Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062804 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004 1. Call to Order: Chairman Stamson called the June 28. 2004, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Lemke, Perez, Ringstad and Stamson, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Assistant City Engineer Larry Popp1er and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Lemke Perez Ringstad Stamson Absent Present Present Present Present 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the June 14, 2004, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Consent: A. #04-71 Patty Simberg - Variance Resolution. Motion by Perez, Second by Lemke, approving Resolution 04-04PC Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Stamson read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting. 5. Public Hearings: A. #04-70 Captain Jack's is applying for a conditional use permit to establish an off-site, accessory parking lot for Captain Jack's restaurant. This property is located on the west side of Dutch Avenue, north of Pershing Street and south of Green Heights Trail. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 28, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Steve Sammis of Captain Jack's Restaurant has applied for a conditional use pennit to establish an off-site, seasonal accessory parking lot for Captain Jack's Restaurant on the property located on the west side of Dutch Avenue, north of Pershing Street and south of L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minutes\June 28, 04.doc 1 p",,,,,j"g Commissio" Meeti"g Ju".28,2004 Green Heights Trail. The proposed parking lot will be surfaced with Class 5 gravel and will include 27-30 spaces. The access to the parking lot is from Green Heights Trail. The property is zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) and SD (Shore1and District) and is guided R-UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Off-site parking lots, accessory to an existing nomesidentia1 use are permitted in the R-2 district subject to the conditions of Section 1102.503. The proposed parking lot is allowed in the R-2 district with approval of a conditional use permit. In order to meet the criteria, the Planning staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A grading plan mnst be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before any grading or surfacing occurs on the property. 2. Screening or fencing must be provided along Green Heights Trail to delineate the parking lot. A plan for this screening must be submitted to staff for approval. 3. The parking lot must be clearly signed to eliminate any storage or trailer parking. The applicant is responsible for enforcing this provision. 4. The applicant must enter into a lease agreement with the property owner for the use of this property. This lease must be submitted for review by the City Attorney. 5. During the off-season, the parking lot must be barricaded so no use will be allowed. Stamson questioned the existing parking requirements for Captain Jack's. Kansier responded she would get back to him with the exact number. Commissioner Ringstad is abstaining from the discussions and voting. Comments from the public: Steve Sammis representing Captain Jack's stated their goals were consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan Use. Prior Lake is different from other communities having a restaurant on the lake. Captain Jack's employees over 60 people. The number one issue facing the restaurant is the parking. They have had numerous conversations with the City to work out this problem. Captain Jack's will work with the City and Planning Commission towards a solution. The public hearing was closed at 6:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Questioned the screening or fencing requirement. Kansier responded that fencing would be more of a delineator. An example would be a split rail fence so people would know where parking is regulated. Screening would be better, maybe a combination of fencing and bushes. Something to divide a clear delineation. L:104 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minutes\June 28, 04.doc 2 Planning Commission Muting June 28, 2004 . My only concern is if it is screened too well it may be an opportunity for mischief around cars and not be seen. That is an issue for the owners. . Clearly there is a problem with parking. . Agreed with Sammis that creating this parking lot legally will solve some of the problems. . Would prefer to see a hard surface. . It is a necessary thing to do. Will support with the outlined conditions. Staff did a good job laying out the criteria. Perez: . Agreed with the criteria from the Conditional Use Permit and Findings. . Agreed with Lemke on the hard surface. If the parking lot is screened properly it can be taken care of. . Agreed with the safety factor. . What would happen with the "temporary parking" if the event the Conditional Use Permit was approved? Kansier said the City Council has agreed to temporarily take down some of the ''No Parking" signs. Once the Conditional Use Permit is approved and the parking lot established, she believed City Council will look at it again. It was mainly a temporary fix. . Agreed with the stated conditions, especially the screening. . Support. Stamson: . When this Conditional Use Permit was initially brought up, there were a number of organizations and companies around the lake that are impacted by the changes and impacts of ordinances over the years. Most have been here longer than Prior Lake had any ordinances and were originally not in the City. There were no constraints by the neighborhoods around them. A Captain Jack's would probably not be allowed to build where it is today. A parking lot in this location to serve Captain Jack's is a great idea and fits with the spirit when we implemented this. . I do have a problem with the proposal- a grave110t. We would have never accepted a grave110t. They are just not approved. It is incredulous we would even consider a grave110t in the middle of a residential neighborhood. All driveways and parking lots have to be paved. . We just required a bus storage lot at the end ofa gravel road to be paved. Now we're saying a grave110t in the middle of a neighborhood. It just doesn't fit. . This is not an overflow. Any other place in town would have to pave the parking lots. Our standards have always been paved allover town. The fact this is "seasonal" is not the issue. . This does not meet the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan nor the criteria of the Conditional Use Permit. All of our ordinances are very clear on screening and paving. We go out of our way to make sure parking lots are screened heavily. . The use will have an impact on the surrounding properties - there is no faster way to a weed infested litter as a neighbor's eyesore is to put in a gravel lot. L:104 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute,lIun. 28. 04.doc 3 Pl/lIIning Commission Muting June 18, 1004 . A gravel lot becomes overrun with weeds; collects litter and is difficult to maintain. To plop this in the middle of a residential neighborhood is a bad idea. . See no reason why this should not be paved. It would be required 100% anywhere else in the City. . Will not support an unpaved parking lot. General Discussion: Perez: . I did have the same thoughts but if this is screened I can get over the hump. Stamson sees a bigger picture in mind. That's we should be considering. Stamson: . You can put trees around it, but in reality, you would have a large grave110t in the neighborhood. We never ever considered that anywhere else in town. . We just told the bus company they had to pave their parking lot. It is generally not what we do. If any place we would say it would not have to be paved its there because everything else around it is gravel. . We said it had to be paved. Now we're looking at one that doesn't have to be paved. It just seems inconsistent. Lemke: . There are two down sides to the gravel. 1) impervious surface; and 2) I wonder how much of that paving is a result of effective snow removal? That is not the issue with the bus parking lot. They have to operate through the winter. . I don't disagree that gravel is not allowed, however we don't have situations where parking lots are used 6 months out of the year and are going to be barricaded so they can't be used the other 6 months. Stamson: . The impervious surface will not make much difference. A gravel lot driven on becomes impervious very quickly. Plus you are going to increase silt run-off. In a hard rain storm the top will run off. That will not happen with tar. It is a non- issue. . As far as seasonal parking - It would be a better argument if it were only used one month out of the year. The application asks for 6 months - that's not seasonal. Almost every business has some seasonality to it. . This is also not overflow parking for an event here and there. . They are working with a variance at this time. A normal restaurant would be required to have this amount of parking. . It's really not seasonal or exceptional. Its just parking they need to operate the business which everywhere else in the City would be paved. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\1une 28. 04.doc 4 Planning Commission Muting June 28,2004 Lemke: . Out of those 6 months are we talking 8 days a month? Or 30 days a month? I wouldn't think a Wednesday afternoon would have overflow parking compared to a weekend. Stamson: . How is that different than the Hollywood Bar? He has a big paved parking lot that could easily be gravel. Our ordinance says if you have a parking lot, it's paved. Perez: . It's still in the same neighborhood whether it's used or not. Lemke: . That is true. It's more like an accessory lot rather than an attached lot like the Hollywood or the bus parking lot. The Commissioners discussed the traffic and times; the pros and cons of gravel versus a paved parking lot. Everywhere else in the City, every other application is required to be paved. Perez & Lemke . With Stamon's arguments will support that condition. Motion by Stamson, Second by Perez, approving Resolution 04-08PC a Conditional Use Permit to allow Cor off-site, Cree-standing parking lot as an accessory parking area Cor Captain Jack's Restaurant with the additional condition #6 that the parking lot be paved. Ringstad abstained. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. For the Record: Lemke said he did not want to vote against the parking lot but did not think the pavement is necessary. Kansier explained the appeal process. B. #04-63 Richard and Sheridan HaCdal are applying Cor a variance to the 1akeshore setback on the property located at 14187 Shady Beach Trail. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 28, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Richard and Sheridan Hafda1 are requesting a variance to construct a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 14187 Shady Beach Trail. In order L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMlS\04 pc Minutesl/une 28, 04.doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting June 28, 2004 to construct the deck addition the following variance is required: A 5 foot variance from the required 75 foot ordinary high water setback required in the R-l SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district. The existing house on the property was built in 1973. In 1995, a building permit for the garage and the addition on the south side (lakeside) of the house. The addition was to be 75' from the OHW, but was apparently built 1.9' closer than shown on the survey for the 1995 permit. According to the information on file at the City, and the information submitted by the applicant, the homes on the adjacent properties are located at least 75' from the OHW. This does not allow the applicant to use setback averaging for a reduced setback. The lot meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for a riparian lot. Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, has also commented on this request, stating if the proposed setback is less than that of the adjacent properties he does not support the variance. He also notes the impervious surface on this lot exceeds the maximum 30% allowed. If the variance is approved, Mr. Lynch suggests a condition requiring removal of the excess impervious surface be included. The strict application of required ordinary high water setback does not pose undue difficulties on the development of the property. An existing single family dwelling, with decks, complies with required setbacks. Based upon the findings staff recommended denial of the variance. Stamson questioned the DNR's Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's condition. Kansier's explained his comments. Lemke would like the DNR to give suggestions what part of the impervious surface might be removed. Kansier pointed out the excess (driveways and patio) impervious surface areas. Lemke questioned the difference between a deck and balcony. Kansier explained the definitions and requirements. Comments from the public: Fred Bruning with Saw Horse Designers and Builders spoke on behalf of the applicants. Bruning read the May 3, 2004 letter submitted with the application. He disputed the 9 hardship criteria indicating the main reason is for the addition is the applicant's mother frequently stays with them and has trouble with her legs. Bruning also explained the proposed deck. Stamson asked the location of the egress window. Bruning pointed it out. The public hearing 7:31 p.m. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\June 28. 04.doc 6 Planning Commission Memng June 28,2004 Comments from the Commissioners: Ringstad: . Went to the property and had a tour of the current addition and what the current proposed addition. . On one hand approving this would have very minimal affect on the lake, but going back two and a half years, what I think are very similar situations before us with lake shore encroachment - I don't know if we ever approved a request like this. They are all different. Additions to an existing home that is going to further encroach into the 75 foot setback makes me wonder if we approve this tonight, how do we address the residents we denied in the past with very similar circumstances. . The builder's analysis that parts of the home currently are inside the 75 foot setback and this will constitute less of one. Sorry, can't buy into that. . The nine hardship criteria were not met. The staff did a good job in laying them out. . The impact is minimal but would open the door for others that the Commission had denied. . The Commission has maintained a consistent level of decision making with respect to this. . Will not support. Perez: . Agreed with Ringstad. There is already an existing encroachment. . Several of the hardship criteria have not been met. . We look at staff's interpretation not the builders. . Will not support. Lemke: . Visited the property. It is kind of deceiving looking at it on paper. The house to the west is actually closer to the lake than this property but maintained the 75 foot setback. . The hardship is the unusual shape of the lake. . The staircase is not a big impact. . Support variance. Stamson: . This fails any of the hardship criteria. This is a convenience issue - it's a deck added to the bedroom. Its nonconforming. . There is a deck on the home where the applicants have reasonable use. . By the Commission continuing granting these ''minor'' variances there is an impact. . The applicants have no credible arguments. There are no hardships. . This is convenience. The ordinance is not denying any reasonable requests. L:\04 FlLES\04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute.IJune 28. 04.doc 7 Planning COllllllission Meeting June 28, 2004 Motion by Ringstad, Second by Perez approving Resolution 04-0SPC denying a S foot variance from the 7S foot ordinary high water setback for the construction of a deck and stairway addition. Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Perez and Stamson. Nay by Lemke. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. C. #04-76 Craig Gutoske is requesting the following variances for the construction of a single family home located at 6382 Conroy Street NE: a 4S foot setback from the OHW; a 10 foot front yard setback and a 3S% Impervious Surface coverage. Planning Director Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 28, 2004, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Craig Gutoske is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on property located at 6382 Conroy Street NE. In order to construct the dwelling shown on the attached survey, the following variances are required: 1. A 10foot variance from the 20frontyard setback required in the R-1 district (Section 1102.405 (4)). 2. A 5 foot variance from the required 50 foot ordinary high water setback required in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) district (Section 1104.308 (2)). 3. A 5% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface coverage allowed in the R-1SD district (Section 1104.306). The DNR was noticed on the variance requests. It is the Area Hydrologist's recommendation the impervious surface can be reduced to meet the maximum 30 percent. This can be accomplished by eliminating one of the garage stalls, thereby reducing the driveway area. The strict application of the required ordinary high water setback and the maximum pervious surface requirements do not pose undue difficulties on the development of the property. A single family dwelling with a different design can comply with these requirements. Based upon the fmdings the staff recommended denial of these requested variances. The strict application of the front yard setback creates a hardship for the property owner. Based upon the findings the staff recommended approval of this requested variance. Comments from the public: L:104 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc MinutesIJune 28. 04.doc 8 Planning Commission Muting June 28, 2004 Applicant Craig Gutoske, 4224 Chestnut Lane, said the property on Conroy Street has been owned by his family since the 1960's. Gutoske spoke on his requirements for building on this lot. He is attempting to get the maximum amount of home on the lot. There will be no additional impervious surface built towards the lake. Gutoske presented the house plans to the Commissioners. Curt Gutoske, 4952 17th Ave S. in Miuneapolis, explained the applicant's original building plan and the need for the variances. He did not feel his brother should be penalized because the house is set back further than all the other homes on Conroy Street. The staff and DNR suggested a reduction of the impervious surface however they do not feel this is an overbuilding of the lot. The house is a modest 2,200 square feet. He did not feel a 3-stall garage was too much. People on the lake have more vehicles than non- 1akeshore properties. Gutoske asked for relief on the variances. Craig Gutoske said he worked with the neighbors to put in an appropriate home. Gutoske presented pictures of the neighborhood homes with 3-stall garages and felt he should fit into the neighborhood. Most of the homes exceed the impervious surface being over 40% and exceed the setbacks. Gutoske presented 6 supporting statements from the adjoining neighbors. Ted Schweich, 6436 Conroy Street, agreed with the planning staff's recommendation. His neighbor to the east had to comply with city ordinance requirements and reduced his garaged based on the Commissioner's recommendation. Gutoske is generalizing the "neighborhood" and did not agree with the applicant's request for increased impervious surface. There has already been excavating done on the property that affects the rest of the Conroy Bay access to the lake. The street is made up of Class 5 material and now the applicant wants to add another street across waterfront playground area. The Wild Oak townhouses paid park dedication fees in lieu of adding a playground. Schweich went to explain the situation with Mr. Freez denying lake access involving a law suit. The Commissioners have held firm with the 30% impervious surface with the surrounding neighbors. The applicant has 100 foot frontage. Schweich agreed the applicant should have some variances but not increased impervious surface. Curt Gutoske responded that Mr. Schweich was correct with the grading and fill. Many of the problems are between the Conroy Bay residents and should not impact his brother's property. They have considered a joint driveway with two neighbors. Gutoske felt reducing the impervious surface would not go to the lake but to the west ponding area. Ringstad questioned the 5 foot shore1and variance - if the house was shifted could that make one of the variance requests go away? Gutoske said the house could make the 50 foot setback by a slight adjustment however it would reduce the front yard setback. The grade of the driveway would be affected. L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutesllune 28. 04.doc 9 Planning Commission Muting June 28, 2004 Ringstad asked ifthe removal of the third stall affect the setbacks. Gutoske responded the garage was not affecting the setback. Stamson said it appears most of the driveways run across the common area. Schweich explained the existing drainage and runoff. Stamson questioned the parking and the private use of the common area. He also explained several changes over the years pointing out the actual street is not in the platted area. Some are off as far as 40 feet. Most of the issues are private disputes between the neighbors. Mrs. Scott received some of the largest variances when she was on the City Council. The public hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Lemke: . Some variances are required. A two-car garage has been standard. . Shifting the house forward would help reduce the setbacks and impervious surface. . Support street side variance to zero. It happened in Candy Cove. . The 35% impervious surface and 50 foot setback will be hard to support Stamson: . Agreed with Lemke. This is not even a substandard lot at 10,000 square feet. . There are no hardships especially exceeding 30% impervious surface. . The lakeshore setback is also not warranted. . Agreed with Lemke, given the unique circumstances of the triangle common area is more acceptable. . A mediation of a front yard setback is warranted. Ringstad: . Agreed with Commissioners. A redesign of the home will alleviate the impervious surface and lake setback. . Agreed with staff's recommendation. Perez: . Agreed with Commissioners and staff with the hardship findings on the impervious surface and lake setbacks. There are no hardships. . Agreed to go a little higher on the 10 foot front setback. . Deny the rear yard. Open discussion: Stamson said the front setback is unique. Even with a new development on Conroy Street would not affect this property. There is plenty of space. If the property was L:\04 FILES\04 PLAN COMMIS\04 pc Minutes\lune 28, 04.doc 10 PlIInning Commission Meeting June 28,2004 brought to the zero line it would still meet the ordinances with a significant setback from the road. The Commissioners were willing to support some sort of front yard setback. Kansier said the hearing could be continued giving the applicant more time to look at the suggestions by the Commissioners. Craig Gutoske said shifting the house will reduce the impervious surface. Motion by Perez, Second by Ringstad approving Resolution 04-06PC approving a 19 foot variance from the required 20 foot front yard setback. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Motion by Perez, Second by Ringstad, approving Resolution 04-07PC denying a 5 foot variance from the 50 foot Ordinary High Water setback and a 5 percent variance from the maximum 30 percent impervious surface area for the construction of a single family dwelling. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Danette Moore the new Planning Coordinator will start on July 12. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L;\04 FlLESI04 PLAN COMMISI04 pc Minute.'June 28. 04.duc 11