Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 2007 ~~E lIlYN ESO'\ \' , 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake. MN 55372-1714 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA , NOVEMBER 13, 2007 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. Jerrad Robinson is requesting a 4.8' variance from the 15' total side yard setback requirement, 4.9' variance from the 15' building separation requirement, and a 6' variance from the 50' + wall minimum setback requirement for R-1 residential lots to allow for a house addition for the property at 16035 Northwood Road. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: 8. Announcements and Correspondence: 9. Adjournment: Zoning Ordinance Update Workshop to follow in the Parkview Conference Room. 1 :\117 IIIIS\1I7 I'IA:-;:-;I:-;(; Cml\IISSIO'\,1I7 A(;!SIlASIA(; IIW1\11IJIl)(cityofpriorlake. corn Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952447.4245 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 0.7 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\MNI I 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 squarefoot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area permitted for nonconforming riparian lots (Section 11 04. 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 11307.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 concerns. 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 platfonn 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. If he 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 of the 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\MNlI 1307.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." Staffwill 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\MNII1307.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 surpnsmg. Applicant Jerrad 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\MNI I1307.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 COMMTSSION\07 MINUTES\MNI 1I307.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 fonn. . 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 MlNUTES\MNII1307.doc 8 Plallllillg Commissioll Meetillg 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\MN111307.doc 9 PUBLIC HEARING Conducted by the Planning Commission '~~utt(c'l LCvd tL]k t12- I 3 " ('7 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 ADDRESS L: \0 EPTWORK\BLANKFRM\PHSIGNUP ,doc