface overage has nothing to do with the deck variance. · Kansier said they can't just grant an impervious surface variance without publication. The Commission can direct staff to place a note in the building permit file that it is a legal non-conformity. · Staff suggested in the report if the variance was granted, a condition to remove the extra impervious surface. It was not a condition that he had to remove it if the variance was not granted. · Questioned if the 37% impervious surface was indicated in the building plans? Kirchoff responded that staff calculated it as part of the variance application. The 30% was an issue in the building permit application. It was over by several points and an issue at that time. Ringstad ask what the impervious surface requirements were at the time. Kirchoff responded it was 30%. Criego said the Commission has seen situations like this before when a homeowner bought an existing home with a higher impervious surface and came with a variance request. The applicants may want to sell the property and 37% may be a problem at that time. What is staff's recommendation? Kansier responded staff would have to talk to the City Attorney. Stflmson: · The concern is it isn't legal and it existed prior to the applicant's ownership. It didn't exist before the ordinance. The Commission has also required residents to take out the extra impervious surface. Preference to let sleeping dogs lie. Ringstad: · There seems to be a sentiment that we would like to deal with this on behalf of the McCoys and procedurally wondering how to accomplish that. Criego said staff would have to talk to the City attorney. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03- 13PC DENYING A 12.1 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND 3.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Atwood, Criego and Stamson. Lemke nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~MN102703.doe 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 A recess was called at 8:18 p.m. 6. 7. A. The meeting resumed at 8:23 p.m. Old Business: None New Business: Continue Shoreland Discussions. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 27, 2003, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Kansier demonstrated how staff determines bluff setbacks. Criego suggested indicating there could be multiple bluffs in the documentation and to add language to allow building on a flat portion of a bluff. The only verbiage missing in the ordinance is the length of that portion that is less than 18%. Kansier pointed out an additional sentence to help clarify the ordinance. Criego also recommended the drawing/illustration be changed on two places. 1: Change from 30 feet to 25 feet; and 2: Where the ordinance talks about bluffheight 25 feet or greater. Staff said they can scan a different photo. The original illustration is from the State. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO INCORPORATE IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF BLUFF THE FOLLOWING: AREA WITH AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF LESS THAN 18% OVER A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET OR MORE SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE BLUFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: There is nothing scheduled for the November 10th meeting. Staffwill notify the Commissioners. Commissioner Criego thanked everyone he worked with for the last 8 years. Councilmen Joe Zieska, liaison for the City Council thanked Commissioner Criego on behalf of the City Council and stated Commissioner Criego will be recognized at a future date. L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinuteshMN102703.doc 14 111[ I Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2003 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes~VIN102703.doe 15 Ill i i