HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & draft Minutes
o~/(
.:..?--- /1f\ \ t"
tJ(~E
iltlNNESOi t-
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 14,2008
City Council Chambers
6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order:
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes:
4. Consent Agenda:
5. Public Hearings:
A. EP07-150 On-Site Engineering & Forensic Services, Inc. is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage. The site is located at 5714
Graystone Court.
B. EP07-149 Phillip Hines is requesting a variance from the maximum allowed
driveway width and a variance from the maximum allowed impervious surface
requirement to allow for a driveway addition and entry path addition for his home
located at 2719 Spring Lake Road.
6. Old Business:
7. New Business:
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Joint City Council-Planning Commission workshop on Monday,
February 4 at 4:30 p.m.
9. Adjournment:
LI08 FILESI08 PLANNING COMMlSSION\08 PC AGENDAS\AGOI 1408.DOC
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Lemke called the November 13,2607, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke and
Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner
Jeff Matzke and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Fleming
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the October 22, 2007, Planning Commission meeting were approved
as presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. Jerrad Robinson is requesting several variances to allow for a house addition
for the property at 16035 Northwood Road.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated November 13,2007, on file in
the office of the City Planning Department.
J errad Robinson is requesting variances to construct a new house on property located at
16035 Northwood Road. For this proposed construction, the following variances are
required:
. A O. 7 variance from the minimum 25 foot front yard setback required in the
R-1 District (Section 1102.405 (3)).
. A 2.0 foot variance from the minimum 5 foot east driveway side yard setback
required in the R-1 District (1107.205 (1)).
L\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl1 1307.doc
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
. A 2.0 foot variance from the minimum 5 foot west driveway side yard setback
required in the R-l District (1107.205 (1)).
. A 3.0 foot variance from the required 5 foot east side yard setback permitted
on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. A 0.4 foot variance from the required 5 foot west side yard setback permitted
on nonconforming lots (Section 1101.502(8)).
. An 8.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yards required
in the R-l District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 5.0 foot variance from the 15 foot east side yard building separation
required in the R-l District (Section 1101.502 (8)).
. A 9.0 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum east side yard setback
required in the R-l District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
. A 6.6 foot variance from the 50+ foot wall minimum west side yard setback
required in the R-l District (Section 1102.405 (6)).
. A 409 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area
permittedfor nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902(1)a.).
. A 25.0 foot variance from the minimum 50 foot lot width permitted for
nonconforming riparian lots (Section 1104.902 (1) a.).
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District), and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density Residential) on the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A single family dwelling with a two-car garage
currently occupies the lot. The lot was created in 1951 within Spring Lake Township. In
1959 a building permit was issued by the township and Scott County to construct the
existing dwelling on the lot. In 1972 the lot was annexed to the City of Prior Lake. Since
the dimensions of the lot have not changed since the annexation, the City of Prior Lake
has classified it as a legal non-conforming lot.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house and shed and construct a new
home on the site. The applicant would like to use the existing foundation of the current
dwelling for the base of the new house. (Originally the applicant proposed to renovate
the current structure, add a second story, and add a 507 square foot addition. After
further financial analysis of the overall project; however, the applicant has requested
additional variances to remove the current structure to the foundation and rebuild the first
story of the dwelling rather than renovate it.)
The strict applications of the various side yard setbacks and lot area and width
requirements create a hardship for the property owner. The applicant proposes to
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI I 1307.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
construct a two story building on the same foundation of the one story dwelling as well as
attach a 507 square foot addition to the rear of the current foundation. The overall
footprint of the proposed structure is a reasonable 1595 square feet. The proposed
structure would not increase any of the current nonconforming setback distances on the
site. The applicant does not request any variance from the building height requirement
nor the environmentally sensitive impervious surface or 1akeshore setback requirements.
Based upon the findings in this report, staff recommended approval of the requested
vanances.
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Jerrad Robinson, 16035 Northwood Road NW, wanted to thank the planning
department and especially Jeff Matzke for helping him through this process. It has been a
two year process with all the phone calls and meetings. It's hard to describe the property
without seeing it. Robinson stated they looked hard and long to find a property they
really cared about. They do not want to change the foundation except to add a second
story. Adding a 507 square foot addition will basically bring the front of his house equal
to the neighbor's garage. As it currently exists, there is no privacy when the neighbor's
garage is open. The lots are narrow and he needs the variances to improve the situation
bringing it up to current standards of a livable home. The existing home is 1,040 square
feet. They are staying under the impervious surface requirements and are generally
trying to do more with less. The new structure will be an asset to the City. It will not
interfere with any of the neighbor's lake view or access. The proposed home will be an
improvement and remain behind all of the neighbors' structures.
Tom Da1sin, 16033 Northwood Road, said he is the neighbor to the east and was out of
town until recently and did not realize the significant number of requested variances. He
felt the proposal was a problem and put his home more or less in a box. Da1sin said he
assumes Robinson is putting in 9 foot ceilings; the home already sits higher than his
driveway. How can he build this structure and stay on his own property? There would
have to be approvals and easements to go on his property. That would be a real problem.
Da1sin said another problem with Robinson's lot is that it has no street parking. All the
neighbors have wide driveways along the street and Robinson happens to have a
narrower driveway than the rest of the neighborhood. There are a number of problems
with neighbors parking in the area. As a matter of fact, people put out their own signs
trying to keep cars away so they can get out of their own driveway. Most of the other
homes can fit 6 or 7 cars in their driveway if they have company. Da1sin said they try
hard to keep guests off the street so does not cause confusion in the neighbor. He had
conversations with the people across the street about cooperating.
Da1sin also felt running two stories along 10 feet of his driveway would be a problem and
would be a negative affect on the value of his house. Putting a house like this next to his
house, in his mind, would definitely diminish the value of his home. Da1sin said he also
assumes there will be a deck on the front of the house at some point. Where it (walls) go
up along his garage, it will shift the look of the neighborhood. Da1sin stated "There has
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI 11307.doc
3
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
to be approval from the neighbors to even build this." The overhang is on the property
line right now. He did not feel an oak tree on the property line would not survive the
construction. Dalsin said in summary he "would not like to see this building as
proposed."
Fleming asked Dalsin to point out his home. Dalsin responded.
Dalsin stated "When you go into something like this; you work with the properties that
are there. You can't assume you can make a lot of changes. When he bought the
property he knew the neighboring home was a nonconforming lot. The house was
remodeled in the late '90's and is acceptable." His assumption was the home would
never change, maybe make some improvements.
Jerrad Robinson addressed Dalsin's concems. He explained the construction access
would be through the current foundation so there would be no need to access either of the
neighboring property. He has background in construction and the addition to the current
foundation would not be affecting either neighbor. Dalsin's argument on the height is
unfounded. The current code allows residents to put on a second story without variances.
He is not changing the height solely for a new structure - he is rebuilding to improve.
The variances are to improve the entire structure. The existing home was built in 1959
and remodeled in 1994. Robinson also pointed out the basement has 7 foot foundation
walls.
Robinson explained in reviewing the viability of putting a new kitchen and bringing
everything up to date it made sense to rebuild the structure to current standards. He also
noted a future deck would be a platform less than 24 inches (in height) behind their
garages. That would not be a hindrance in any way to the neighbors. Robinson said they
basically look in their neighbors' garages as his house currently sits. A second story is
also irrelevant because he meets the height requirement. Again, his home is behind
(closer to the street) their garages.
Robinson continued addressing the parking - no one owns on-street parking. Ifhe
moved the house further to the lake he could put 7 or 8 cars in the driveway. As far a he
knows, the City does not restrict parking except in the winter. His property will
accommodate 4 parking stalls. People park in front of his house all the time and didn't
feel that was an argument. Robinson explained the height and pitch of the addition in
comparison to the Dalsins. In being a good neighbor he did not want to make issues
however, as the survey indicates, the Dalsin's kennel and retaining walls are on his
property. He did not want to tell Dalsins to move them.
Robinson said he talked to an arborist and City staff on removing the oak tree. The tree
may very well have to be removed or not survive. He is aware ofthe tree ordinance and
replacement regulations. The Dalsins also have retaining walls next to a number of large
trees. An arborist would not allow their type of landscaping so close to a retaining wall.
Robinson stated "The addition will not affect the neighbors' property values in any way.
It will not impede their view of the lake. If the Dalsins assumed there would not be any
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNl 11307.doc
4
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
improvements to my property, they however, did a number of additions and landscaping
improvements to their own home."
Ringstad asked Robinson "Looking how narrow the lot is - If the neighbors did not want
anyone touching their property during the construction period they probably do not have
to allow it."
Robinson said "The fact of the matter is living by the lake, we are all in close proximity
and on the east side a ladder or something could be on the property line. If there would
be any damage to the neighbor's property he would replace anything damaged." It is not
his intent to have a bulldozer or loader to go on their property. The neighbor's guests
always walk around the kennel on his property. Anyone who walks up or down on that
side of the house has to walk on his property. Robinson said he is not going to say "Stay
off my property." If someone told me we could not go on their property and there was no
code to allow that, he would tell the builders to crane it in the property. We can make it
prefab." He could put up a fence and tell them not to go past it. He is going to make every
attempt to make this project work and do not want to make enemies. Robinson said he is
respecting their concerns.
Matzke said "From a staff prospective, we have always felt ifthere is construction close
to a property line the neighbor's usually give permission to go on the yard. The closest
wall is 3.5 feet. There is nothing in the planning ordinances addressing this concern."
Staff will check with the building officials on this matter.
Robinson explained the prefab walls and siding and could set it up within the property
boundaries.
Tom Dalsin stated he did have a five foot setback on the west side of the house and the
kennel does in fact go onto Robinson's property. The prior owner felt it was okay to
have the retaining walls on both properties. They felt it would benefit both properties to
have a wall as it was a better use of the property instead of having a hill. Dalsin also said
they have gates on the kennel and they encourage their guests to walk through the kennel
or use the other side of the house.
Bruce Dumke (16037 Northwood Road NW) lives on the other side of the applicant, felt
there are rules for the protection of the adjacent homeowners. He pays taxes and expects
to be protected from this sort of infringement. This addition will certainly add to the
crowding and won't make anyone happy. Dumke also said his two little girls have their
bedroom window on that side and would have to look at his structure. It will lower the
property value of his home. He feels he should have some protection because he pays
taxes.
Fleming said he appreciates the emotion behind this.
Fleming asked Mr. Dumke ifhe made any improvements to his home. Dumke said he did
- it was painted and recently re-roofed.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN111307.doc
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
Fleming explained the rights of homeowners and noted the importance of the ordinances
and regulations the Commissioners are bound to interpret and uphold. "They are not just
for the neighboring property owner. Mr. Robinson is a property owner and has rights as
well. The Commissioners really try to guide development and redevelopment." Fleming
hopes he (Dumke) understood the ordinances and rules are not just to preserve the rights
of homeowners but to guide redevelopment.
Dumke appreciated Commissioner Fleming's comments. Dumke said this is zoned and
not designed for this type of crowding.
Fleming said he had to be candid and had questions for staff later but when he first
looked at this map and the report, the first thing he said to himself is how did the City
wind up with a 25 foot width lot? Not going to ask staff to dig up the archives but this is
a real brain bender. Even still, Mr. Robinson is a property owner and the
Commissioner's job is very delicate, and need to take the ordinances and interpret this
from all sides. The Commissioners are going to do their best with all parties and the
regulations.
Dumke noted the recent California home fires and felt this structure is a threat to his
home and children. Fleming agreed but did not want to discuss. Fleming pointed out that
would be the case with every single home in that neighborhood including Dumke's.
Fleming said that was not as compelling. The distance between all of the existing homes
. . .
IS surprIsmg.
Applicant J errad Robinson said there was nothing on his deed regarding an agreement
with the previous neighbor indicating Dalsin's retaining walls could be on his property.
Robinson went on to explain the structure's foundation.
Robinson also addressed Dumke's statement regarding his children's bedroom - it is well
beyond where the addition is going to be. Robinson pointed out the proposed structure
and Dumke's home on the map. "There is clearly no window that this addition will
impair. Robinson is not wedging any home - they are not extending past any garage."
Robinson also pointed out he meets all the setbacks of 15.5 feet on Dumke's side and his
concerns for California fires are unfounded.
Robinson addressed the neighbor's (Dalsin) concern for his deck - he had to put up a
fence because one neighbor used his side yard for trash cans. They are using that side of
their home for a storage area. There is plenty of room in the front of their home. He is
not devaluing their property.
The public hearing was closed at 6:50 p.m.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN111307.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad questioned staff on drainage with the close proximity of the homes. Matzke
responded the engineering department had no concerns for the drainage and he
specifically asked about the drainage as well. The added hard surface is in the back of
the lot and will remain unchanged. The contours follow straight back on the lot.
Fleming - Do we have any sense on how this landed on our City? Matzke said staff
found a letter from a former planning director in 1993 detailing information that this
property was annexed in 1972. This parcel was created in 1951 and was the standard lot
size for cabins. People bought lots and split them up. This is a legal nonconforming lot.
H was a condition the City did not create. The current house was built in the 1950's.
Fleming asked if the intent in 1972 was to have a single family dwelling sit on a 25 foot
wide lot. Matzke responded Robinson's house was built in 1959 and the adjacent homes
were constructed in 1990 and 1998. Fleming noted a span of about 25 years went by
before the adjacent homes were built. Matzke felt they were probably cabins similar to
Robinsons and later rebuilt to the existing sizes. The (Northwood) area was all cabins
and seasonal homes in the years previous to the 1970's.
Lemke - Is it correct the applicant could build a second story addition without anything
other than a building permit? Matzke said that was correct.
Lemke said none of the variance requests are to increase the height, it is only the
reconstruction of the first story and the original footprint. Matzke said that was correct
and it will not change the current walls and setbacks except for the addition. The
applicant would be increasing the nonconforming by adding the second story; however,
they are not asking for the height variance.
Lemke confirmed under Minnesota Law and the City's current ordinance is if someone
owns a legal nonconforming lot, the property owner is entitled to a reasonable use of his
property with a single family dwelling. Matzke said that was correct.
Fleming asked staff if the applicant's current driveway is below grade. Matzke pointed
out the retaining wall and explained the controlled grading. Fleming confirmed the
proposed structure is not a dramatic change from the existing structure. Matzke agreed.
Ringstad:
· I have never seen a lot this narrow until tonight.
· One of the things Commissioner Lemke touched on is the legal right to use a
nonconforming lot. "Nonconforming" does not mean "unbuildable". Sometimes a
mistake is made from people who think the property cannot be built on.
· There are no encroachments on impervious surface. If it was over, it would
change my view on going ahead on this.
· Two things that chinch this:
o This does not increase any of the existing nonconformities.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNll1307.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
o Suggest a Letter of Credit of about $10,000 to make sure damage of this
structure does not harm any of the existing properties.
. The 9 hardships are met.
. Support the requested variances and the $10,000 Letter of Credit for protection of
the neighbors on either side.
Billington:
. As much as we might like to, we cannot rewrite the evolution of this property. It
is a legal lot. Mr. Robinson has a legitimate owner right to his property and wants
to improve this home and property.
. It seems to me to be a favorable impact to the neighbors and it's basically on the
same footprint.
. Commissioner Ringstad has a good point with the Letter of Credit.
. Based on the information we are ready to move forward.
. Again, it is what it is. You cannot change it. What are you going to do? Make
him tear it down. Nobody could reasonably expect that to happen. It is his right.
. Support staff.
Fleming:
. This is a difficult situation for us. As my fellow Commissioners stated very
clearly - individuals have property rights and the Laws of the State of Minnesota
are very clear on what recourses are available to property owners when their
property rights are alienated. I for one, do not want to be party of alienating
someone's property rights.
. The technical aspects of the ordinance are in good form.
. The Commissioners clearly indicated the property owner has a right to reasonable
use of his property.
. He would ask Mr. Robinson to take a Letter of Credit out to make sure there
would not be any foreseen damage to the neighbor's property. I would also ask
Mr. Robinson to knowledge his right to improve his property is having an impact
in the perception of the neighbors. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just
asking you to acknowledge it and continue to do the good work you have as a
good neighbor and get the outcome you essentially want to have in the end.
Lemke:
. Commissioner Billington felt liability insurance coverage would suffice.
. Commissioner Fleming felt it should be part of the conditions and would be
satisfied ifMr. Robinson could assure the City his liability insurance would
suffice.
. Billington asked staff if it is common for a resident to post proof of insurance.
Kansier said it is required of contractors on city projects.
. Robinson said he would be retaining a licensed registered contractor and would
also obtain a Letter of Credit if the Commissioners wish.
. Fleming suggested proposing a meeting with the contractor and the neighbors.
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MN 111307.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
November 13, 2007
. Billington felt between the Letter of Credit and insurance would be enough. The
Contractor would also have insurance. Robinson agreed.
. Agreed with Commissioner Ringstad on the impervious surface.
. A second story could be constructed without variances. It is a reasonable use of
the property.
. The 9 hardships have been met as outlined.
. Support the requests.
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECOND BY BILLINGTON, ADOPTING RESOLUTION
07-06PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED 11 VARIANCES WITH THE
ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF A $10,000 LETTER OF CREDIT/ESCROW.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Lemke explained the appeal process.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Zoning workshop to follow.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\07 FILES\07 PLANNING COMMISSION\07 MINUTES\MNI I 1307.doc
9