Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061404 Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004 1. Call to Order: Vice Chair Atwood called the June 14, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Perez and Stamson, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Present Present Present Absent Absent* *Commissioner Stamson arrived at 6:34 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the May 24, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: None 5. Public Bearings: Commissioner Atwood read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. A. #04-66 Michael McGuire is requesting 8 variances to construct a new single family dwelling on property located at 5070 Condons Street SE (Lot 8, Con dons Wooda1e). Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 14,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Michael McGuire is requesting variances to construct a new single family dwelling on property located at 5070 Condons Street SE. In order to construct the single family dwelling the following variances are required: 1. A 2,517 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area permitted for nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902(1 )a.). 2. A 6.14 foot variance from the required 21.14 foot front yard setback (Section 11 02.405(4). L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\June 14.doc I Planning Commission Minutes June U. 2004 3. A 28 foot variance from the required 50 foot shore1and setback (Section 11 04.308(2). 4. A 1.5 foot variance from the required 5 foot west and east side yard setbacks permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 5. A 5 foot variance from the required 10 foot east sum ofside yard setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 6. A 3 foot variance from the required 15 foot west side yard separation setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 7. A 9 foot variance from the required 15 foot east side yard separation setback permitted on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)). 8. A 9.6 percent variance from the 30 percent maximum impervious surface coverage (Section 1104.306). The strict application of minimum lot area requirement, front yard setback, and the west side yard setbacks creates a hardship for the property owner. Based upon the findings, staff recommended approval of these requested variances. The shore1and setback, east side yard setback, east sum of side yard setback, east side yard separation setback and impervious surface variances can be reduced, and therefore staff recommends denial of these variances as requested. The staff does recommend approval of a variance to allow a 36.5' setback from the OHW, and a variance to allow 35% impervious surface coverage. This recommendation is consistent with the DNR recommendation. Stamson confirmed Item #3 is using setback averaging but still requires a variance. Comments from the public: Applicant Mike McGuire said he purchased the property about 10 years ago. Because the lot is small he designed an 840 square foot home which still requires eight variances. Also included are a 10 x 20 foot porch and a garage. McGuire felt his proposed home is a better fit and presented photos of neighboring properties. He reviewed the hardship criteria indicating his hardships and asked for approval. Hans Widerstrom, 5080 Condons Street, said he lived next to cabins for years. One neighbor built a new home without variances. He would like to see the little cabin site improved. However, he has not seen the elevation of the proposed house. His house was built in 1961 and at one point there probably were no setback requirements from the property line. Widerstrom stated he had no reservations on the proposal. Wally Stock, 5038 Condons Street, said the plat was created years ago and almost every property needs variances to build. Stock endorsed the applicant's proposal. Jeff Bonneau, 5060 Condons Street, said he would like to see the applicant build a house. He built his house with some variances but complied with all of staffs recommendations. Bonneau appeared before the Planning Commission three times before it was approved. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute.lIone 14.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes June U. 2004 He feels McGuire's home impacts his home and property. Consider all options before approving. He had to redesign his home to fit the lot as recommended by the Planning Commission. Marcus McGuire, 2431 Lindwood Court, Map1ewood, said the property was bought with his Dad's intention to build a retirement home. McGuire asked for approval of the variance requests. Ken Olson, 5050 Condons Street, said the lots are difficult to build on and some variances are needed. He is not opposed to the proposal. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Made it clear the Commissioners are not opposed to building on this lot. . Some hardship has been demonstrated, but not all. . Support staff's recommendation with the setbacks and impervious surface. . The applicant is asking for 39% impervious. With a little reconfiguring a nice home can be built. . Would support some requests. Lemke: . Questioned staff's recommended building pad's square footage. Kansier responded the building pad was approximately 35 x 45 feet - slightly over 14,000 square feet. . Agreed with Atwood's concerns with a reasonable use. . There is a generous garage. . The reality is there is less than 5,000 square feet to build. . The impervious surface recommended by staff is generous. . The lake setback is reasonable. . Anything else is beyond a reasonable use and support staff's recommendation. Perez: . Agreed with Commissioners and staffs recommendation. . Have trouble with some ofthe hardship findings and agree with staff. . The recommendations are reasonable including impervious surface and shore1and setback. . Agree with staff's Findings. Stamson: . Concurred with Commissioners that this lot is difficult. . Regarding the hardship criteria - there are some variations on some of the criteria. . Agree with staff's recommendations on 1, 2 and 6. Staff made a good case. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 2004 . The 28 foot shore1and variance is too close. Would never go that close. The current house is closer but has a significant amount of reduced impervious surface. . The adjacent homes are closer to 50 feet with setbacks. Even at the averaging we are pushing the house forward. . The impervious surface coverage is too high. The neighbor built a home under 30% following the rules. People in the adjoining lot met the ordinances and did not need variances. . The side yard setbacks are important for safety. The rules are set for a reason. . Agreed with staff except for the impervious surface. This lot is not so small that one cannot build without exceeding 30%. The neighbors made the requirements. . Stay at 30% - that is the standard we have held to around the lake. The adjoining lots show it can be done. Its not just safety. There are a number of issues, drainage and runoff. The rules are in there for a reason. . Largely agree with staff except for the impervious surface. . It has been done in this neighborhood and on other lots around the lake. Open Discussion: Lemke: . Even the hydrologist felt it was okay to increase the impervious surface, so I agree with the hydrologist. Stamson: . Look at the example next door when he had a smaller lot. The impervious surface was met. . This is standard held by the City. In fairness to everyone and what has been done in the passed, 35% is not warranted. Perez: . Stamson brings up a good point. Interested in looking at similar lots. Atwood: . Good points on the Ordinary High Water (OHW) setbacks and the current structure. . We are already agreeing to some of the variances. Stamson: . Have been meaning to bring this up - when setback averaging, we need to look at like-structure to like-structure. We give a variance for a deck because it doesn't add any impervious surface but then six months later then we'll average somebody in a house next door. We have to average a structure wall to structure wall. . We hold one person to one set of setback regulations but not another. . The two adjoining houses are close to 50 foot setbacks. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\June 14.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes June U. 2004 . Kansierpointed out staff also used a jetted in area of the lake giving more ofa setback. There are a number of retaining walls along the shore. . The person on the "0" lot line affects the neighbor's lot. Perez: . In this case we are not even holding to a 50 foot setback. Atwood: . Would rather see the homes closer to the road than the lake. . There are other options and designs. Lemke: . Comfortable with the lot and staffs proposal. Stamson: . Is there a deck proposed? Kansier responded there was. . Comfortable with a deck on the back instead of a structured wall. There is a significant amount of impervious surface. Atwood: . If the structure is closer to the road, the lake setback is better and also reduces impervious surface. . Some hardships are warranted but there are other options. This plan is not the only plan that would work on this nonconforming lot. Stamson: . Without the hydrologist's recommendation I would never agree to 35%. . I remember the neighbor coming back several times reducing the impervious surface. The Commissioners held very firmly to under 30%. It is not fair. . The only way to approve this is to set back the home and make sure the deck is back. . McGuire said the deck is 6 feet out. The setback is measured from the deck not the house. The current deck on the cabin is at zero from the 904 in comparison to the 22 feet. . How about allowing a 36.5 foot setback but require the last 6.5 feet have to be built to pervious standards? Kansier that would have to be made clear in the Resolution that it would be a deck in the event, ten years down the road someone would want to cover the deck. The Commissioners agreed to the stipulation. Kansier clarified item #3 to stating the 13.5 foot setback from the 50 foot shore1and setback to add "for an open deck" and adjust to say 7.5 foot variance for the face of the building. Stamson started a Motion - Atwood questioned seeing the plans first. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinuteslJune 14.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes June U. 2004 Kansier clarified staff's setback recommendation with the overhang. Stamson explained to the applicant he could come back with a redesign, accept the variances or reapply. McGuire said he would like to table it to an indefinite date. Kansier said he would have to appear before September 8th. Her recommendation was to table to the second meeting in August. McGnire would hope to do something within 30 days or maybe get more serious about renovating the cabin. Stamson asked if this design was custom designed. McGuire said he has talked to 3 different architects to come up with this type of design. He's not sure ifhe can redesign it. He would rather table it for a month and if it's not ready table it again. Kansier suggested it would be better to republish and redesign therefore table it indefinitely. Instruct the applicant to submit something to staff in 30 to 45 days. He will have to sign a waiver. Staff needs the changes about a month in advance. McGuire said 6 weeks would give him enough time. The first meeting in August is the 9th. Stamson explained the idea oftabling is to come back with something close to recommendations. If the proposal comes back drastically different then deny and start over. Motion by Lemke, Second by Stamson, to table the public hearing to August 9, 2004. Kansier explained the publication requirements. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. #04-52 John and Iris Ramsey are requesting 4 variances to construct two single family dwellings on two contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership located at 15966 SunfISh Trail SE (Lot 16, Sunfish Bay) and 15979 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 17, Sunfish Bay). Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 14,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. John and Iris Ramsey are requesting variances to construct two single family dwellings on two contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership located at 15966 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 16, Sunfish Bay) and 15979 Sunfish Trail SE (Lot 17. Sunfish Bay). L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minute.IJune 14.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 2004 In order to construct the two single family dwellings the following variances are required: a) A variance from Section 1101.501 (3) c. that precludes the subdivision of two contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership. b) A 36.01 foot variance from the 86 feet of minimum width required for lots in the R-1 use district for Lots 16 and Lot 17 (Section 1102.405(3).) c) A 3,862 square foot variance from the 12,000 square foot minimum lot area in the R-1 use district for Lot 16 (Section 1102.405 (3).) d) A 4,140 square foot variance from the 12,000 square foot minimum lot area in the R-1 use district for Lot 17 (Section 1102.405 (3).) A small cabin occupies the property. Prior to 1997. there were two cabins on the property. One of the two cabins was destroyed by fire, and in 1997 it was demolished. The subject property was platted as two lots. Each lot has a separate tax identification number, but they are under common ownership. The applicant is contending that since the property was platted as two lots and there are two Pills, they are entitled to two dwellings. In 1983, the property was assessed on a front footage basis rather than a per lot basis for a City improvement project. Section 1101.501(3) c. considers the property one parcel ofland, regardless of whether it was platted as two lots. And it precludes the subdivision of land for two dwellings. The strict application of the ordinance precluding the subdivision of two or more nonconforming lots under common ownership does not create a hardship for the property owner. One purpose ofthe Zoning Ordinance is to eliminate nonconformities. Allowing the subdivision of the combined parcel is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. Moreover, the property owner can construct one new dwelling on the property without the need for variances. Based upon the findings staff recommended denial. Lemke questioned what the affect would be if the assessment was done by two lots and two different owners in terms of money. Kansier explained the process of front footage versus lot unit. The assessment would have been the same. Comments from the public: Applicant John Ramsey, read into the record his memo to the Planning Commission dated June 14,2004. Craig Chishohn, 15981 W est Ave SE, noted the entire neighborhood only had 4 homes on 50 foot lots. Chishohn stated John Ramsey told him at an earlier time he would put only one home on the two lots. Chisholm would like to see him follow through. It's too crowded for the area. Rick Rybek, 16000 Sunfish Trail, questioned what the properties would be used for. If L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 2004 they are going to be rental homes, he wouldn't want it. The house/cabin referring to was condemned. How did the City let that happened? The neighborhood is trying to clean up. The neighborhood is zoned Rl, all the lots have lake access. Rental property is not conducive to the neighborhood. Bernie Mahowald, a builder said the point is not whether they build one or two homes. The plan was to build two homes, one for the Ramseys and one for their daughter. The point is, the Ramseys have owned these lots since the 1930's and paid taxes on two lots and should be allowed to build two separate homes. Call it non-conforming but it is two separate lots and they are entitled to have two homes. It was common to combine lots for one larger single home. That is not what the applicant wants to do. The applicant did not do anything to make them non-conforming. There is a hardship. Mahowald would like to see the Planning Common use a little bit of common sense and grandfather this property in. Chris Ramsey, the applicant's daughter, said she plans on living in the house next door. In the 70's their parents owned 6 lots and sold 2 lots to pay for the sewer and water on the other four lots. That was a lot of money for her parents to absorb because the City wants one house instead of two. Doug Hadac, 4308 Bass Street, said his concern is for the neighborhood. They are currently living in his in-law's homes built in 1957. The neighborhood should be in the best condition and usable to everyone. Putting two houses in a small area is adding more congestion. Hadac recommended staying with the current ordinances. He said he has nothing personal against Mr. Ramsey but felt two homes would not benefit the neighborhood. Iris Ramsey, said most of the homes in the area are built on 50 foot lots. They will build a nice home and landscape the property. The applicant would live in one house and their daughter the other. The Ramseys have separate tax statements for sewer and water. They are fighting the ordinance. They just witnessed the previous applicant, Mr. McGuire build on a smaller lot. There wouldn't be a problem if it were not for the adjoining lot ordinance. They need two lots with two homes. It is not a matter of them not wanting to comply with the City, it is a matter of need. Rick Ryback, 16000 Sunset Trail, asked if the applicants still own the rental property next door. They already own two more homes next door. That would take care of it. Another thing to look at is there really two separate water and sewer lines to each lot. If it was assessed for one lot, that is it. That should be checked into. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Perez: . Obviously there are emotions in this matter with Mr. Mahowald using remarks to L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\June 14.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 use "common sense", . Agree with staff's Findings - the hardships are not met. The City is trying to get away from the nonconforming lots. . Based on the ordinance - agree with staff. Lemke: . If these two lots were owned by two separate individuals it would be the same as the previous applicant. Kansier agreed. . Understand the intent of the zoning ordinance to reduce the nonconforming lots in situations that we can. On one level I can agree with that but it doesn't mean I have to like the ordinance. . Mr. Mahowald had excellent remarks. Can't argue against him. . I would feel the same but I can't change the law. As much as I would like to support this I can't. Atwood: . I agree. The congestion in the neighborhood is not a reason to grant their request or having rental property is not a reason to deny, but because this is mandated, I cannot support this. . Talked to staff and this ordinance was adopted in 1999 and was State mandated. It was nothing the City did. It is State issued. . It is with deep regret to deny the request. Stamson: . Generally when we look at variances and hardship criteria, we are looking for unintended consequences. . In this particular case the ordinance was written with this exact situation in mind. . It was not done lightly, the City was resisting. The State mandated it and we had to require that substandard lots owned by the same person could not be split. . We can't grant an ordinance because of the intent. This is a buildable lot. The intent is doing what it is suppose to do. Open Discussion: Lemke: . Asked what the grandfathering was. Stamson said there was no grandfathering. The intent of the ordinance was to take all the small lots and combine them. The intent of the ordinance is doing exactly what is happening in this request. . There was a great amount of discussion. Everyone knew it was not going to be popular. . There was a 6 month grace period before the ordinance went into affect in order to provide people an opportunity to deal with it. . We do not disagree with the intent but the problem is that it created a situation where we treat a single person differently owning two lots versus two people owning one lot. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 Stamson disagreed and explained. Motion by Perez, Second by Stamson, adopting Resolution 04-03PC denying variances to allow for the subdivision of two nonconforming lots for the construction of two single family dwellings. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier pointed out the 5 day appeal process. A recess was called at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. C. #04-71 Patty Simberg is requesting a variance to construct a porch addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 17256 Horizon Trail SE (Lot 9, Block 6, Woodridge Estates 2nd Addition). Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 14,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Patty Simberg is requesting a variance to construct a porch addition to an existing single family dwelling located at 17256 Horizon Trail. In order to construct the porch a 7.7 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard setback is required. The lot was platted in 1993. The site appears to be a comer lot; however, a dedicated park lies between the property line and Overlook Drive. In 1993, the existing single family dwelling was constructed. A deck is attached to the existing dwelling, but there is no record of a building permit issued for the deck. The strict application of the 25 foot rear yard setback does not create an undue hardship. A single family dwelling with three-stall garage and a deck is present on the property. The Planning Commission has not considered a porch an essential element for a single family home. Based upon the fmdings in this report, staff recommended denial of the variance request. Perez questioned if the original plan included a deck. Kansier said it was not part of the building permit nor on the survey. Comments from the public: Patty Sirnberg, presented the proposed porch plans. The reason she decided to enclose the deck is because it is so high and enclosing it would be a better use ofthe space. The deck was not on the original plans but the deck was on the house when they purchased the home. The public hearing was closed. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc MinutesIJune l4.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes June 14. 2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . How does it happen that we find decks on houses without permits? There is park land behind it. . The applicant enjoys a reasonable use now. . Maybe if the deck was shifted north they may have a chance. . There is no hardship. Stamson: . Generally reading the strict interpretation this Commission would not find a hardship. . Staff is correct in their interpretation . This is unique because of the parkland. Also, in the past year we have looked at a number of decks. Most have been denied and overturned by City Council. . Taking that into consideration. This is not a corner lot, it is similar to another lot in Spring Lake and it was approved. . Recent history proves the Commission denies and the City Council overturns it. . That warrants a hardship. . Support - it is a unique lot size, it abuts park land. Atwood: . Agree with the thoughts on City Council. But it is not our job to interpret direction from them. . There is no hardship here. . Agree it is a unique property but there are other options. . Unsure at this time. Perez: . Felt the same as Lemke and Stamson. . Agree with Atwood with the strict interpretation but the uniqueness of this lot with the parkland property behind it. . It is similar to the variance overturned by City Council with the applicant on the Wilds golf course. . Had this been looked at the time of the nonconforming deck it could have been corrected. . Several times City Council overturned our decision. Open discussion: Stamson: . Normally more strict but our role is to interpret the ordinance to find the hardship. . I've argued before to deny it and let Council decide. L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 · The difference here is that with the recent history and Council actions is that this is a hardship. If the rest of you feel it should be interpreted different. . There have been 4 or 5 similar requests and City Council overturned the Planning Commission. . The property is unique. It is not in the shore1and district or impervious surface. This is basically a setback to a rear yard and the encroachment is not in the parkland. There is no long term problem. . Also comfortable with denying it and letting City Council deal with it. There was discussion on City Council and their desires on this issue. Lemke: . Can agree with a number of the hardships. . Are we changing what we consider a reasonable use on decks? . Stamson said "No". There is an existing deck. People could interpret the Commission may feel the lack of a porch is a hardship. Lemke: . In this case, there is no need for a 25 foot setback because there are no neighbors. . No structures. Kansier explained the variance hardships and porch. There are options. Staff needs to have supporting Findings. The Commissioners went through the hardship criteria one by one and found hardships. Motion by Atwood, Second by Perez, to direct staffto prepare a Resolution including the Planning Commission's Findings. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A. #04-67 Shamrock Development has submitted a petition to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements located on Outlot 0, The Wilds, and on Lot 89, Block 1, Sterling South at the Wilds. These easements will be replatted as part of Sterling South 2nd Addition final plat. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 14,2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. On April 5, 2004, the City Council approved the preliminary plat known as Sterling South 2nd Addition. This preliminary plat included the lots previously platted as Outlots 0, The Wilds, and as Lot 89, Block I. Sterling South at The Wilds. The plat locates new L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMlS\04 pc MinutesIJune 14.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2004 dwelling units on these lots, which are covered by blanket drainage and utility easements. Shamrock Development has now filed an application for a final plat for Sterling South 2nd Addition. In order to reconfigure the lots, the existing drainage and utility easements must be vacated. New easements will be dedicated in the final plat. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . As a vacation it has to be in the best interest of the public. The interest here is it allows this piece of property to be developed and developed along the lines of the Comprehensive Plan. It addresses easements and the proposed developments. The need for the easements will be corrected when the plan is done. . It is in the public's best interest. Atwood, Perez and Lemke . Agreed with staff. Approve. Motion by Perez, Second by Atwood, recommending City Council approve the vacation as requested subject to the condition the Resolution not be recorded until after the Final Plat approval. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before City Council June 21, 2004. 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:I04 FILESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute.lIune 14.doc 13